- Information
- AI Chat
Attachment issues and Catfishing
Social Psychology (PSY1209)
Far Eastern University
Recommended for you
Preview text
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at tandfonline/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csmt
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
ISSN: 1468-1994 (Print) 1468-1749 (Online) Journal homepage: tandfonline/loi/csmt
Adult attachment and online dating deception: a
theory modernized
Marissa A. Mosley, Morgan Lancaster, M. L. Parker & Kelly Campbell
To cite this article: Marissa A. Mosley, Morgan Lancaster, M. L. Parker & Kelly Campbell (2020): Adult attachment and online dating deception: a theory modernized, Sexual and Relationship Therapy, DOI: 10.1080/14681994.
To link to this article: doi/10.1080/14681994.2020.
Published online: 28 Jan 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Adult attachment and online dating deception: a
theory modernized
Marissa A. Mosley a, Morgan Lancaster a, M. L. Parker a and Kelly Campbellb aDepartment of Family and Child Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA; bUniversity of California San Bernardino, San Bernardino, CA, USA
ABSTRACT An extreme form of online dating deception, also known as “catfishing,” involves falsely representing oneself to a potential romantic partner, without the intention of meeting in person. The limited body of existing research has identified mental health risks and legal implications associated with catfishing, as this relatively new phenomenon becomes more prevalent. This study utilizes logistic regression to analyze attachment anxiety, avoidance, and gender as predictor variables for the likelihood of being a catfish perpetrator or target among a sample of adults (N ¼ 1107). Results indicate that women are more likely to be targets and men are more likely to perpetrate this form of online dating deception. Further, increased attachment anxiety and avoidance increases the likelihood of being both a catfish perpetrator and target. However, avoidance was no longer a significant predictor after controlling for attachment anxiety. These findings provide a valuable contribution to the literature toward greater understand- ing of catfishing and offer possible implications for attachment- informed clinical practice.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 20 September 2019 Accepted 4 January 2020 KEYWORDS Adult attachment; dating; deception; technology
The use of technology in the dating process offers new and expanded platforms for participants to meet prospective partners and initiate on-going relationships. As a result, nearly 30% of young adults, 18 – 24 years old, and 12% of older adults, 55 – 64 years old, are using online dating (Pew Research Institute, 2016). The Pew Research Institute (2016) reports the majority of online dating users, as well as non- users, believe online dating forums provide a more convenient and efficient platform for meeting prospective dating partners. Yet, technology also allows individuals to create false representations of themselves to increase their mate potential and foster a relationship they would not otherwise initiate (Ellison, Hancock, & Toma, 2011 ). In fact, nearly half of online dating participants believe there is more risk associated with online dating than with traditional dating formats (Pew Research Institute, 2016). The growing phenomenon of online dating deception, colloquially referred to
CONTACT Marissa A. Mosley mmosley@fsu Department of Family and Child Sciences, Florida State University, 675 W Call St., Tallahassee, FL 32304, USA ß 2020 College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY doi/10.1080/14681994.2020.
Attachment theory
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969 , 1973 ) was originally proposed as a framework for understanding the means by which individuals develop emotional security and stabil- ity over the life course. Throughout the early stages of development, infants develop the ability to regulate emotional arousal through interactions with and proximity to their caregivers (Schore, 2000 , 2001 ). Main ( 1995 ) explained that both infants and parents communicate their attachment needs through the intricate learning process of attunement. Over time, repeated interactions with the primary caregiver contribute to one’s internal working model of relationships, which is the means by which relational interactions are filtered over the lifespan (Bowlby, 1973 ). In adulthood, romantic partners become the object of attachment from whom individuals seek support and to whom they provide care (Hazan & Shaver, 1987 ). Adults’ tolerance for proximity (i., fear of dependence) and distance (i., fear of abandonment) in relationships inform the two dimensions that determine one’s style of attachment; anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998 ). More specifically, high attachment anx- iety or avoidance has been associated with injurious relationship outcomes according to the particular attachment style. Figure 1 details the four-category model of adult attachment styles first proposed by Bartholomew and Horowitz ( 1991 ). Secure, fear- ful, preoccupied, and dismissing styles of adult attachment are based on the respective levels of attachment avoidance and anxiety (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 ). There is substantial empirical support indicating attachment anxiety and avoidance have unique roles in various relationship concerns, such as infidelity (Parker & Campbell, 2017 ), divorce (Diamond, Brimhall, & Elliot, 2018), and intimate partner violence (Dutton & White, 2012 ). While attachment theory has been supported in cross-cultural comparisons of infants and caregivers (Carlson & Harwood, 2003 ), there have been notable gender differences among adults. For example, Kirpatrick and Davis (1994) found that attachment security (i., low anxiety and avoidance) for men was predictive of
Anxiety
Preoccupied Fearful
Secure Dismissing
Figure 1. Dimensions and styles of adult attachment.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 3
positive relationship quality compared to those with anxious attachment. On the other hand, the authors found anxious attachment was predictive of negative relation- ship quality. Such differences are perhaps due to varying interpretations of attach- ment assessment between men and women. Notably, the range in a personal desire for closeness was a characteristic shown to contribute to the assessment of attachment anxiety for women, but not for men (Parker, Johnson, & Ketring, 2011 ). On the other hand, time spent together contributed to the assessment of men’s, but not women’s anxious attachment. Further, clinical research has demonstrated gender differences in the influence of adult attachment on mental health treatment outcomes. Women’s personal attachment avoidance and anxiety predicts symptom distress over time (i., actor effect), whereas men’s symptom distress is predicted by their female partner’s attachment (Parker, Johnson, & Ketring, 2012 ). Ongoing research indicates there are gender differences in adult attachment and technology use among couples that main- tain in-person relationships (Pew Research Center, 2014 ). A more in-depth under- standing of adult attachment dimensions, anxiety and avoidance, in the context of online dating may clarify the role of attachment in online deception.
Attachment anxiety
Attachment anxiety is characterized by a strong fear of abandonment that results in an excessive need for closeness and intense worry about a partner’s availability (Cozolino, 2014 ). Mikulincer and Shaver ( 2017 ) explain those with high attachment anxiety often present themselves as helpless, needy, or overly eager in order to achieve the support and love they desire. They are more readily willing to utilize their partner as a source of support early in the relationship and seek daily reassurance (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008 ). Further, such individuals tend to self-disclose earlier in a relationship and with more highly intimate information in order to achieve a strong connection and to alleviate their own anxiety. Individuals with high attachment anx- iety (i., preoccupied, fearful styles) are also prone to intense emotional experiences such as jealousy and fear due to their inclination to keep previous experiences of rejection available in working memory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2017 ). Despite an intense desire for closeness and worry about the relationship, studies have found that anxiously attached partners have a difficult time being responsive to their partners’ needs due to a preoccupation with their own worries (Grabill & Kerns, 2000 ; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991 ). Emotional attunement and support for their partner is difficult due to preoccupation with worries around their role in the rela- tionship, resulting in the need to soothe their own worries rather than tending to the needs of the partner (Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994 ; Rholes, Paetzold, & Friedman, 2008 ). These characteristics are often used to explain the higher prevalence of particu- lar adverse relational experiences, such as infidelity, among those with high attach- ment anxiety, which may be an effort to regulate emotional distress (Parker & Campbell, 2017 ). Attachment anxiety is uniquely characterized by the individual’s fear of abandonment by the source of emotional security. However, the manifestation of these needs is dependent on the individual’s co-occurring level of attach- ment avoidance.
4 M. A. MOSLEY ET AL.
communication (Morey et al., 2013 ). In addition to the initiation of relationships, attachment has also been used to examine the use of technology as a means of rela- tionship dissolution, wherein individuals with high anxiety and avoidance more read- ily use technology to break-up with partners when compared to securely attached individuals (Weisskirch & Delevi, 2012 , 2013 ). Attachment dimensions have also been examined to explain the ways in which technology impacts perceived relationship quality and stability. Specifically, greater accessibility to one’s partner was beneficial to those with high anxiety and those with high avoidance experienced a more comfortable distance to connect with partners using technology (Schade, Sandberg, Bean, Busby, & Coyne, 2013 ). Although these findings provide preliminary evidence of the role of adult attachment in technology use for in-person relationships, there is limited research examining the role of attach- ment in relationships maintained solely through technology. The present study fills this gap by exploring the influence of adult attachment on the likelihood of being a perpetrator or target of a “catfish” relationship.
The present study
As previously identified, adult attachment styles inform how one uses technology to initiate, function, and communicate with their partner. Based on the extant literature that supports the influence of adult attachment on the use of technology in in-person relationships, the present study aims to examine the interrelationship between attach- ment dimensions (i., anxiety, avoidance), gender, and “catfish” status (i., perpetra- tor, target) in online-only relationships among the participants. To achieve this aim, the following research questions were formed: What is the role of gender in predict- ing whether a person perpetrates or becomes a target of online dating deception? What is the role of insecure adult attachment dimensions in predicting whether a person perpetrates or becomes a target of online dating deception?
Procedures
Participants were recruited over a 1-year timeframe from social media platforms (e., Twitter, Facebook), Craig’s List volunteer boards, a PsychologyToday blog, and university participant pools. The criteria for inclusion were that individuals were at least 18 years old and had experienced catfishing, either as a perpetrator or target. Participants provided online consent for research participation in accordance with the American Psychological Association’s ethical standards for research participation. Each participant was asked to complete a series of questionnaires related to his or her personal and relational history. No compensation was offered, but university partici- pants were offered extra credit toward their classes.
Participants
The total sample included 1112 participants; however, 10 participants were excluded as they did not answer the catfish question. The final sample included 917 women
6 M. A. MOSLEY ET AL.
and 190 men (N ¼ 1107) with a mean age of 24 years (SD ¼ 7; range ¼ 18 – 62). Participants self-identified as African American (10%), Asian (5%), European American (25%), Hispanic (50%), Middle Eastern (1%), Native American (6%), and Other (1%). Participants identified their sexual identity as heterosexual (87%), bisexual (7%), gay (2%), and lesbian (2%). The majority of the sample was highly educated, as 69% reported 1–3 years of college.
Measures
Demographic characteristics Participants were asked to identify their sex, age, ethnic background, sexual orienta- tion, education level, student and/or employment status, political orientation, religios- ity (4-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all religious” to “extremely religious”), whether they had children, and residential location (urban/city, suburban, rural) at the time of their catfish relationship.
Online dating deception There is not currently a formalized assessment instrument for this form of online dat- ing deception (i., catfishing). Therefore, participants were asked a series of questions related to catfishing and behaviors that were relevant to the research questions for this study. Specifically, participants were asked to select which of the three categories of catfishing status that most accurately categorized them: a catfish victim, perpetra- tor, or both. These three categories were mutually exclusive such that no participant could select that they identified with more than one. Participants were also asked questions such as: how many catfish relationships have you had? what was the length of your longest catfish relationship? and which methods of communication did you use to communicate with your catfish partner?
Adult attachment Adult attachment style was assessed using the Experiences in Close Relationships- Short Form (ECR-S; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007 ), which is a shortened version of the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998 ). The ECR-S continues to assess the two separate dimensions of adult attachment, Anxiety and Avoidance, consistent with the ECR. However, the ECR-S is a 12-item, self-report scale (Compared to the 36-items of the ECR) in which responses are reported on a 7-point, Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The ECR-S maintains comparable validity and factor structure to the ECR across multiple studies. Test–retest reliability of the 6- item Anxiety (r ¼ .80) and Avoidance (r ¼ .83) subscales indicated strong reliability of the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha scores of the Anxiety (a ¼ .76) and Avoidance (a ¼ .76) subscales from the current study were consistent with those of the original study, indicating good internal consistency of the instrument.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 7
of perpetrators and both. Model 1 analyzes gender as a predictor of catfish status. Model 2 analyses gender and attachment avoidance as predictors of catfish status. Model 3 analyses gender, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety as predictors of catfish status.
Model 1
The overall gender model was significant, explaining 2% (Nagelkerke R 2 ) of the vari- ance in catfish status. Gender was a significant predictor of catfish status (v 2 (2) ¼ 18, p < .001) indicating that as scores increased, from women (0) to men (1), the likelihood of being a perpetrator increased (b ¼ -, p < .001). Odds ratios indicated that women were nearly 50% more likely to be a target of online dating deception.
Model 2
The overall attachment avoidance model with gender (Model 2) was significant, explaining 3% (Nagelkerke R 2 ) of the variance in online dating deception. Attachment avoidance was independently a significant predictor to the overall model (v 2 (2) ¼ 4, p < .05). The regression coefficients and odds ratios indicated that as attachment avoidance scores increased, the likelihood of being a catfish perpetrator increased (b ¼ -, p < .05). Odds ratios indicated that those high on attachment avoidance were 98% more likely to perpetrate than those with low attachment avoid- ance. Gender was also an independently significant predictor to the overall model (v 2 (2) ¼ 17, p < .001). The regression coefficients and odds ratios indicated that women were 50% more likely to be a target compared to men (b ¼ -, p < .001).
Model 3
The overall attachment anxiety model with gender and attachment avoidance was sig- nificant, explaining 7% (Nagelkerke R 2 ) of the variance in online dating deception. Attachment anxiety was independently a significant predictor to the overall model (v 2 (2) ¼ 45, p < .001). The regression coefficients and odds ratios indicated that as attachment anxiety scores increased, the likelihood of being a catfish perpetrator increased (b ¼ .70, p < .001). Odds ratios indicated that those scoring higher on
Table 2. Gender, Gender & Attachment Avoidance, and Gender & Attachment Avoidance & Attachment Anxiety predicting catfish status. Model Predictor Nagelkerke R 2 b SE Wald v 2 Odds ratio Model 1 Constant .02 1 .08 232 3. Gender - .17 18. Model 2 Constant .03 1 .20 66 4. Gender - .17 17. Avoidance - .01 4. Model 3 Constant .07 2 .30 78 14. Gender - .18 16. Avoidance - .01 1. Anxiety - .01 25. p < .05; p <.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 9
attachment anxiety were 95% more likely to perpetrate than those with lower anxiety. Gender was also an independently significant predictor to the overall anxiety attach- ment model (v 2 (2) ¼ 15, p < .001). The regression coefficients and odds ratios indicated that women were 50% more likely to be a target compared to men (b ¼ .05, p < .001). Attachment avoidance is was no longer significant when including attachment anxiety (v 2 (2) ¼ 1, p ¼.19) indicating that avoidance is only significant when both anxiety and avoidance are high (i., fearful attachment).
Discussion
As the research on technology use in romantic relationships continues to grow, an adult attachment perspective provides a useful lens for understanding the interaction between relationships and technology’s benefits and risks. A fundamental assumption of attachment theory is that one’s emotional arousal is affected personal interactions with significant others (Bowlby, 1973 ). The rapidly expanding use of technology in relationships is essentially challenging and changing what we have considered funda- mental to the attunement process associated with attachment relationships. One means of reexamining the role of technology in adult attachment is to isolate the effect of technology from those of in-person relationships by examining online-only relationships. Catfish relationships are one example of technology-maintained rela- tionships, characterized by a lack of in-person interactions (Campbell, in press). Our results offer preliminary findings for the significance of attachment anxiety and avoidance as predictors of perpetrating or being a target of catfishing. Specifically, the main findings of this study were indicate that men are more likely to be perpetrators and women are more likely to be targets of catfishing. Attachment avoidance was an independent predictor of catfishing status. However, avoidance was no longer signifi- cant when accounting for attachment anxiety, suggesting that anxiety is a more sig- nificant consideration in predicting catfishing status.
Gender
Gender differences exist with respect to technology and social media use, which explains why gender served as a predictor in catfishing status. Women are connecting more via technology and using it for relationship maintenance (Kimbrough, Guadagno, Muscanell, & Dill, 2013 ; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012 ), which may explain their desire to persist in a relationship (i., maintain it) even when their part- ner refuses to meet in-person, and thereby increases their likelihood of becoming a catfish target. Men engage less frequently in social networking and communication technologies, but utilize it to meet new people and potential dates (Kimbrough et al., 2013 ; Muscanell & Guadagno, 2012 ). Such findings may explain the tendency of men to initiate relationships online and possibly use deception to broaden their pool of potential partners. In terms of sharing information via social media, women and men have both been significantly affected by privacy risk, social ties, and commitment. However, women were more affected by these factors (Lin & Wang, 2020 ). These are consistent with our findings that men were more likely to withhold information
10 M. A. MOSLEY ET AL.
and ultimately, lead to relationship satisfaction. Anxiously attached individuals and those with a more fearful attachment, experience higher levels of relational uncer- tainty than their secure or dismissive counterparts (Fox & Warber, 2014 ), which may cause them to engage in more deceptive behaviors to relieve anxiety and maintain a relationship. Anxiously attached online users are more likely to utilize online plat- forms to receive approval and positive feedback (Monacis et al., 2017 ). This explains why these individuals were more likely to perpetrate online dating deception—they sought to exert more control over their self-presentation, make themselves more desirable, and ultimately limit the potential of relational disappointment. On the other hand, avoidant individuals may utilize technology to ensure low expectations placed on them by a partner and use deception to meet relationship and attachment needs by limiting vulnerability and allowing minimal investment in a relationship.
Clinical implications
As online dating deception becomes more prevalent with the development of online dating platforms, individuals may be presenting to therapy with limited understand- ing as to why this occurred and how to move forward. The findings of this study inform how clinicians work with perpetrators and targets of online dating deception. By using an adult attachment lens, online dating deception may be perceived and treated as an attachment injury (Johnson, Makinen, & Millikin, 2001 ) for both the target and perpetrator. Clinicians are able to work with clients engaged in catfishing as a target or perpetrator to address the underlying emotional needs associated with their personal attachment style. Attachment-informed clinical approaches, such as emotionally focused therapy emphasize the role of the therapist as a secure base so that clients may engage in corrective attachment experiences (Greenman & Johnson, 2013 ). This stance is particularly relevant to clients participating as a target or perpet- rator of catfishing, as the therapist can facilitate in-session experiences to reduce the reliance on deceptive online relationships. However, there is ongoing research neces- sary to substantiate these clinical recommendations, as this study had several limitations.
Limitations and future directions
While the study is unique in adopting an adult attachment lens and contributing to the literature in online dating deception, there are some limitations to be noted. The cross-sectional design and convenience sampling limited our ability to infer a causal, generalizable relationship between attachment and online deception; however, our findings represent an important first step in building future research on this topic. The study also did not have a control group, which may be beneficial in future research so that comparisons can be drawn between typical online daters and those who have experienced catfishing. Participants were able to self-identify as a target, perpetrator, or both, which may pose a threat to internal validity. Future researchers would benefit from having a measure to assess the wide spectrum of online dating deception behaviors associated with catfishing. This will allow a continuous
12 M. A. MOSLEY ET AL.
assessment of catfish severity and degree. Finally, future studies should include a more racially and ethnically diverse sample to strengthen internal validity of the find- ings. Results from the present study should only be generalized to those demographic groups that were represented in the sample.
Conclusion
The results of this study help inform and advance adult attachment theory, particu- larly with respect to dating in the digital era. Our goal was to gain further insight into adult attachment, the developing realm of online dating, and the potential for deception that exists, including how it is informed by attachment insecurities and needs. Focusing on attunement as the key component of attachment throughout the lifespan, it can be understood that technology is preventing this process by creating a barrier. This works in favor of online dating deception by letting users choose unaccountable levels of self-presentation and self-disclosure, creating more permeable boundaries, and allowing more permissive behaviors in relationship formation. By understanding the roles of gender and adult attachment style in predicting online dat- ing deception, researchers can further understand and develop the topic, clinicians can treat the attachment injuries that occur, and online dating users can better exam- ine how they present themselves in their profiles and those of their potential partners to improve relationship potential.
Disclosure statement
No funding was provided to conduct this research. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. The data are not publicly available due to their containing informa- tion that could compromise the privacy of research participants.
Notes on contributors
Marissa A. Mosley, M. is a doctoral student in the Marriage and Family Therapy program in the Department of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University. Her research focuses on technology use in romantic relationships and adult attachment.
Morgan Lancaster, M. is a doctoral candidate in the Marriage and Family Therapy program in the Department of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University. Her research focuses on intimate partner violence and technology use in interpersonal relationships.
M. Parker, Ph. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family and Child Sciences at Florida State University. She is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. Her research is focused on evaluating the effectiveness of couples and family therapy, family therapy for fami- lies affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in collaborative care settings, and the role of the supervisory relationship in self-of-therapist development.
Kelly Campbell, Ph. is a Professor of Psychology at California State University, San Bernardino. She serves as the Associate Director for the Institute for Child Development and Family Relations, co-directs a South Africa study abroad program, and teaches for the London study abroad program. Her research examines couple relationships and friendships including deceptive online romance (known as catfishing), infidelity, instant connections (e., chemis- try), and love.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 13
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). The attachment system in fledgling relationships: An activating role for attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (3), 628 – 647. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95. Ellison, N. B., Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2011). Profile as promise: A framework for con- ceptualizing veracity in online dating self-representations. New Media & Society, 14 , 45–62. doi:10/ Ennis, E., Vrij, A., & Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25 (1), 105–118. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1 (4), 333–348. Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2014). Social networking sites in romantic relationships: Attachment, uncertainty, and partner surveillance on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17 (1), 3–7. Goodcase, E. T., Nalbone, D. P., Hecker, L. L., & Latty, C. (2018). The role of attachment anx- iety and avoidance in communication modality and relationship quality of romantic rela- tionships initiated online. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 46 (2), 168–183. Grabill, C. M., & Kerns, K. A. (2000). Attachment style and intimacy in friendship. Personal Relationships, 7 , 363–378. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00022 Greenman, P. S., & Johnson, S. M. (2013). Process research on emotionally focused therapy for couples: Linking theory to practice. Family Process, 52 (1), 46–61. doi:10/famp. Guadagno, R. E., Okdie, B. M., & Kruse, S. A. (2012). Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2), 642–647. Guerrero, L. K. (1996). Attachment-style differences in intimacy and involvement: A test of the four-category model. Communication Monographs, 63 (4), 269–292. Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dat- ing: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27 (1), 117–135. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (3), 511–524. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.52. 511. Jin, B., & Pena, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile phone~ use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles. Communication Reports, 23 (1), 39–51. doi:10/ Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment injuries in couple rela- tionships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27 (2), 145–155. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152 Kimbrough, A. M., Guadagno, R. E., Muscanell, N. L., & Dill, J. (2013). Gender differences in mediated communication: Women connect more than do men. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), 896–900. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 502–512. doi:10. 1037//0022-3514.66. Koch, C. M. (2017). To catch a Catfish: A statutory solution for victims of online imperson- ation. University of Colorado Law Review, 88 , 233–xvi. Lauckner, C., Truszczynski, N., Lambert, D., Kottamasu, V., Meherally, S., Schipani- McLaughlin, A. M., ... Hansen, N. (2019). “Catfishing,” cyberbullying, and coercion: An exploration of the risks associated with dating app use among rural sexual minority males. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 23 , 289–306. doi:10.1080/19359705. Lin, X., & Wang, X. (2020). Examining gender differences in people’s information-sharing decisions on social networking sites. International Journal of Information Management, 50 , 45 – 56. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019. Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: Overview, with selected implications for clin- ical work. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.), Attachment theory: Social, developmen- tal, and clinical perspectives (p. 407–474). Analytic Press, Inc.
SEXUAL AND RELATIONSHIP THERAPY 15
Menard, S. (2000). Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician, 1 , 17–24. Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 321–331. Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12 (2), 149–168. doi:10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2017). Attachment in adulthood, Second edition: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Monacis, L., de Palo, V., Griffiths, M., & Sinatra, M. (2017). Exploring individuals differen- ces in online addictions: The role of identity and attachment. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15 (4), 853–868. Morey, J. N., Gentzler, A. L., Creasy, B., Oberhauser, A. M., & Westerman, D. (2013). Young adults’ use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associa- tions with attachment style. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (4), 1771–1778. doi:10/j. chb.2013. Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (1), 107 – 112. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011. Noller, P., & Feeney, J. A. (1994). Relationship satisfaction, attachment, and nonverbal accur- acy in early marriage. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18 (3), 199–221. Odacı, H., & C ̧ıkrıkc ̧ı, O. (2014). Problematic internet use in terms of gender, attachment€ styles, and subjective well-being in university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 32 , 61 – 66. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013. Parker, M. L., & Campbell, K. (2017). Infidelity and attachment: The moderating role of race/ ethnicity. Contemporary Family Therapy, 39 (3), 172–183. doi:10/s10591-017-9415- Parker, M. L., Johnson, L. N., & Ketring, S. A. (2011). Assessing attachment of couples in ther- apy: A factor analysis of the experiences in close relationships scale. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33 (1), 37–48. Parker, M. L., Johnson, L. N., & Ketring, S. A. (2012). Adult attachment and symptom distress: A dyadic analysis of couples in therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 34 (3), 321–344. doi:10. 1111/j.1467-6427.2012.00598 Pew Research Center. (2014). Couples, the Internet, and Social Media. Pew Research Center. (2016). 15% of American adults have used online dating sites or mobile dating apps. Pistole, M., Clark, E. M., & Tubbs, A. L. (1995). Love relationships: Attachment style and the investment model. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 17 , 199–209. Rholes, W. S., Paetzold, R. L., & Friedman, M. (2008). Ties that bind: Linking personality to interpersonal behavior through the study of adult attachment style and relationship satisfac- tion. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Ed.), Personality and social behavior (pp. 117–148). New York: Psychology Press. Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Tran, S., Martin, M., & Friedman, M. (2007). Attachment and information seeking in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (3), 422–438. Schade, L. C., Sandberg, J., Bean, R., Busby, D., & Coyne, S. (2013). Using technology to con- nect in romantic relationships: Effects on attachment, relationship satisfaction, and stability in emerging adults. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12 , 314–338. doi:10/ 15332691. Schore, A. N. (2000). Attachment and the regulation of the right brain. Attachment & Human Development, 2 , 23–47. doi:10/ Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22 (1-2), 7–66. doi: 10/1097-0355(200101/04)22:1<7::AID-IMHJ2>3.0;2-N
16 M. A. MOSLEY ET AL.
Attachment issues and Catfishing
Course: Social Psychology (PSY1209)
University: Far Eastern University
- Discover more from:
