“Attachment Styles’ Influence on Problem Identification in Romantic Relationships” by Adriana Palagano

Attachment Styles’ Influence on Problem Identification in Romantic Relationships

Adriana Palagano, Monmouth University 

Co-authors:

Donna M. Simon and Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Monmouth University

Abstract

This study investigated attachment styles’ influence on problem identification within romantic relationships. Although prior research has examined communication patterns, conflict resolution strategies, and coping mechanisms, there is a gap in research on the initial problem recognition stage between both partners. This stage could be essential to developing a healthy, long-term relationship and may help address problems before conflict escalates. As hypothesized, attachment anxiety was associated with greater perceived relationship threat, emotional distress, more negative interpretations of a partner’s behavior, lower confidence in problem-solving, and greater conflict engagement. Contrary to the hypotheses, attachment avoidance was associated with greater perceived threat, greater emotional distress, and more negative interpretations of a partner’s behavior while still exhibiting lower confidence in problem-solving. A sample of 78 college students (76 female, 2 male) completed a correlational survey assessing problem recognition across attachment styles. Participants completed an adult attachment questionnaire, an open-ended relationship problem question, five Interpretations of Problems questionnaires, and a demographics questionnaire. Results indicated that attachment styles significantly influenced the problem identification strategies, excluding confidence in solving the problem. These findings provide insight into how couples can identify the source of a problem before it escalates, ultimately including proper communication and resolution.  

Keywords: attachment styles, conflict resolution, relationships, problem-solving

---

Introduction

Many relationships fall apart not because of the problem itself, but because partners cannot communicate or perceive the real issue. Most individuals find it harder to identify the source of conflict than to resolve it (Baker & McNulty, 2020). Examining attachment styles is essential to understanding why this process is difficult. Attachment styles are derived from John Bowlby's attachment theory (Bowlby, 2017) and refer to a person's characteristic ways of relating in intimate caregiving and receiving relationships with "attachment figures," often parents, children, and romantic partners (Levy et al., 2011). Understanding how attachment styles influence problem identification can help couples develop healthy conflict resolution, promoting long-term relationship satisfaction.

This study builds on attachment styles and problem identification in healthy communication and conflict resolution. Specifically, this paper discusses how attachment relates to problem-solving, what problem identification is, the influences behind problem recognition, and the role accurate problem identification plays in romantic relationships.

Attachment Styles and Their Role in Problem Identification

The Attachment Theory

While cognitive patterns shape individuals' beliefs and perceptions about conflict, attachment styles are among the most influential factors. Building on attachment theory, a four-year longitudinal study found that individuals' attachment styles remained consistent over that developmental period and fell into three categories: secure, anxious, and avoidant, although individuals may exhibit varying levels of anxious or avoidant tendencies across relationship contexts (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994).

Secure individuals are characterized by trust and healthy responsiveness, enabling them to handle conflict constructively. Anxious individuals have a desire for closeness and heightened sensitivity to relationship threats, leading to more negative perceptions of problems. Avoidant individuals are associated with independence and emotional distance, often resulting in disengagement from conflict. 

Attachment Styles and Problem-Solving Strategies

Attachment patterns influence how individuals engage in conflict and communicate with their partners. Securely attached individuals use solution-focused approaches such as direct communication, whereas those with anxious or avoidant tendencies rely on ineffective strategies like avoidance or emotional reactivity (Arslan et al., 2012). Attachment styles influence not only cognitive factors but also how each person engages in emotional conversations.

Attachment styles have a strong influence on problem-solving tendencies and identification (Hajeir, 2021). Anxious and avoidant individuals are linked to maladaptive strategies such as withdrawal and heightened emotional reactivity when confronting potential problems. Secure individuals demonstrate healthier emotional regulation, greater willingness to acknowledge concerns, and a better ability to recognize mistakes. Anxious individuals interpret minor behaviors as threats, while avoidantly attached partners may downplay or ignore their partner's concerns. These tendencies illustrate how attachment shapes problem recognition in romantic relationships.

Attachment and Communication Styles

Emotional intelligence also plays a role in problem recognition. Automatic responses driven by fear and self-sabotage can distort how individuals process conflict-related information (Altaras et al., 2025). Secure individuals have higher emotional intelligence, logical thinking, quality solutions, and mature communication. Those who seek emotional distance may avoid communication and underestimate the depth of a problem, while those who crave constant reassurance may over-communicate and assume the worst. Emotional intelligence affects how people communicate and solve problems in relationships. Securely attached people may use it to openly communicate, while insecure people may struggle to manage their emotions. Problem identification relies on emotional intelligence alongside attachment styles to promote lasting relationships.

Secure individuals use open, constructive communication, whereas insecure individuals withdraw or display defense mechanisms (Jaffar, 2025). These patterns interfere with problem recognition by delaying understanding of the actual problem or dismissing both partners' feelings. Because communication style mediates the relationship between attachment and relationship functioning, the root of the problem lies not at the identification stage itself, but in how each partner perceives and processes information.

Attachment and Coping Strategies

Problem identification is also shaped by personal tendencies linked to attachment styles. Women with higher avoidance are less likely to engage in open conflict resolution, instead withdrawing or minimizing issues rather than addressing them directly (Bretaña et al., 2024). These tendencies may result in communication gaps that make it difficult for partners to resolve long-standing issues.

Attachment Styles in Relationship Contexts

Outside factors linked to attachment styles interfere with problem identification. Individuals with anxious or avoidant attachment experience more conflict and lower satisfaction, but when intimacy is high, the negative effects of insecure attachment diminish, allowing couples to address problems more openly (Lessard et al., 2025). Intimacy serves as a mediator between avoidant tendencies and emotional safety, promoting open communication even when problem-solving mechanisms are unhealthy.

Attachment styles affect not only adult relationships but also adolescents' cognitive and emotional processes in problem identification. Anxious and avoidant individuals adopt emotion-focused coping strategies, whereas secure individuals favor active, problem-solving strategies (Manolov & Stoykov, 2025). These patterns mirror those in adult romantic relationships and remain consistent across age groups and cultural backgrounds.

Attachment and Emotional Understanding 

Empathy is foundational to deeper understanding in relationships. Higher levels of empathy are associated with fewer difficulties in peer relationships (Kim & Shin, 2025). A partner with greater empathy can more readily recognize and address their partner's needs, making it easier to navigate challenges and misunderstandings. Securely attached individuals display higher empathy and cognitive understanding, which aids problem identification, whereas avoidant and anxiously attached partners struggle to empathize and therefore fail to meet their partner's needs.

Individuals with insecure attachment are more likely to exhibit higher Dark Triad traits- narcissism, manipulative behavior, and psychopathy- producing discomfort with intimacy and more manipulative behaviors. Securely attached individuals exhibit fewer Dark Triad traits, greater intimacy, openness to physical touch, and healthier communication (Ives et al., 2025). 

Collectively, these studies demonstrate that attachment style significantly shapes how individuals recognize and interpret emerging problems in romantic relationships. Secure individuals exhibit greater emotional intelligence and active coping strategies that improve problem identification. Insecure individuals experience dismissal of feelings and poor communication, delaying problem recognition. Outside factors, including life transitions, intimacy, and physical touch, further affect verbal and nonverbal cues. Overall, attachment styles not only predict how people behave in relationships but also reveal how they respond when problems arise.

Foundations of Problem Solving in Relationships

Effective problem identification helps establish trust and clarity between partners. Recognizing issues before they escalate is a critical first step in problem-solving. It encompasses several key factors: the significance of addressing a problem, behavioral interpretation of a partner's actions, and understanding each partner's needs.

Healthy communication is one of the most recognized strategies for effective problem identification, helping both partners navigate conflict and support each other (Sun et al., 2022). It begins at the initial stage of problem recognition, when one partner expresses a concern. Individuals who communicate clearly are more successful at identifying the true problem during conflict, whereas those who are overly dominant or emotionally disengaged show reduced accuracy in problem recognition (Sun et al., 2022). Ineffective communication demonstrates how easily statements can be misconstrued, disrupting the early stages of problem recognition (Sun et al., 2022).

Higher mindfulness predicts constructive conflict resolution, including calmer communication and reduced hostility (Park & Harris, 2025), and positively influences how a partner handles and interprets problems. Calm emotional regulation is key to healthy conflict resolution. Secure individuals bring greater mindfulness to conflict, whereas anxious and avoidant individuals avoid addressing the problem or handle it ineffectively, reducing satisfaction for both partners.

While there are correlations between problem recognition and attachment styles, researchers have also distinguished between problem-solving and problem-finding (Runco & Nemiro, 1993). Problem-finding is distinct from problem-solving in that the problem is not yet defined and requires partners to identify what went wrong. More creative individuals show stronger problem-solving skills, suggesting that understanding a partner's desires and emotional sensitivity fosters clarity about the conflict. Secure individuals are open to identifying problems in themselves and their partners, whereas insecure individuals dismiss the possibility of a problem altogether.

Effective problem-solving depends on foundational factors such as communication, trust, and conflict resolution strategies. Familiarity with these elements helps partners accurately identify behaviors, prevent misreading situations, and understand each other's perspectives. Accurate problem recognition, however, remains the essential first step.

Factors Influencing Problem Recognition in Relationships

Problem recognition prevents repetitive conflict and increases stability between partners. One partner's acknowledgment or dismissal of a problem strongly affects the other's emotional and behavioral responses (Baker & McNulty, 2020). Secure individuals can acknowledge and address their own mistakes constructively, whereas insecure partners dismiss issues or misinterpret their partner's feelings to avoid conflict. Problem recognition may be the make-or-break stage of any relationship, and attachment styles significantly influence its effectiveness.

Emotional Awareness and Cognitive Biases in Relationships

The way individuals process their internal thoughts also influences problem identification. Individuals with higher metacognitive awareness and self-efficacy demonstrate better listening comprehension due to greater confidence in their abilities (Payaprom, 2023). Securely attached individuals may exhibit increased emotional awareness that aids conflict management, whereas avoidant and anxiously attached individuals may misinterpret information or disengage entirely, compromising problem resolution.

Negativity bias is a crucial consideration in problem recognition. People tend to give greater attention to negative experiences than positive ones in relationships (Solovey et al., 2025). Individuals high in trait anxiety exhibit strong negativity bias, discounting positive information; this trait is strongly linked to avoidance. This bias causes anxious individuals to overemphasize problems or their partner's emotions. Difficulties with emotional regulation are linked to inaccurate problem identification and alter one's overall view of the relationship through assumptions and fear.

Trust and Accountability in Relationships

Trust between partners is another foundational factor affecting problem identification. The most successful partners share mutual trust and emotional closeness, especially for interpersonal problems, enabling them to openly recognize and learn from issues (Strough et al., 2003). Secure individuals are more supportive, avoidant partners withdraw from problems, and anxious individuals require constant reassurance, all complicating effective problem management.

An investigation into whether recalling supportive relationships reduces defensiveness found that secure individuals are more open to acknowledging flaws, while insecure individuals show greater defensiveness (Kuncewicz, 2020). 

Accountability significantly affects problem recognition. Anticipating blame increases defensive behaviors such as withdrawing, minimizing risk-taking, or deflecting responsibility (Aimone & Pan, 2020). Partners with insecure attachment are less willing to take accountability because of the need to defend themselves, whereas securely attached individuals are more comfortable admitting imperfections, resulting in healthier relationship outcomes.

Addressing problems early benefits emotional regulation and relationship satisfaction. Individuals more likely to recognize a problem are also more likely to seek help from others (Chakawa & Shapiro, 2022). In romantic relationships, partners who are more open are more willing to resolve conflict, whereas insecure partners avoid problem recognition, allowing issues to become prolonged and resentment to build.

Understanding problem recognition in romantic relationships requires acknowledging the cognitive and emotional factors that shape how individuals respond to potential problems. Early recognition is beneficial but not always straightforward, given biases such as overemphasizing a partner's faults. Taking accountability is difficult and varies by individual differences such as attachment style. Problem recognition requires healthy navigation grounded in the desire for self-growth and relational wellbeing.

Cognitive Factors Influencing Problem Recognition

Cognitive factors are essential to understanding problem recognition because they shape how individuals interpret and identify conflict. Rumination, obsessive overthinking of negative experiences, can distort an individual's processing of thoughts and is heavily influenced by attachment styles (Çelikbaş & Yalçınkaya-Alkar, 2022). Anxious individuals strongly predict rumination, and avoidant individuals predict emotion suppression, which increases overthinking. Rumination and catastrophizing are also among the strongest predictors of anxiety that interfere with daily functioning (Rodríguez-Menchón et al., 2021), ultimately amplifying distorted perceptions.

Defense mechanisms, while intended to protect against emotional distress, can cause further harm. Anxiously attached individuals are more likely to rely on maladaptive defenses such as projection and denial, whereas avoidant individuals tend to dismiss what matters to their partner (Topino & Gori, 2025). These mechanisms make it difficult for partners to work together rather than against each other.

Maximizer tendencies also affect problem recognition accuracy. Individuals with stronger maximizer tendencies are more prone to overthinking and self-blame due to persistent worry about making the "wrong choice" (Elembilassery et al., 2024), which can cause acknowledgment of problems to be prolonged or dismissed.

Perfectionism further complicates problem recognition by leading individuals to hold their partners to unrealistic standards, resulting in constant criticism and pressure. Higher levels of maladaptive perfectionism are associated with greater social anxiety and self-critical thinking (Akkuş et al., 2025). Partners must understand that perfection does not sustain a relationship; acknowledgment and growth do.

Confirmation bias also distorts problem recognition. Insecure individuals consistently favor information that confirms prior beliefs and discount contradictory evidence (Vedejová & Čavojová, 2022). Partners may overlook warning signs or problems because they seek out information that validates existing assumptions, contributing to misconceptions about a partner's actions or intentions.

These unhealthy patterns can lead individuals to overthink and erect barriers between partners. Ultimately, they demonstrate how individuals can perceive relationship problems differently, depending largely on individual differences and past experiences.

The Present Study

Prior research focused on how cognitive and emotional factors influence emotion regulation, conflict interpretation, and communication in relationships (Baker & McNulty, 2020), showing that attachment styles formed in early childhood shape how individuals interpret and respond to problems, with anxious and avoidant individuals withdrawing, dismissing feelings, and misinterpreting intentions. However, this research has not examined how attachment styles influence problem identification specifically, or the ability to recognize that a problem exists in the first place.

This paper builds on existing work by examining how attachment patterns influence problem recognition, specifically, the distinction between styles that seek out problems and those that identify them accurately. It isolates the relationship between attachment styles and problem identification without additional variables. Using a non-experimental, correlational design, participants completed questionnaires assessing adult attachment tendencies, common relationship conflicts, and perceptions of relationship problems. These correlations identify which attachment styles are most likely to misinterpret or struggle with relationship issues.

We hypothesized that higher attachment anxiety would be associated with perceiving relationship problems as more threatening, experiencing greater emotional distress, engaging in more conflict seeking, reporting lower confidence in resolving relationship problems, and making more negative interpretations of a partner’s behavior. In contrast, we expected higher attachment avoidance to predict perceiving relationship problems as less threatening, experiencing lower emotional distress, engaging in less conflict seeking, reporting lower confidence in resolving relationship problems, and making more negative interpretations of a partner’s behavior.

I hypothesized that: 

1a) Individuals with higher attachment anxiety will perceive potential relationship problems as more threatening.

1b) Individuals with higher attachment avoidance will perceive potential relationship problems as less threatening.

2a) Individuals with higher attachment anxiety will report greater emotional distress about the potential relationship problem.

2b) Individuals with higher attachment avoidance will report lower emotional distress about potential relationship problems.

3a) Individuals with higher attachment anxiety will be more likely to engage in conflict seeking.                        

3b) Individuals with higher attachment avoidance will be less likely to engage in conflict seeking.

4a) Individuals with higher attachment anxiety will report lower confidence in solving relationship problems. 

4b) Individuals with higher attachment avoidance will report lower confidence in solving relationship problems.

5a) Individuals with higher attachment anxiety will have more negative interpretations of their partner’s behavior. 

5b) Individuals with higher attachment avoidance will also have more negative interpretations of their partner’s behavior.

Methods

Participants

This study included 78 participants. Participants were 2 males and 76 females. These individuals were all college students from a private university in the Northeast. The participants were between 18 and 27 years of age, with a mean age of 19.67. The participants were Asian (2.6%), Black or African American (1.3%), Hispanic or Latinx (12.8%), Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1.3%), White (78.2%), multicultural (2.6%), and other (1.3%). There were 33 first-year students, 16 sophomores, 24 juniors, and 5 seniors. There were 74 participants dating exclusively and 4 others. The mean length of time participants had been in their current relationship was 21.40 months (around 1 year and 7 months). Participants were a convenience sample from the Sona participant pool. Each participant received course credit for participation in this experiment. 

Materials

Attachment Style Questionnaire 

This measure assessed participants’ agreement with statements regarding feelings towards a romantic partner (Simpson et al., 1996). Participants responded to the 17-item questionnaire using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = I strongly disagree, 7 = I strongly agree) and assessed two dimensions: attachment avoidance (8 items) and attachment anxiety (9 items). The avoidant attachment scale included items such as “I find it relatively easy to get close to others” (reverse-coded) and demonstrated sufficient reliability (α = .79). The anxious attachment scale included items such as “I rarely worry about being abandoned by others” (reverse-coded) and demonstrated moderate reliability (α = .65). 

Interpretation of Relationship Problems Surveys

This measure assessed participants’ perceptions and tendencies when considering a variety of different relationship problems. Every individual received the same set of problems adapted from previous research (Buss, 1989; Rauer et al., 2019). An example problem included: “Difficulty communicating thoughts or feelings”. 

Participants gave the following perceptions of those problems on a 7-point matched Likert scale: 

“How threatening does each problem feel to your relationship” (α = .90)

“How anxious do you feel when you think about each problem in your relationship” (α = .90)

“How often do you initiate conversations about each problem in your relationship” (α = .87)

“How confident do you feel in your ability to handle each issue in your relationship in a healthy and effective manner” (α = .94)

“What is the extent to which you believe each issue may indicate something negative about your relationship” (α = .92)

Design and Procedure

As part of a correlational survey design, participants voluntarily registered through an online participant pool and completed it on Qualtrics. After consenting, each participant completed the questionnaires. Once they finished, participants read the debriefing and received Sona pool credit. Pearson correlations were conducted to examine associations between attachment style and relationship problem identification.

Results

As shown in Table 1, both attachment dimensions- anxious and avoidant- were significantly associated with several indicators of relationship problem identification. 

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations for Key Variables

Scale/ Item	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Avoidance	3.51	1.09	-
2. Anxious	3.66	0.96	.36**	-
3. Perceived Threat	3.13	1.32	.29**	.32**	-
4. Emotional Distress	3.19	1.34	.29**	.33**	.84**	-
5. Engagement in Conflict  6. Confidence in Problem Solving  7. Conflict Interpretation	2.70 4.84  3.29	.93 1.35 1.40	.40** -.18 .45**	.33** -.01             .29*	.66** -.20 .56**	.70** -.22 .50**	- -.14 .42**	-  -.08	-

Notes. p < .05, * p < .01. 

Associations Between Attachment and Perceived Relationship Threat (Hypothesis 1ab)

As shown in Table 1, Pearson correlations indicated that both avoidant (r = .29, p = .009) and anxious attachment (r = .33, p = .004) styles were significantly and positively associated with perceived threat regarding relationship problems. Higher levels of either style corresponded with greater perceived threat.

Association Between Attachment and Emotional Relationship Distress (Hypothesis 2ab)

The relationship between attachment and emotional distress was also examined using Pearson correlations. Both avoidant (r = .29, p = .010) and anxious attachment (r = .33, p = .003) styles were significantly and positively associated with emotional distress regarding relationship problems. Higher levels of either attachment style corresponded with greater distress.

Association Between Attachment and Engagement in Conflict Seeking in Relationships (Hypothesis 3ab)

Pearson correlations further examined whether attachment style was associated with conflict engagement. The results indicated that both avoidant (r = .36, p < .001) and anxious attachment (r = .33, p = .003) styles were significantly and positively associated with the likelihood of engaging in conflict-seeking relationship problems. Higher levels of both styles corresponded with higher engagement in conflict-seeking behaviors.

Associations Between Attachment and Confidence in Problem Solving (Hypothesis 4ab)

Pearson correlations assessed the relationship between attachment style and confidence in problem solving, and results indicated that both avoidant (r = -.18, p = .11) and anxious attachment (r = -.012, p = .918) styles were not significantly and negatively associated with having lower confidence in solving relationship problems. Higher levels of insecure attachment do not correspond with the level of confidence in their problem-solving abilities. 

Associations Between Attachment and Negative Interpretations of Partner’s Behavior (Hypothesis 5ab)

Finally, Pearson correlations were used to examine attachment style and negative interpretation of relationship problems. As shown in Table 1, both avoidant (r = .45, p < .001) and anxious attachment (r = .29, p = .011) styles were significantly and positively associated with the number of negative interpretations of their partner’s behavior. Higher levels of both styles corresponded with having more negative perspectives on their partner’s actions.

Discussion

The present study examined how attachment styles influence perceived relationship threat, emotional distress, conflict seeking, confidence in problem-solving, and conflict interpretation. Both anxious and avoidant attachment were associated with greater perceived threat, higher emotional distress, increased conflict seeking, and more negative interpretations of partner behavior. Contrary to the hypothesis, neither attachment style was related to confidence in problem-solving. Overall, the results support that anxious and avoidant attachment significantly shape emotional and behavioral responses to relationship stress. 

Perception of Problem Threat (Hypothesis 1)

The present study found that individuals with higher attachment avoidance and anxiety both perceived relationship problems as more threatening. Similarly, those with insecure tendencies tend to revert to impulsivity and emotional reactivity due to the negative mindset surrounding conflict, while secure individuals use constructive, solution-focused approaches to solve problems (Arslan et al., 2012). These behavioral responses are a result of an automatic emotional trigger due to differences in perceptions, specifically how a problem is viewed by an individual when it comes to identifying conflict. For example, it could be frustrating when one partner dismisses a problem while the other partner seeks resolution, which could strengthen the individual's behavioral and emotional responses in a negative way (Baker & McNulty, 2020). As a result, insecurely attached individuals view problems as more threatening to the overall relationship due to underlying insecurities, reactions from the opposing partner, and an overall negative mindset of the relationship. 

Emotional Distress (Hypothesis 2)

The present study found that individuals with higher attachment avoidance and anxiety both face greater emotional distress when dealing with relationship problems. Similarly, varying communication patterns such as withdrawal, emotional reactivity, or defense mechanisms can negatively interfere with problem recognition because it can delay the process of understanding the actual problem or dismiss any feelings that both partners have (Jaffar, 2025). These unhealthy tendencies, including heightened emotional reactivity, can lead to more conflict and lower satisfaction amongst insecure individuals (Lessard et al., 2025). Individuals who distance themselves still experience the same amount of emotional distress when facing relationship problems; they just portray it in different ways, like suppressing their feelings to avoid conflict. Individuals who seek constant reassurance often worry that a problem might exist before it does rather than just when the problem rises to the surface, leading to constant overthinking, anxiety, and heightened emotions about what could be going wrong. 

Engagement in Conflict Seeking (Hypothesis 3)

The present study found that individuals with higher attachment avoidance and anxiety both engage in more conflict-seeking behaviors within romantic relationships. Similarly, maintaining healthy communication is the most effective strategy for problem-solving since it helps both partners to navigate conflict and support each other (Sun et al., 2022). This is beneficial for those with higher self-awareness and comprehension because it leads to better understanding of the other person throughout conflict (Payaprom, 2023). As a result, many individuals who overthink often lose the ability to listen with a clear mind due to the overwhelming, consistent fears of rejection and approval. There are also individuals who find reassurance within emotional distance and avoid the conflict altogether. This leads both partners to lose satisfaction within the relationship and an increase in conflict-seeking behaviors. The insecure attachment styles show that what could be a minor issue most of the time can turn into a severe issue due to the ineffective ways of dealing with conflict. 

Confidence in Problem Solving (Hypothesis 4)

The present study found no significant difference between attachment style and level of confidence in solving relationship problems. Individuals who tend to be secure within their relationships demonstrate healthier emotional regulation and display greater willingness to acknowledge concerns, while insecure individuals react with heightened emotions when attempting to solve conflict (Hajeir, 2021). There is also a level of intelligence and logic needed to solve arguments with a romantic partner as higher emotional intelligence predicts better teamwork and problem-solving outcomes (Altaras et al., 2025). As a result of the insignificant correlation, there may be no direct link to confidence based solely on attachment style. For example, a person might be extremely logical when solving generalized daily problems such as scheduling and social interactions, but when it comes to a romantic partner, there is a higher level of emotions that play into those conflicts, leading insecure individuals to not think clearly when facing confrontation and to think with immediate emotions instead. There could be many outside factors that influence a person’s confidence level, such as past experiences and personal problem-solving skills. 

Conflict Interpretation (Hypothesis 5)

The present study found that individuals with higher attachment avoidance and anxiety both contain more negative interpretations of their partner’s behavior. Individuals who experience more anxiety and difficulty with mood regulation exhibit strong negativity bias and discount any positive information, which are all strongly linked to avoidance (Solovey et al., 2025). Insecure individuals exhibit patterns of self-sabotage in romantic relationships, such as trying to maintain distance from their partner to avoid getting hurt or maintaining constant reassurance from their partner to make sure the relationship will last. These pieces of information show that many insecure individuals consistently favor information that supports their prior beliefs and discount any opposing evidence (Vedejová & Čavojová, 2022). Many romantic partners may overlook warning signs to protect their emotions and feelings, while others may seek out any minor problems that confirm what they have believed all along, which is why both anxious and avoidant individuals interpret their partners' behaviors to be more negative and downplay their positive behaviors. 

Strengths and Limitations 

Several limitations weakened this study. First, the small sample size, while yielding mostly significant results, limits the consistency and generalizability of the correlations. This could have been addressed by offering additional incentives, such as extra credit, to increase participation. Second, the convenience sample of predominantly white college students limits generalizability to broader populations. Cultural background, social norms, and economic status all influence how individuals interpret and handle relationship problems, meaning the results may not reflect more diverse populations. Random sampling would have allowed for greater representation across backgrounds and stronger generalizability.

One of the most distinguishable inconsistencies was the predominantly female sample, which introduces significant gender bias, limiting the study’s accuracy. Many studies show that men often display high levels of attachment avoidance responses such as withdrawing from conflict and valuing independence, while women often display high levels of attachment anxiety such as the need for consistent reassurance and the fear of abandonment (Bretaña et al., 2024). There would have been more accuracy in my results, especially within the levels of confidence in solving relationship problems, considering men are often linked to outwardly displaying higher levels of confidence which might not have been displayed in the results since it was mostly females. This limitation could have also been minimized by utilizing targeted recruitment rather than convenience sampling so there would be a more balanced sample. 

Despite its limitations, the study had notable strengths. It addresses a significant gap in the literature, as prior research has focused on attachment styles in relation to conflict resolution but has not examined problem identification specifically, leaving room for deeper exploration in future studies. The subscales also demonstrated high reliability. Additionally, having participants rate a consistent set of the ten most common relationship problems on a Likert scale ensured consistency, enabled accurate comparisons, and allowed patterns across attachment styles to be identified and applied more broadly. 

Future Directions

To detect significant and meaningful correlations more effectively, future researchers can incorporate factors from past experiences, such as relationships with early caregivers, exposure to trauma, or educational difficulties, to determine how these factors together influence problem identification. Another aspect for future studies would be the role of attribution styles in relation to attachment. More specifically, focusing on negative attribution bias would allow researchers to determine whether this factor is the mediator between attachment styles and problem identification. Future studies can also examine how attachment styles and perceptions of relationship problems change over time rather than at a single point. By introducing a longitudinal study, the results could determine whether these perceptions change as people grow, mature, and gain more experiences, or whether changes in relationships themselves shift perceptions.  

Conclusion

Results demonstrated that anxious and avoidant attachment are significantly associated with more negative and fearful perceptions of relationship problems, suggesting that insecure individuals share similar emotional responses to conflict despite expressing them differently. Understanding these patterns is key to improving communication, as accurate problem identification from the outset can prevent issues from escalating. 

References

Aimone, J. A., & Pan, X. (2020). Blameable and imperfect: A study of risk-taking and accountability. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 172, 196-216. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.02.007

Akkuş, K., Vardar, M., Tunçel, A., & Tekinsav Sütcü, S. (2025). Examining the relationship between maladaptive perfectionism and social anxiety: The mediating role of self-compassion. Psychological Reports, 128(5), 3377-3392. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1177/00332941231206352

Altaras, A., Nikitović, T., Mojović Zdravković, K., Krstić, K., Rajić, M., Pavlović Babić, D., & Jolić Marjanović, Z. (2025). The role of emotional intelligence in collaborative problem solving: A systematic review. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 66(1), 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000401

Arslan, C., Arslan, E., & Arı, R. (2012). An investigation of interpersonal problem solving approaches with respect to attachment styles. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 15-23.

Baker, L. R., & McNulty, J. K. (2020). The Relationship Problem Solving (RePS) Model: How Partners Influence One Another to Resolve Relationship Problems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(1), 53-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319881243

Bowlby, R. (2017). Growing up with attachment theory--A personal view. Psychodynamic Psychiatry, 45(4), 431-439. https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2017.45.4.431

Bretaña, I., Alonso‑Arbiol, I., Lavy, S., & Zhang, F. (2024). Women’s avoidant attachment, conflict solving, and relationship satisfaction through individualism and masculinity. Current Psychology, 43, 8699–8712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04988-1

Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 735–747. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.735

Çelikbaş, Z., & Yalçınkaya-Alkar, Ö. (2022). The relationship between attachment styles, ruminative response styles, dysfunctional attitudes and major depression diagnosis. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 40, 905-927. 

Chakawa, A., & Shapiro, S. K. (2022). The association between problem recognition, race/ethnicity, and professional help-seeking intentions across psychological disorders. Emerging Adulthood, 10(4), 891–909. DOI: 10.1177/21676968211000491

Elembilassery, V., Jain, N. K., & Aggarwal, D. (2024). What influences individuals’ tolerance for ambiguity? Exploring the role of social comparison orientation, tendency to maximize and feel regret. Personality and Individual Differences, 217, 112436. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112436

Hajeir, A. (2021). Comparison of attachment styles, problem-solving styles, and sensitivity anxiety in cardiovascular diseases and normal individuals. Journal of Modern Psychology, 1(3), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.22034/JMP.2021.324155.1025

Ives, E. R., Jules, B. N., Anduze, S. L., Wagner, S., & Mattson, R. E. (2025). The dark side of touch: How attachment style impacts touch through dark triad personality traits. Current Psychology, 44, 15767–15780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08282-0

Jaffar, A. R. (2025). Attachment styles and relationship quality among dating couples: The mediating role of communication styles. Howard Journal of Communications. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2025.2539914

Kim, J., & Shin, N. (2025). Relations of empathy and theory of mind with difficulties in peer relationships in school-aged children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 34, 1941–1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-025-03034-x

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1(2), 123–142. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1994.tb00058.x

Kuncewicz, D. (2020). The impact of thinking about supportive relationships on interpersonal defensiveness: Does it matter who thinks, about whom, and in what way? Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2020.94697

Lessard, I., Brassard, A., Gosselin, P., Brault-Labbé, A., Lafontaine, M.-F., & Péloquin, K. (2025). Attachment, conflict, and relationship satisfaction of couples transitioning to parenthood: The moderator role of intimacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 39(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001321

Levy, K. N., Ellison, W. D., Scott, L. N., & Bernecker, S. L. (2011). Attachment style. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 193–203. https://doi-org.ezproxy.monmouth.edu/10.1002/jclp.20756

Manolov, M. N., & Stoykov, I. S. (2025). The relationship between coping strategies and attachment styles in adolescents. Psychological Thought, 18(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v18i1.1011

Park, C., & Harris, V. W. (2025). Associations between mindfulness and conflict resolution in couple relationships: Dyadic data analysis. American Journal of Family Therapy, 53(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2025.2469171

Payaprom, S. (2023). Investigating the Relationship Among Metacognitive Awareness, Self-efficacy, and EFL Learners' Listening Comprehension Performance. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 13(1), 27-34. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.04

Rauer, A., Sabey, A. K., Proulx, C. M., & Volling, B. L. (2019). What are the marital problems of happy couples? A multimethod, two‐sample investigation. Family Process. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12483

Rodríguez-Menchón, M., Orgilés, M., Fernández-Martínez, I., Espada, J. P., & Piqueras, J. A. (2021). Rumination, catastrophizing, and other-blame: The cognitive-emotional regulation strategies involved in anxiety-related life interference in anxious children. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 52, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-00988-5

Runco, M. A., & Nemiro, J. (1993). Problem finding, creativity, and giftedness. Roeper Review, 16(4), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553588

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5), 899–914. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.899

Solovey, G., Usaj, A., Picco, S., Beron, J. C., Sued, M., Szretter Noste, M. E., Bavassi, L., Pedreira, M. E., & Fernández, R. S. (2025). Trait-anxiety and belief updating: Exploring the role of negativity bias and contrast avoidance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 25, 1114–1125. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01282-4

Strough, J., Patrick, J. H., Swenson, L. M., Cheng, S., & Barnes, K. A. (2003). Collaborative everyday problem solving: Interpersonal relationships and problem dimensions. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56(1), 43–66.

Sun, C., Shute, V. J., Stewart, A. E. B., Beck-White, Q., Reinhardt, C. R., Zhou, G., Duran, N., & D’Mello, S. K. (2022). The relationship between collaborative problem-solving behaviors and solution outcomes in a game-based learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107120

Topino, E., & Gori, A. (2025). Separation, loss, and posttraumatic symptoms: A path analysis model exploring the role of attachment and defense mechanisms in people who experienced a significant mourning or a separation. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0002009

Vedejová, D., & Čavojová, V. (2022). Confirmation bias in information search, interpretation, and memory recall: Evidence from reasoning about four controversial topics. Thinking & Reasoning, 28(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1891967