USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Summarize this article as if for a friend wonders why some people abuse their intimate partners. (At least 500 words)
Volume 56
Issue 3 Spring 2007: Symposium – Ties That Bind:
Family Relationships, Biology, and the Law
Article
7
An Attachment Theory Perspective on the
Perpetuation of Intimate Partner Violence
Eli J. Finkel
Erica B. Slotter
Follow this and additional works at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review
by an authorized administrator of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact mbernal2@depaul.edu, MHESS8@depaul.edu.
Recommended Citation
Eli J. Finkel & Erica B. Slotter,
, 56 DePaul L. Rev. 89
5
(2007)
Available at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3/7
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3/7?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol56/iss3/7?utm_source=via.library.depaul.edu%2Flaw-review%2Fvol56%2Fiss3%2F7&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:mbernal2@depaul.edu,%20MHESS8@depaul.edu
AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE ON
THE PERPETUATION OF INTIMATE
PARTNER VIOLENCE
Eli J. Finkel* & Erica B. Slotter**
INTRODUCTION
Observers are frequently bewildered by the alarmingly high rates of
violent behavior between romantic partners. How could individuals
deliberately hurt those very people with whom they have chosen to
merge their lives, even those whom they have promised “to love and
to cherish from this day forward until death do them part”? Over the
past several decades, social scientists have presented at least two sepa-
rate, and largely incompatible, arguments to explain these high rates
of intimate partner violence (IPV). The first argument is that stan-
dard socialization practices in most cultures teach men that they are
entitled to exert power over women, and that violence is an accept-
able means of doing so. The second argument is that the high levels of
emotional and behavioral interdependence that characterize most inti-
mate relationships invite unusually high levels of nonviolent conflict,
which can on occasion serve as a precursor to violent behavior. In this
Article, we review these two arguments and suggest that empirical evi-
dence more strongly supports the latter. We then argue that the dy-
namics of emotional attachment in intimate relationships represent a
powerful set of factors that influences the circumstances under which
individuals are likely to become violent. We conclude by briefly dis-
cussing the implications of this review for clinical and legal interven-
tions aimed at perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
IPV refers to any behavior carried out with the primary proximal
intent to cause physical harm to a romantic partner who is motivated
to avoid being harmed. Large-scale, representative surveys in the
United States indicate that approximately one in six couples exper-
iences at least one act of IPV every year;’ these estimates are compa-
* Assistant Professor of Social Psychology, Northwestern University.
** Graduate student of Social Psychology, Northwestern University.
1. John Schafer et al., Rates of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, 88 AM. J. PUB.
HEALTH 1702, 1702 (1998); Murray A. Straus & Richard J. Gelles, Societal Change and Change
in Family Violence from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National Surveys, 48 J. MARRIAGE &
FAM. 465, 466 (1986).
896 DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
[Vol. 56:895
rable with, or even lower than, those from other surveys from the
United States and from around the world. 2 Perhaps the most surpris-
ing conclusion from the large corpus of studies on IPV is that women
tend to perpetrate IPV in heterosexual relationships at least as often
as men do.
3
II. Two PERSPECTIVES ON THE FREQUENCY OF IPV
As mentioned above, at least two lines of scholarly thought have
emerged to explain the high rates of IPV.4 The first suggests that IPV
is primarily a strategic behavior perpetrated almost exclusively by
men and oriented toward the long-term goal of establishing and main-
taining dominance and control. From this perspective, men internal-
ize, via socialization processes, patriarchal norms that lead them to
believe that dominating and controlling women with violence (and in
other ways) is their right; female violence, in contrast, is virtually al-
ways used for self-protection. 5 According to this approach, “[M]en
who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions
2. See, e.g., Lynn Magdol et al., Gender Differences in Partner Violence in a Birth Cohort of 21-
Year-Olds: Bridging the Gap Between Clinical and Epidemiological Approaches, 65 J. CONSULT-
ING & CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 68 (1997); Murray A. Straus, Cross-Cultural Reliability and Validity of
the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales: A Study of University Student Dating Couples in 17 Nations,
38 CROSS-CULTURAL RES. 407 (2004).
3. John Archer, Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-ana-
lytic Review, 126 PSYCHOL. BULL. 651 (2000); Miriam K. Ehrensaft et al., Clinically Abusive
Relationships in an Unselected Birth Cohort: Men’s and Women’s Participation and Developmen-
tal Antecedents, 113 J. ABNORMAL PSYCHOL. 258 (2004). Some scholars have argued that there
is a rare and particularly severe form of IPV that is perpetrated almost exclusively by men. See,
e.g., Michael P. Johnson, Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of
Violence Against Women, 57 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 283 (1995); Murray A. Straus, The Contro-
versy over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical, and Sociology of Sci-
ence Analysis, in VIOLENCE IN INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 17 (Ximena B. Arriaga & Stuart
Oskamp eds., 1999). Although we are receptive to the notion that there are distinct forms of
IPV, it seems plausible that the analysis of attachment dynamics presented in this report is appli-
cable to almost all of them (perhaps with the exception of IPV perpetrated by psychopaths, who
tend to lack empathy and a conscience). Future research could beneficially explore this issue
empirically.
4. A third argument, albeit a less mainstream one, suggests that evolutionary pressures have
provided a survival advantage to men who were violent toward their mating partners because
this violence helped to provide them with exclusive control over their partners’ reproductive
capacity. See MARTIN DALY & MARGO WILSON, HOMICIDE (1988). This sociobiological per-
spective suggests that the survival advantage has left present-day men with a genetic proclivity
toward IPV.
5. R. EMERSON DOBASH & RUSSELL DOBASH, VIOLENCE AGAINST WIVES: A CASE AGAINST
THE PATRIARCHY (1979); ELLEN PENCE & MICHAEL PAYMAR, EDUCATION GROUPS FOR MEN
WHO BATTER: THE DULUTH MODEL (1993); Michele Bograd, Feminist Perspectives on Wife
Abuse: An Introduction, in FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE 11 (Kersti Yll6 & Michele
Bograd eds., 1988); Russell P. Dobash et al., The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence,
39 Soc. PROBS. 71 (1992).
2007] AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE 897
that are cherished in Western society-aggressiveness, male domi-
nance, and female subordination-and they are using physical force as
a means to enforce that dominance.”‘ 6 Although patriarchal beliefs
could well be a risk factor for male IPV, the perspective that patriar-
chal socialization is the primary cause of virtually all acts of IPV has
begun to crumble under the weight of voluminous contradictory evi-
dence. A review of the literature pertaining to this line of thought is
beyond the scope of this Article, but the interested reader is en-
couraged to examine recent critiques by Professor Donald Dutton and
others.
7
The second line of scholarly thought suggests that violence is prima-
rily an impulsive behavior that emerges when individuals (either men
or women) feel angered or threatened in their relationship. From this
perspective, some degree of nonviolent conflict (and the anger and
insecurity that can arise from it) is virtually certain to emerge in close,
interdependent relationships, and this nonviolent conflict can some-
times boil over into violent conflict: 8 “Conflict is an inevitable-
though often unanticipated-feature Of close relationships. The
strong, frequent, and diverse bonds between [intimate partners] set
the stage for conflicting interests to surface.” 9 Interdependence,
which refers to having one’s life and well-being intertwined with that
of another person, can lead to nonviolent (and, sometimes, violent)
conflict in intimate relationships because it increases the likelihood
that (1) the partner’s behavior will adversely affect the individual’s
quality of life,1 0 (2) the individual will feel vulnerable to emotional
pain at the hands of the partner,1 and (3) the individual will be espe-
6. DOBASH & DOBASH, supra note 5, at 24.
7. See, e.g., Donald G. Dutton & Kenneth Corvo, Transforming a Flawed Policy: A Call to
Revive Psychology and Science in Domestic Violence Research and Practice, 11 AGGRESSION &
VIOLENT BEHAV. 457 (2006); Donald G. Dutton & Tonia L. Nicholls, The Gender Paradigm in
Domestic Violence Research and Theory: Part I-The Conflict of Theory and Data, 10 AGGRES-
SION & VIOLENT BEHAV. 680 (2005); M.J. George, Invisible Touch, 8 AGGRESSION & VIOLENT
BEHAV. 23 (2003).
8. See Richard B. Felson, Patterns of Aggressive Social Interaction, in SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF
AGGRESSION: FROM INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR TO SOCIAL INTERACTION 107 (Amdlie Mum-
mendey ed., 1984); Christopher M. Murphy & K. Daniel O’Leary, Psychological Aggression
Predicts Physical Aggression in Early Marriage, 57 J. CONSULTING & CLINICAL PSYCHOL. 579
(1989); Jan E. Stets, Verbal and Physical Aggression in Marriage, 52 J. MARRIAGE & FAM. 501
(1990); Murray A. Straus et al., The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), 17 J. FAM. ISSUES 283
(1996).
9. John G. Holmes & Sandra L. Murray, Conflict in Close Relationships, in SOCIAL PSYCHOL-
OGY: HANDBOOK OF BASIC PRINCIPLES 622, 650 (E. Tory Higgins & Arie W. Kruglanski eds.,
1996).
10. JOHN W. THIBAUT & HAROLD H. KELLEY, THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GROUPS (1959).
11. John G. Holmes, Interpersonal Expectations as the Building Blocks of Social Cognition:
An Interdependence Theory Perspective, 9 PERS. RELATIONSHIPS 1 (2002).
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
cially motivated to influence the partner’s behavior. 12 An enormous
amount of empirical evidence suggests that this conflict-based per-
spective on IPV accurately describes a large proportion of the violent
acts that both men and women perpetrate in their intimate relation-
ships. 13 One flourishing area of research adopting this conflict-based
approach has extended attachment theory principles 14 to the domain
of IPV. This research has been spearheaded by scholars such as Kim
Bartholomew, Antonia Henderson, Donald Dutton, and Ofra
Mayseless.1
5
III. THE FOUNDATIONS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY:
ATTACHMENT IN INFANCY
Attachment theory was originally developed as an evolutionary
analysis of the emotional bonds that connect infants and their
caregivers (typically parents) and the adverse consequences for the
infant when these bonds are frayed or broken. 16 For complex biologi-
cal reasons (including the size of the infant’s skull required to house
the large human brain and the narrowness of the birth canal required
for the mother’s bipedal skeletal structure), human babies are born
extremely immature relative to other animals and cannot survive with-
out receiving long-term care to keep them safe and healthy.’ 7 Ac-
cording to attachment theory, human infants and caregivers possess,
12. RICHARD B. FELSON, VIOLENCE AND GENDER REEXAMINED (2002).
13. See, e.g., id.
14. See generally MARY D. SALTER AINSWORTH ET AL., PATTERNS OF ATTACHMENT: A PsY-
CHOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE STRANGE SITUATION (1978); 1 JOHN BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT AND
Loss: ATrACHMENT (2d ed. 1982) [hereinafter BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT]; 2 JOHN BOWLBY, AT-
TACHMENT AND Loss: SEPARATION: ANXIETY AND ANGER (1973) [hereinafter BOWLBY, SEPA-
RATION]; 3 JOHN BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT AND Loss: Loss: SADNESS AND DEPRESSION (1980)
[hereinafter BOWLBY, Loss]; JOHN BOWLBY, A SECURE BASE: PARENT-CHILD ATTACHMENT
AND HEALTHY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (1988) [hereinafter BOWLBY, A SECURE BASE]; Cindy
Hazan & Phillip Shaver, Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process, 52 J. PERSON-
ALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 511 (1987) [hereinafter Hazan & Shaver, Romantic Love].
15. See, e.g., DONALD G. DUTrON, THE ABUSIVE PERSONALITY: VIOLENCE AND CONTROL IN
INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS (1998); Kim Bartholomew & Colleen J. Allison, An Attachment Per-
spective on Abusive Dynamics in Intimate Relationships, in DYNAMICS OF ROMANTIC LOVE: AT-
TACHMENT, CAREGIVING, AND SEX 102 (Mario Mikulincer & Gail S. Goodman eds., 2006); Kim
Bartholomew et al., Insecure Attachment and Abusive Intimate Relationships, in ADULT AT-
TACHMENT AND COUPLE PSYCHOTHERAPY: THE “SECURE BASE” IN PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
43 (Christopher Clulow ed., 2001); Ofra Mayseless, Adult Attachment Patterns and Courtship
Violence, 40 FAM. REL. 21 (1991).
16. See BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT, supra note 14; BOWLBY, SEPARATION, supra note 14;
BOWLBY, Loss, supra note 14.
17. See M. Maurice Abitbol, Growth of the Fetus in the Abdominal Cavity, 91 AM. J. PHYSICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 367 (1993); Helen E. Fisher, The Four-Year Itch, NAT. HIST., Oct. 1987, at 22,
reprinted in APPLYING ANTHROPOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTORY READER 203 (Aaron Podolefsky
& Peter J. Brown eds., 2d ed. 1992).
[Vol. 56:895898
AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE
as a result of evolutionary pressures, complementary affective and be-
havioral systems that increase the likelihood that the infant will re-
ceive sufficient care to survive. For example, infants cry when they
feel anxious, causing their caregivers to experience distress and a de-
sire to soothe them; those ancestral parents who lacked this desire, the
theory suggests, tended to have children who did not survive long
enough to reproduce, and consequently their genes were weeded out
of the evolutionary pool over time. At its most basic level, then, at-
tachment is a deep-rooted emotional bond that keeps the infant and
the caregiver in close proximity, a process that decreases the likeli-
hood that harm will befall the infant. The attachment-based motiva-
tion to seek proximity is especially strong under stressful or
threatening circumstances, which can include not only safety concerns
but also threats to the attachment bond itself, such as caregiver
unavailability. 8
According to attachment theory, the emotional attachment linking
infants to their primary caregiver rises to the level of a basic need-
comparable in many ways to hunger or thirst.19 When the caregiver is
responsive to their needs, infants feel calm and safe, concluding that
they are lovable and that their caregiver is dependable. In contrast,
when the caregiver is unresponsive (or when circumstances, such as
prolonged separation, threaten the attachment bond), infants feel anx-
ious and insecure. This anxiety and insecurity can quickly turn to an-
ger and protest behaviors if the caregiver remains unresponsive or
unavailable. Even when they are reunited with their primary
caregiver, infants who have experienced prolonged attachment disrup-
tions (separations or periods of unresponsive caregiving) frequently
remain angry for a while. They express both a desire for intimacy and
a tendency to communicate their anger, “arching away angrily while
simultaneously seeking contact.
’20
As a result of their early attachment experiences, 2 1 infants draw idi-
osyncratic conclusions about the degree to which (1) they are worthy
18. See BOWLBY, ATTACHMENT, supra note 14; Mario Mikulincer & Phillip R. Shaver, The
Attachment Behavioral System in Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, and Interpersonal
Processes, in 35 ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 53 (Mark P. Zanna ed.,
2003).
19. See BOWLBY, ATrACHMENT, supra note 14; BOWLBY, SEPARATION, supra note 14;
BOWLBY, Loss, supra note 14; see also Roy F. Baumeister & Mark R. Leary, The Need to Be-
long: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation, 117 PSYCHOL.
BULL. 497 (1995).
20. DUTTON, supra note 15, at 119 (citing BOWLBY, SEPARATION, supra note 14, at 285).
21. Genetic and temperamental factors also play a role, but a discussion of such issues is
beyond the scope of this Article.
20071 899
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
of affection and (2) others are reliably responsive. 22 According to
early empirical research, infants develop one of three unique “attach-
ment styles,” which refer to the ways in which they relate emotionally
and behaviorally to their primary caregiver. 23 Infants categorized as
“secure” feel confident to explore new surroundings when their pri-
mary caregiver is present, become distressed or even angry when she
(or he 24) leaves them alone, and are quickly comforted by an affec-
tionate reunion when she returns. Infants categorized as “avoidant”
tend not to pursue physical contact with their primary caregiver, do
not exhibit overt signs of distress when she leaves them alone, and do
not approach her when she returns. Finally, infants categorized as
“anxious-ambivalent” tend to cling anxiously to their primary
caregiver, become almost* inconsolably distressed or angry when she
leaves them alone, and both solicit and reject care (e.g., by wanting to
be picked up but then immediately pushing away) when she returns.
Although attachment theorists recognize that these attachment styles
are not entirely stable over time,2 5 they argue that the styles exhibit
reasonably high stability because the lessons infants learn about how
lovable they are and how responsive caregivers are become internal-
ized and entrenched beliefs that influence how they interact with the
social world in the future.
26
Although the secure pattern is the healthiest of the three attach-
ment styles, Professor Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues 27 argued
that all three styles are adaptive responses to a specific type of parent-
ing. Secure infants tended to have a primary caregiver who was relia-
bly responsive to their needs, which caused them to learn that their
distressed pleas for comfort would be met. Avoidant infants tended to
have a primary caregiver who was reliably unresponsive, which caused
them to learn that their pleas would be neglected and that making
such pleas was fruitless. Anxious-ambivalent infants tended to have a
primary caregiver who was unreliably responsive, which caused them
to learn that their pleas would sometimes be met and sometimes be
22. See BOWLBY, SEPARATION, supra note 14.
23. See AINSWORTH ET AL., supra note 14.
24. Infants can readily form an attachment bond to caregivers of either gender, although at-
tachment to a mother figure tends to be most common.
25. See Joanne Davila et al., Attachment Change Processes in the Early Years of Marriage, 76 J.
PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 783 (1999); Joanne Davila & Erica Sargent, The Meaning of Life
(Events) Predicts Changes in Attachment Security, 29 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. BULL.
1383 (2003); Eli J. Finkel et al., Vengefully Ever After: Destiny Beliefs, State Attachment Anxiety,
and Forgiveness, 92 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 871 (2007).
26. See AINSWORTH ET AL., supra note 14; BOWLBY, SEPARATION, supra note 14; Hazan &
Shaver, Romantic Love, supra note 14.
27. See AINSWORTH ET AL., supra note 14.
[Vol. 56:895
2007] AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE 901
neglected. Given this parental behavior, it is adaptive for avoidant
infants not to depend too much on their caregiver and for anxious-
ambivalent infants to express as much distress as possible to make the
caregiver realize that the current need for comfort is especially acute,
thereby maximizing the likelihood that the caregiver will respond
sensitively.
IV. ATTACHMENT IN ADULTHOOD
In the mid-1980s, psychologists began to examine Professor John
Bowlby’s assertion that “attachment behavior is held to characterize
human beings from the cradle to the grave,”2 8 which led these scholars
to investigate the attachment bonds formed between adults.2 9 Attach-
ment theorists have argued that such adult attachment bonds are im-
portant in part because the neural substrates underlying such
emotional connections parallel those underlying infant-caregiver con-
nections:30 “The evolution of the brain would have to be considered
unparsimonious if it were not able to draw upon the same basic capac-
ities of emotion and action in the various settings where strong attach-
ment is called for.”
31
Although attachment bonds in adult relationships certainly differ in
important ways from infant-caregiver bonds (e.g., adults care mutually
for one another’s needs rather than having one person in the needy
role and the other in the caregiving role), they also exhibit substantial
and essential similarities (e.g., adults seek support and reassurance
from their adult attachment figure when experiencing distress). One
of the key conceptual contributions of this application of attachment
dynamics to adult relationships is the observation that, as with infants,
adults frequently experience anxiety when their attachment bond is
threatened-an emotional response that can quickly give way to anger
and protest behaviors. 32 Attachment bonds in intimate relationships
can be threatened by diverse circumstances, including the perception
that one’s partner is becoming detached or is attracted to somebody
28. John Bowlby, The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds, 130 BRIT. J. PSYCHIATRY
201, 203 (1977) (quoted in Donald G. Dutton et al., Intimacy-Anger and Insecure Attachment as
Precursors of Abuse in Intimate Relationships, 24 J. APPLIED Soc. PSYCHOL. 1367 (1994)).
29. Hazan & Shaver, Romantic Love, supra note 14.
30. Cindy Hazan & Phillip R. Shaver, Attachment as an Organizational Framework for Re-
search on Close Relationships, 5 PSYCHOL. INQUIRY 1 (1994).
31. MELVIN KONNER, THE TANGLED WING: BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE HUMAN
SPIRIT 298 (1982).
32. BOWLBY, A SECURE BASE, supra note 14; John Bowlby, Violence in the Family as a Disor-
der of the Attachment and Caregiving Systems, 44 AM. J. PSYCHOANALYSIS 9 (1984).
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
else. Bowlby argued that anger is frequently a healthy and adaptive
response to threats to the attachment bond:
Thus in the right place, at the right time, and in right degree, anger
is not only appropriate but may be indispensable. It serves to deter
from dangerous behavior, to drive off a rival, or to coerce a partner.
In each case the aim of the angry behavior is the same-to protect a
relationship which is of very special value to the angry person.
33
Although he argued that anger is a sensible response to attachment
threats, Bowlby believed that the violent behavior that can result is
“maladaptive,” and that it “can be understood as the distorted and
exaggerated versions of behavior that is potentially functional. ‘ 34 In
short, the anger and protest behaviors frequently exhibited by infants
dealing with an attachment disruption are also seen in adults who are
experiencing attachment disruption in their romantic relationships.
These angry and protesting responses, when managed poorly, can lead
to IPV.
Attachment theorists argue that, as with infants, adults differ in
their attachment styles. The first empirical study35 to apply attach-
ment theory to adult romantic relationships built on the research of
Ainsworth and her colleagues 36 by allowing research participants to
self-classify as secure (e.g., “I find it relatively easy to get close to
others and am comfortable depending on them and having them de-
pend on me”; 56% of respondents in this sample), avoidant (e.g., “I
am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them”;
25%), or anxious-ambivalent (e.g., “I often worry that my partner
doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me”; 19%).37 These
three groups differed in ways that were consistent with predictions
derived from attachment theory. For example, secure individuals
were the most likely to trust their partner, avoidant individuals were
the least accepting of their partner’s limitations, and anxious-ambiva-
lent individuals were the most likely to exhibit obsessive preoccupa-
tion with their partner.
A torrent of research has followed the publication of Professors
Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver’s 38 seminal article on adult attach-
ment dynamics. One of the major advances is a refined structure for
conceptualizing individual differences in attachment tendencies.
33. Bowlby, supra note 32, at 11.
34. Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
35. See Hazan & Shaver, Romantic Love, supra note 14.
36. See AINSWORTH ET AL., supra note 14.
37. Hazan & Shaver, Romantic Love, supra note 14, at 515 tbl2.
38. See generally id.
[Vol. 56:895
2007] AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE 903
Rather than thinking in terms of discrete types or styles, adult attach-
ment researchers are converging on the consensus that individuals dif-
fer in terms of where they fit on an attachment anxiety dimension and
on an attachment avoidance dimension, with low scores on both
dimensions indicating attachment security. 39 The anxiety dimension
measures the affective and attributional processes involved in moni-
toring and appraising events for signs of threat, whereas the avoidance
dimension measures the strategies individuals use to regulate their at-
tachment needs.4 0 Individuals who are high on the anxiety dimension
tend to feel preoccupying uncertainty about whether their partner will
accept or reject them, so they vigilantly monitor their partner’s behav-
ior for signs of rejection or acceptance. They tend to be buffeted
around emotionally by relationship events, and to catastrophize the
anticipated future consequences of relationship difficulties. 4 Individ-
uals who are high on the avoidance dimension tend to deal with inse-
curity by orienting away from their partner; varying along this
dimension is not associated with preoccupying uncertainty, vigilant
monitoring, being buffeted around by relationship events, or engaging
in catastrophizing appraisals.
4 2
V. PREDICTING IPV FROM INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
IN ATTACHMENT
A large and growing corpus of research suggests that individuals
characterized by high levels of attachment anxiety are especially
prone toward perpetrating IPV; as discussed below, the association of
attachment avoidance with IPV perpetration is much less reliable.
43
39. See Kelly A. Brennan et al., Self-Report Measurement of Adult Attachment: An Integrative
Overview, in ATrACHMENT THEORY AND CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 46 (Jeffrey A. Simpson & W.
Steven Rholes eds., 1998); Dale Griffin & Kim Bartholomew, Models of the Self and Other:
Fundamental Dimensions Underlying Measures of Adult Attachment, 67 J. PERSONALITY & SOC.
PSYCHOL. 430 (1994); Jeffrey A. Simpson et al., Conflict in Close Relationships: An Attachment
Perspective, 71 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 899 (1996).
40. R. Chris Fraley & Phillip R. Shaver, Airport Separations: A Naturalistic Study of Adult
Attachment Dynamics in Separating Couples, 75 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1198 (1998);
see also R. Chris Fraley & Phillip R. Shaver, Adult Romantic Attachment: Theoretical Develop-
ments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions, 4 REV. GEN. PSYCHOL. 132 (2000).
41. See Lorne Campbell et al., Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships:
The Role of Attachment Anxiety, 88 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 510 (2005); Mikulincer &
Shaver, supra note 18.
42. See Campbell et al., supra note 41.
43. Bartholomew & Allison, supra note 15. Given that scholars have measured individual
differences in attachment tendencies in diverse ways, placing participants from any given study
at specific locations on the anxiety and avoidance dimensions is not always straightforward. In
the interest of avoiding substantial complexity, we gloss over some of this measurement-based
nuance in favor of providing a brief but accurate overview of the big picture.
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
Before reviewing this evidence in detail, we first discuss the character-
istics of attachment anxiety that might make individuals scoring to-
ward the high end of this dimension especially susceptible to the type
of anxiety, anger, and protest behaviors that can increase the likeli-
hood of IPV perpetration. Individuals characterized by strong attach-
ment anxiety deal with attachment threats by employing
“hyperactivating strategies”:
[These strategies] intensify the vigilant monitoring of attachment-
figure behaviors and slant perceptions in the direction of noticing or
imagining insufficient interest, availability, and responsiveness. As
a result, the likelihood of detecting signs of distance, rejection, and
unavailability is increased, because the attachment figure cannot al-
ways be available and totally at the disposition of the attached per-
son’s needs.
4 4
These interpersonal strategies cause anxiously attached individuals
“to feel chronically frustrated due to the unfulfilled need for demon-
strations of love and commitment” and to engage in “catastrophic ap-
praisal of interpersonal conflicts, the perpetuation of the resulting
negative affect, and conflict escalation.
45
Experiencing goal frustration4 6 and negative affect 47 have long been
acknowledged as central predictors of violent behavior. As such, the
frequent frustration of attachment needs and negative affect (not to
mention the catastrophic appraisals and severe conflict) characteristic
of strongly anxiously attached individuals increases the likelihood that
they will experience impulses toward IPV when facing threats to their
attachment bonds. Recent years have witnessed a sharp surge in theo-
retical and empirical research exploring this issue.48 Most of the early
empirical work focused exclusively on male perpetrators, ignoring the
association between attachment representations and IPV among fe-
male perpetrators.
Following closely on an early, gender-neutral theoretical analysis of
the role of individual differences in attachment representations in pre-
dicting IPV perpetration, 49 a first empirical investigation by Dutton
demonstrated that court-mandated, male IPV perpetrators scored
higher on the attachment anxiety dimension than did demographically
matched controls.5 0 A subsequent study replicated this finding among
44. Mikulincer & Shaver, supra note 18, at 77.
45. Id. at 83.
46. See JOHN DOLLARD ET AL., FRUSTRATION AND AGGRESSION (1939).
47. See LEONARD BERKOWrrz, AGGRESSION: ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES, AND CONTROL
(1993).
48. See Bartholomew & Allison, supra note 15.
49. See Mayseless, supra note 15.
50. Dutton et al., supra note 28.
[Vol. 56:895
2007] AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE 905
a sample of male IPV perpetrators recruited from the community
rather than from the court system, and demonstrated that individuals
who were both violent and maritally distressed were characterized by
greater attachment anxiety than were those who were either maritally
distressed but nonviolent or maritally nondistressed and nonviolent.
5 ‘
A third study, which also employed a community sample, not only
replicated the finding that male IPV perpetrators tended to experi-
ence greater attachment anxiety than did maritally distressed but non-
violent men, but also demonstrated that those men characterized by
high levels of attachment anxiety were likely to perpetrate IPV in re-
sponse to instances when their spouse withdrew from them and to ex-
hibit elevated belligerent tendencies during a laboratory-based
conflict discussion with their spouse. 52 In short, strong and consistent
evidence supports the hypothesis that men characterized by elevated
attachment anxiety are prone toward IPV perpetration.
A question that was not addressed by these influential studies is
whether the association between attachment anxiety and IPV perpe-
tration is limited to male violence against their female partners or
whether it applies to a broader range of IPV perpetration. Empirical
evidence now demonstrates that attachment anxiety predicts IPV per-
petration not only in gay male relationships, 53 but also among female
IPV perpetrators. An impressive recent study, for example, demon-
strated that the robust association of elevated attachment anxiety with
IPV perpetration was not moderated by gender. 54 A second study
replicated the association between elevated attachment anxiety and
IPV perpetration in a sample of female college students,5 5 and a third
study replicated it, albeit with a measure of “interpersonal depen-
dence” as a proxy for attachment anxiety, in a sample of women who
were mandated by the court system to complete a batterer interven-
tion program.5 6 Taken together, these findings suggest, as hypothe-
51. Amy Holtzworth-Munroe et al., Violent Versus Nonviolent Husbands: Differences in At-
tachment Patterns, Dependency, and Jealousy, 11 J. FAM. PSYCHOL. 314 (1997).
52. Julia C. Babcock et al., Attachment, Emotional Regulation, and the Function of Marital
Violence: Differences Between Secure, Preoccupied, and Dismissing Violent and Nonviolent Hus-
bands, 15 J. FAM. VIOLENCE 391 (2000).
53. See Monica A. Landolt & Donald G. Dutton, Power and Personality: An Analysis of Gay
Male Intimate Abuse, 37 SEx ROLES 335 (1997).
54. Antonia J.Z. Henderson et al., When Loving Means Hurting: An Exploration of Attach-
ment and Intimate Abuse in a Community Sample, 20 J. FAM. VIOLENCE 219 (2005).
55. See Holly K. Orcutt et al., Female-Perpetrated Intimate Partner Violence and Romantic
Attachment Style in a College Student Sample, 20 VIOLENCE & VICrIMS 287 (2005).
56. See Michelle Mohr Carney & Frederick P. Buttell, Exploring the Relevance of Attachment
Theory as a Dependent Variable in the Treatment of Women Mandated into Treatment for Domes-
tic Violence Offenses, 41 J. OFFENDER REHABILITATION 33 (2005).
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW
sized, that the attachment theory analysis of IPV presented in this
Article is gender-neutral.
57
We have examined the association of attachment anxiety with IPV
perpetration, largely ignoring the association of attachment avoidance
with IPV. We have neglected attachment avoidance thus far because
there is little consistent evidence that it exerts a simple association
with IPV perpetration. Some theoretical work and empirical evidence
suggests that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance interact to
predict IPV. All of these studies show that high attachment anxiety
predicts IPV perpetration, but they are inconsistent in suggesting
whether high attachment anxiety predicts perpetration most strongly
for individuals who are high 5 8 versus low 59 in attachment avoidance.
Clarifying whether and how attachment anxiety and attachment
avoidance combine to predict IPV perpetration remains an important
topic for future research.
VI. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
In recent years, both a meta-analytic review60 and a blistering cri-
tique 6 1 have provided evidence that extant treatment interventions, be
they self-referred or court-mandated, for IPV perpetration are gener-
ally ineffective. These interventions, however, tend to pay little atten-
tion to the attachment dynamics discussed in this Article. Although
IPV perpetration is a complex and multiply determined phenomenon,
sufficient evidence now suggests that attachment dynamics-espe-
cially elevated attachment anxiety-play an important role in predict-
ing both male and female IPV perpetration. In addition, ample
evidence suggests that although attachment anxiety and attachment
avoidance are relatively stable personality characteristics, they are
amenable to change over time. 62 Taken together, the current state of
the scientific literature indicates that treating IPV perpetrators with
clinical interventions (individual therapy, couple therapy, or both) ori-
ented toward making them less anxiously attached could prove fruitful
in reducing violent behavior among those perpetrators whose violence
is precipitated in large part by perceived threats to the attachment
57. See Bartholomew & Allison, supra note 15; Bowlby, supra note 32; Barbara Gormley, An
Adult Attachment Theoretical Perspective of Gender Symmetry in Intimate Partner Violence, 52
SEX ROLES 785 (2005); Mayseless, supra note 15.
58. See DurrON, supra note 15; Landolt & Dutton, supra note 53.
59. See, e.g., Bartholomew & Allison, supra note 15.
60. See Julia C. Babcock et al., Does Batterers’ Treatment Work? A Meta-analytic Review of
Domestic Violence Treatment, 23 CLINICAL PSYCHOL. REV. 1023 (2004).
61. See Dutton & Corvo, supra note 7.
62. Davila et al., supra note 25.
[Vol. 56:895
2007] AN ATTACHMENT THEORY PERSPECTIVE 907
bond. A number of promising interventions for addressing attach-
ment-related distress in conflictual relationships have been developed
in recent years; 63 such interventions could be readily adapted for
couples who experience attachment-related IPV.
In conclusion, attachment theory provides a psychologically rich
and empirically supported perspective on IPV perpetration. Individu-
als, especially those who are anxiously attached by disposition, are
likely to experience anxiety and anger when their attachment bond is
threatened, and these responses can boil over into violent behavior.
Transforming IPV-relevant social policies, clinical interventions, and
legal practices to accommodate this attachment perspective holds
promise for helping to alleviate the severity and frequency of the vio-
lent behavior individuals perpetrate against their intimate partners.
63. See ATrACHMENT PROCESSES IN COUPLE AND FAMILY THERAPY (Susan M. Johnson &
Valerie E. Whiffen eds., 2003).
DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 56:895
- DePaul Law Review
An Attachment Theory Perspective on the Perpetuation of Intimate Partner Violence
Eli J. Finkel
Erica B. Slotter
Recommended Citation
