Could word-counting as a lie-detector measure work?  How accurate is it, anyway?  Could reliance on computer programs as lie detectors ruin your relationship?   How can our beliefs about who says ‘I’ reveal a lot about our politics and stereotypes—yet almost nothing about our conscious processing of ‘I’? 

Read on!

From Dan Knipe: —Word-Counting As Lie Detector = Palm-Reading?— 

You know, this sort of thing seems like palm-reading to me. Just sayin,’ trying to tell someone’s truthfulness via syntax is a gamble at best. It worries me that people already predisposed to superstition might cause their relationships real harm because they think they know enough about their significant others’ pronouns to tell if they’d been cheating or not.

Duana’s response:  —A Brief History Of Lie Detection—

Dear Dan, thanks for writing in. When I teach Intro Psych each semester, we go over various methods of lie detection, such as the polygraph and ‘brain fingerprinting’. The polygraph is well-known —most students have heard of that—and it’s inadmissible in American courts today precisely because it’s so imprecise. It only differentiates guilt from innocence around 65% of the time.

The brain fingerprinting method presumes that if a person recognizes images from a crime scene, as shown by brain-wave changes, then that person is guilty. A version of brain fingerprinting has been used to exonerate at least one man charged with murder in America.  And it’s been used to convict people of murder in India…with no other evidence brought to bear. The PhD-level psychologist who created the method, Lawrence Farwell, seems supremely confident of its efficacy—both in this article and this interview.

Problem? For good reason, it would seem nearly all other social scientists whose opinions I’ve found, including great thinkers in neuroscience such as Michael Gazzaniga, share your skepticism of lie-detection methods—whatever methods are used. And so does Dr. Pennebaker. And for what it’s worth, so do my students and I.

In the interview Dr. Pennebaker gave me, he noted that while his language word-count method detects lies at better-than-chance levels, it’s not strong enough to use as stand-alone evidence. That’s because life is messy: Many factors are brought to bear in any one person’s life, and no one lie detection method satisfactorily measures and accounts for all of those~not yet, and perhaps not ever.

Dr. Pennebaker elaborates the point in his book The Secret Life Of Pronouns, which expounds on his research in word counting and what it tells us about many things, including lie detection. Basically, accuracy of his method has been experimentally tested by having the program analyze word use in persons who are randomly assigned to lie or tell the truth; then, the program’s accuracy is compared to the accuracy of bystanders who are asked to say whether others are lying.

Results? The LIWC program has occasionally detected lies at the 75% accuracy rate, but much oftener it’s about as accurate as other lie-detection methods—around 65%. That’s a 15% gain over human beings, who only perform at 50/50, aka chance. But it’s not nearly sufficient as a stand-alone method of conviction—either in court, or in a personal relationship.

That said, Dr. Pennebaker implies a necessary question in his book: Since lie detection methods are about as accurate as eyewitnesses, why should we exclude polygraph evidence but keep eyewitness accounts?

“If polygraph, nonverbal, eyewitness, brain scan, and any other type of evidence can help classify the guilt or innocence of a witness, it should be introduced in court. However, it should be introduced in a way that calibrates its accuracy to the jury. Each type of evidence is simply something else for the jury to weigh, knowing that there are problems with each type. Life is probabilistic—courtroom evidence is no different” (p. 155).

In other words, let’s say someone really did use the LIWC to test their sweetie’s honesty. At best, it’d be a piece of all the information they already knew.

At worst, it’d be just what you indicated: a dangerous misuse of technology that could seriously undermine relationships.

Thanks again for the great question.

From Paula: —‘I’ And Arrogance—

Fascinating! I’m surprised about the usage of “I,” or, rather that the lack of using “I” indicates arrogance. I would have thought that the more people use “I,” then the more arrogant they are.

Duana’s response: —Stereotypes and The Unconscious—

Hi, Paula,

That struck me as odd, too. In the interview and in the book, Dr. Pennebaker also spoke/wrote about how ‘I’ can be a test of one’s political leanings. To wit, how often do you think President Obama says ‘I’?

(pauses while people guess)

As it happens, people’s answer depends more on their party than on fact. Republicans —including some prominent pundits— routinely posit that Obama says ‘I’ excessively. Democrats guess he says ‘I’ less. In reality, LIWC analyses of existing speeches from all presidents since speeches have been recorded showed Obama says ‘I’ less than any former president.

Dr. Pennebaker doesn’t construe these findings as indicative of lying, by the way; ‘I’ associated with lying deals with being directly queried about a falsehood, not how often one says ‘I’ in general. Nor did he say Obama was arrogant. Instead, he conceptualized this as aloofness and cool detachment.

At any rate, what ‘I’ really shows is where people’s attention is focused. Men focus more on things than people, usually—which the articles ‘a’, ‘an’, and ‘the’ show. People who are dominant in a given social interaction use more articles and fewer first-person pronouns too. People who are more relationship-oriented (usually women) and those more depression-prone (also usually women) use ‘I’ more in general. And, of course, when a person is lying, ‘I’ is the single most-predictive word indicating truthfulness. Or lack thereof.

Ultimately, since we’re all largely unconscious of how often anyone says ‘I’, our perceptions tend to be based more on stereotypes and personal beliefs than reality~hence the ‘I’ political test and hence researchers thinking men (and perhaps the arrogant) use ‘I’ more than women, even when studies began finding the reverse.

Cheers,
Duana

Do you have a question for Duana? Email her atDuana@LoveScienceMedia.com, and a free, confidential response shall be yours.  If your letter is ever used on-site, it will be edited and your name changed to protect your identity. 

Want to try out the LIWC program for yourself and analyze your—or your sweetie’s—language style?  Here are some free, fun ways to do it:

—Analyze anyone’s Twitter feed, including your own:http://www.analyzewords.com/

—Test out the LIWC on your own writing samples—about pictures, your thoughts about your own life, or just your description of a bottle— here:http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Faculty/Pennebaker/Home2000/Words.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

James W. Pennebaker, for his expertise, his science, his interview from last week, and his book. 

His book, The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us.  The book’s scope incorporates everything from this interview, plus how our words reveal who has the most power in a relationship, how you can tell who’s likely to buy a particular product based on their words, whether a person lives in a (very) particular neighborhood based only on their junk words—and much more.  Highly recommend. 

The LIWC program and its creators, including James W. Pennebaker and Martha E. Francis. 

Related LoveScience articles:

The interview with Dr. Pennebaker regarding his book: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/junk-words-what-the-above-he-and-i-say-about-your-lovelife.html

Using body language to tell who’s into you: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/how-to-tell-shes-just-not-that-into-you-or-captain-clueless.html

DW: Every Intro Psych student knows you as the guy who did the research on “Don’t The Girls Get Prettier At Closin’ Time”.  In that study, you found that men find women more attractive with each half-hour that closing time draws nearer at bars, regardless of how much the fellas had had to drink.  So it’s not just beer goggles!  Did you do that research here on 6^th Street in Austin?

JP: (laughs) No, that’s when I was a new assistant professor at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville  in the 1970’s.  We did that at three bars there. 

DW:  But it’s really your more recent research that should capture everyone’s attention.  For a couple decades now, you’ve been studying how the ‘junk words’—filler words that aren’t nouns or verbs—tell us a great deal about differences between men and women, who’s likely to date whom, and even whether our partner may be lying to us.  In your book, you point out that these words—words like ‘I’, ‘an’, ‘the’, ‘but’, ‘except’, ‘over’, and ‘about’—are basically unconscious to us, yet have a lot to say about who we are.  Since they’re unconscious, how did you become aware of them?  What made you want to study these junk words? 

JP:  Those words are hard for us to hear.  [How I became aware of them] was a fluke, really.  I had done some research where we had people do some writing every day, about 15 minutes, and it turned out that writing had a big impact on health.  So I wondered what else language could tell us.  I assumed at the time—this was the early 1990’s—that there would be a program that could analyze the language, but the technology wasn’t there.  So one of my graduate students at the time, Martha Francis, had a background in computer programming.  She and I created a program we call the ‘Luke’, LIWC, which stands for the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. 

 At first, we started by looking at the content words people were using, words about religion or beliefs or things like that, and it just didn’t tell us anything about people.  Those words didn’t distinguish between people.  But then we decided to use LIWC to analyze these function words, and all of a sudden, here were these big differences being revealed, about personality, about how people use words differently with age or sex, about power, about whether or not people were telling the truth. 

 DW: That’s really fascinating; I know LoveScience readers and I are interested in differences between men and women.  Could you say more about that?

JP: Sure, well basically, I had assumed what a lot of people thought, that men would use ‘I’ a lot more than women do, but the data were opposite.  I did a study, and that one showed women using ‘I’ more, and I questioned that, but across study after study, it’s the women who say ‘I’ more.  In fact, women use pronouns more in general, and men use articles such as ‘a’, ‘an’, and ‘the’ more than women do. 

DW: What do you think is behind that?

JP: Pronouns tell us where our thoughts are directed.  Women are thinking about other people, talking about other people, more, and women are also discussing their own emotional state more than men are.  A lot of times when women are using ‘I’, it’s to express an internal state, “I feel”.  Men are more focused on things, which articles like ‘an’ and ‘the’ relate to.  Women are being more relational.  That sounds kind of obvious maybe, but other people and I were guessing that women would use the word ‘I’ less than men. 

DW: Your work has also shown that people who use the word ‘I’ are more truthful than people who avoid that word.  What’s going on there?  I receive a lot of letters from folks wanting to know if their partner is telling them the truth.  Does your work have bearing on that?

JP: Well, since I started doing this research, people have become a lot more careful in using pronouns around me, especially ‘I’. 

DW: (laughs)  Yep, I found myself trying to construct an entire interview without referring to myself!  As we can see, I’m failing at that.

JP: But ‘I’ isn’t a bad thing.  When people don’t use the word ‘I’ much [if at all], they’re sometimes seen as arrogant, and if people use ‘I’ too much, they can be seen as obsequious and insecure.  But when people use the word ‘I’ [sometimes, not too much], they’re being human and genuine, and our research has also shown they are being more honest.  When people are telling the truth, they use the word ‘I’, they speak specifically in detail about their actions, and they use ‘but’ and ‘except’ and other words that show not just what they did do, but what they didn’t do. 

We did a study where we had people find money in our lab, and then someone told them to steal the money and not to admit to it even if they were caught.  Half the people stole the money, and half didn’t, but we arranged it so all of them were asked if they had stolen money.  Of course this meant that all the people said they hadn’t taken the money, but half really had, so half were lying.  It was only about a dollar, but LIWC found different speech patterns depending on whether the person was lying or not.  The people who were lying would say things to distance themselves from the action, maybe tossing the accusation back: “How could you say I’m lying?”  The people who…were telling the truth would say things like, “I went into that room, and I saw the money, but then I closed the book and left it there.”  People who are telling the truth talk about what they haven’t done, not just what they have done; talking about what you haven’t done is hard for liars to do because it’s hard to construct an action you haven’t taken.  Also the people telling the truth use more prepositions: ‘under,’ ‘over’.  Again, it’s hard to describe what you haven’t seen, so using prepositions is harder for people who are lying.

DW: That’s really interesting, and of course what I’m wondering is how we can use this in our intimate relationships.  I noticed online that you’ve got free samples and exercises using LIWC—anyone can put in text from what their partner is saying, or even buy your program, to see if their partner is lying, right?  Or is that putting too much faith in LIWC. 

JP: (laughs) Well, they could [use LIWC to detect partner lies], but if you’re buying an $89 program to find out if your mate or date is lying to you, you probably have issues in the relationship.  You might be better off spending the money on some couples therapy!

DW: (laughs) Agreed! 

JP: Also, although LIWC is more accurate than chance and more accurate than someone’s guess, it’s not accurate enough all by itself to tell for certain if someone is lying to you.  I think if someone’s worried [their partner is lying to them], that’s an issue in itself to be dealt with. 

I tell people it’s a messy world.  Chemotherapy, for instance, is only marginally better than not using chemotherapy for many cancers, but that doesn’t tell what is happening or going to happen specific to you, so there are a lot of factors to consider. 

DW: Yes.  You know, what really got me interested in your more recent work was an interview you did on NPR recently.

 JP:  Alix Spiegel did a great job on that.

 DW: (nods) It made me want to read your book.  And one of the things you talked about there and in your book was that how we use junk words can even tell us whether we’re likely to continue a relationship or not.  In fact, LIWC was better at predicting what people would do, as far as continuing to date someone, than people themselves were!  Can you talk more about that?

 JP: We did a few studies of speed dating.  In speed dating, people meet up and rotate from one person to another in brief discussions, and then they rate one another about how much they’d like to go on a real date.  If both people rate one another highly, they go out.  And the LIWC was better at predicting who had made a connection than the ratings the people gave.  We also analyzed instant messaging that couples engaged in over a 10-day period of time, and again LIWC was better at predicting who would still be together in three months than the people in the relationships.  Again, it came down to these [throw-away] words.

DW: Did it matter what the words were, for instance, who said ‘I’ more?

JP: It was more about whether they used the [junk words] in the same way, a kind of mirroring.  People who used the words the same way were making a deeper connection.  They were listening more deeply, they were more connected to each other. 

DW: Is this like physical mirroring?  It’s well-known that people who are into each other will mimic one another’s body movements and positions, albeit unconsciously.  Is this a linguistic version of that—linguistic mirroring?

JP: Yes, I think it is. 

DW: What LoveScience readers and I want to know, always, is how to take research and apply it to our own lives, especially our own relationships.  And I’m feeling a bit hopeless about that right now, because it’s hard to imagine changing things we have no conscious awareness of. 

JP: Our brains are working on the information even though we’re not conscious of it.  A lot of times, a person will be reading an email and thinking something like, “Wow, he’s kind of arrogant,” and they won’t be able to tell you why, but the story is there in the pronouns—the lack of “I”. 

DW: So we’re getting the information even though we’re not exactly manipulating it?

JP: (nods) A lot of people want to know if they can become aware of their language to change it, but it doesn’t really work that way.  Instead, the thing to do is to change how you’re connecting with others, instead of what you’re saying.  Change your connections with others and the language will follow. 

A few years ago when my son was 12, I was starting to learn more about natural language through the use of a new language recording system we were developing. One weekend, I wore the digital recorder at home while talking to my son, daughter, and wife.  The following week, I transcribed the recordings and noticed that I said “I” with him a lot less than with my wife or other family members, and it occurred to me that the way I was treating him could be behind some of our distance at the time. I realized that I needed to change the way I connected with him.

DW: Did you use ‘I’ more?

JP: No, I focused more on him.  My language was a clue that I needed to get closer, more connected to him.  Recent studies we’re doing show that LIWC can monitor online conversations and then give feedback every few minutes to the whole group: “You need to listen to each other more,” “You could try giving everyone a turn to speak,” and so forth.  Or the feedback can be to individuals: “Talk more,” or “Wait a few moments longer to give someone else a shot at speaking.”  It’s helping to show people how to connect in conversation. 

DW: Wow, I think that could really be helpful in marriage therapy, or maybe even in place of marriage therapy?   A primary complaint couples have is that they don’t communicate well, so if your LIWC program could analyze couples’ conversations in real-time and help them to communicate better…

JP: Finding the funding for that research has been touchy.  The [major funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health] are more focused on the health model right now, not so much on [happiness in relationships].

DW: And yet it’s now well-established experimentally that couples who are fighting have higher levels of stress-hormone cortisol after the fight, and they even heal more slowly from wounds.  It’s not much of a leap to say that helping people become happier *is* helping them become healthier, and that good communication would be part of that, is it?

 JP: No, but the funding isn’t there right now; maybe it will be.  There are just so many directions LIWC and this [language research on pronouns] can take us in. 

DW: Either way, it’s safe to say I’d like your career to span a hundred years or more.   You’re just getting started on this, and your research on these small words can tell us such big things about our relationships—with everyone, not just our mates and dates— and ourselves.  Thank you so much.  

JP: Thank you.

Cheers,

Duana

This interview was conducted in-person on May 14^th, 2012.  All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012. 

Do you have a question for Duana? Email her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com, and a free, confidential response shall be yours.  If your letter is ever used on-site, it will be edited and your name changed to protect your identity. 

Want to try out the LIWC program for yourself and analyze your—or your sweetie’s—language style?  Here are some free, fun ways to do it:

—Analyze anyone’s Twitter feed, including your own: http://www.analyzewords.com/

—Test out the LIWC on your own writing samples—about pictures, your thoughts about your own life, or just your description of a bottle— here: http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/Faculty/Pennebaker/Home2000/Words.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

James W. Pennebaker, for his expertise, his science, his interview, and his book. 

His book, The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us.  The book’s scope incorporates everything from this interview, plus how our words reveal who has the most power in a relationship, how you can tell who’s likely to buy a particular product based on their words, whether a person lives in a (very) particular neighborhood based only on their junk words—and much more.  Highly recommend. 

The LIWC program and its creators, including James W. Pennebaker and Martha E. Francis. 

Related LoveScience article:

Using body language to tell who’s into you:  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/how-to-tell-shes-just-not-that-into-you-or-captain-clueless.html

I’ve gotten involved with three women I met online in the last year, only to find they were all still married.  I had asked each of them whether their divorce was final before meeting in person, and they all said yes!  Do I need to see finalized legal papers before I can meet someone for coffee?

Dan

Dear Duana,

I’m a single mom, and I’ve been set up with another single parent who is ‘not quite divorced’.  Do you think he’s on the rebound?  Should I suggest he contact me when the divorce is final?  Should I have one coffee date and see what I think?

Cindy

Dear Dan: Yes.

Dear Cindy: Maybe. Yes.  No.

Dear, me.  (Oy!)

First off, why are many people so eager to date before they’re divorced—sometimes to the point of hiding their still-married status?   It makes a lot of sense when you see it from their side.*

—Human Connection:  

People need love, or at least some contact.  Many studies confirm that isolation doesn’t just make us miserable, it can literally make us ill.  So imagine you’re lonely in a marriage—and then you find out that because of a vast array of legal, financial, parenting, and partner issues, the divorce itself is going to take years: 

“[There’s a] mandatory 2-year separation period in our state….He got an apartment, and still came ‘home’ after work for months to help put our two young children to bed as neither of us emotionally was ready to tell the kids. Eventually, we told them, and about 2 years later our divorce was final…..[He also] knew that it would take me time to re-enter the workforce after having been a stay at home mom to our children, and that after we were divorced I would have no health insurance… So he stayed ‘married’ to me until I [could support myself]….That’s a long time to be legally married to someone that has clearly moved on (he moved in with his girlfriend after about a year). “

Unsurprisingly, some folks are unwilling to extend their emotional exile.   Maybe they just want fun, sex, and a break from the bleakness.  Perhaps they’re ready for a new commitment, especially if the old one was broken long ago a’ la strangers under one roof.  They might not think they owe loyalty to a feckless, faithless mate, or one who prolongs the proceedings. 

And evolutionarily speaking, women might accurately feel they are running out of time; with every decade past men’s 20s, guys who can snag ever-younger partners do, leaving straight women of their own cohort short of available mates:   

“….[My now-ex] said I had no right to date because we were ‘still married’, ha!  We were only ‘still married’ because he was refusing the divorce!  I was in my late 30’s and unprepared to spend the rest of my life waiting for him to let go as I watched the good men snapped up by other, younger, women….” 

As you’ve found, Dan, some of the not-quite-divorced lie to get a little contact.  They might fear rejection; they may not have thought through the consequences.  But still, it’s misleading:

“I knew that when I said “I’m divorced” he thought that it was official… I just didn’t want to get into the whole “I’m in the process” conversation. Well, this relationship flourished and we started dating exclusively. At this point I started to feel really guilty….I felt that if I told him that truth he would be angry at me for not telling him sooner and not trust me….” 

—Mate Bait:  

Aaaand then, there are the folks who use separation as a testing ground for the supposedly-deceased marriage.  Consciously or not, these people are using you as a jealousy-inducer—a way to renew their marriage bonds and reinvigorate their spouse’s affections by showcasing how desirable they are to others:

“….We dated for a couple months before she told me she was married but didn’t wear a ring because she felt divorce was imminent. We only lasted a couple more months before the stress of seeing each other while she was still married overwhelmed us…..We said we would take it up when the divorce was complete, and the house was sold. It only took another 18 years for that to happen. They even had another baby after we had our relationship.”

I don’t know the two (or three) people in that relationship, but what happened was not an ‘imminent’ divorce.  What happened was nearly 20 more years of some level of commitment from the woman’s husband. 

What to do?  Start by realizing that just because dating can make a lot of sense to those who are divorcing, doesn’t mean it makes sense for you to date them. 

Then:

—Follow your values:   Dan, you don’t want to date the married, so don’t.  Given your run of luck, I’m fully behind your idea to request proof of Freedom.   Some may be offended, but you needn’t attract the whole world, just one (literally) single match.  Go for it!

—Just say know/no:  Cindy, is he rebounding?  Maybe, maybe not.  Half the men who re-nup do so in about three years—leaving little time to bound at all once you factor in time to meet, court, and commit.  But heaven or hell could be in this man’s details, details to which you aren’t yet privy.  He could be lying or unclear about his intentions to divorce; you could be wife-bait; the divorce could drag on for years.  You don’t know. 

What’s certain is Stress.  About 70% of remarriages where both parties already have kids fail from Stress.  Starting a relationship during a divorce, when you both have kids and you don’t know the risks/circumstances, is just (warning, technical term coming) cra-cra.  Think about how Stressful your own divorce was; now imagine yourself in *someone else’s*, where you have even less control and high odds you won’t be Priority #1:    

“….having to “be there” for anyone else only made my problems seem worse, and made it a lot harder for me to function just day to day. I needed to be there 100% for the kids and myself, and new romantic partners, whether they know it or not, are just as needy as a new pet. You have to have the time and energy (and inclination) to work at a relationship. Just like marriage, ironically.”

Upshot?  If you were madly in love, knew his circumstances better and felt good about them, the divorce was definitely finalizing soon, and somehow you’d found ways to mitigate the Stress, then I might advise you differently. 

But since none of these factors are in place, you might send along this note: “You’re cute; call me when you’re single.” 

Cheers,

Duana

*This article is based in science, much of which has been covered previously in other LoveScience articles linked at the bottom of this entry.  But there aren’t many studies addressing why the not-quite-divorced are dating.  Today’s quotes came from the following letters Wise Readers generously shared privately and gave permission to re-print: 

(Letters were edited for length, and some details were changed to protect anonymity.)

From a man:

….We dated for a couple months before she told me she was married but didn’t wear a ring because she felt divorce was imminent. We only lasted a couple more months before the stress of seeing each other while she was still married overwhelmed us…..We said we would take it up when the divorce was complete, and the house was sold. It only took another 18 years for that to happen. They even had another baby after we had our relationship. Soooo, probably best it ended when it did….. She had one foot out the door for 20 years.  How stressful would that be?

From a woman:

I [married young and am now separated at age 27].  I have no kids.

I have been mostly optimistic about dating. The most difficult part is deciding whether or not to tell potential dates about my “I’m almost officially divorced” status. I mean, I don’t think I need to tell a man when he just asks for my number that I am in the process of being divorced. I mean, it’s way too soon! Unfortunately it has created some problems.

I met this really great guy about 6 months after my separation. At first I wasn’t too interested in him but I went on a date anyways and simply told him that I was divorced. I also told him the reason why. I knew that when I said “I’m divorced” he thought that it was official… I just didn’t want to get into the whole “I’m in the process” conversation. Well, this relationship flourished and we started dating exclusively. At this point I started to feel really guilty about not telling him I was not officially divorced yet, especially because I was keeping contact with my ex regarding the divorce process. I felt that if I told him that truth he would be angry at me for not telling him sooner and not trust me. I felt really crappy although all my friends told me it was no big deal. I just felt like such a liar! We ended things about 6 weeks later because I found that I simply wasn’t ready to date someone exclusively. I learned that I definitely needed time in between relationships.

Now I tell men that I go on dates the truth… some do not ask me out again (I’m assuming that my I’m not-quite-divorced yet status may have something to do with it… or not). Last week I went on a date with this guy and when I told him that I was in the process of getting divorced he said “so you’re married!?” Needless to say, he hasn’t asked me out again… and I don’t blame him. My divorce-in–progress status is a red flag. I tell myself that I shouldn’t date anyone but at the same time it’s so exciting to meet new people and feel attractive, go out, have fun and sex.

My divorce should be finalized within the next upcoming months.

From a woman:

….I was the ‘almost-divorced’ one. I think there is no one ‘right’ answer to the question. There are just so many variables that can make it complicated. I would definitely recommend anyone considering it take the decision very seriously.

After my first marriage deteriorated, my soon to be ex initially wanted me to sign a paper stating we had ‘tried everything we could and could not work things out,’ therefore waiving the mandatory 2-year separation period in our state…I refused because I did not think we had done all we could do to save the marriage. Therefore, we were not divorced very quickly. He got an apartment, and still came ‘home’ after work for months to help put our two young children to bed as neither of us emotionally was ready to tell the kids. Eventually, we told them, and about 2 years later our divorce was final. That’s a long time to be legally married to someone that has clearly moved on (he moved in with his girlfriend after about a year). 

My ex, despite his inability to be faithful to me, was generally a good, responsible person. He knew that it would take me time to re-enter the workforce after having been a stay at home mom to our children, and that after we were divorced I would have no health insurance… So he stayed ‘married’ to me until I was able to find a job and pay for COBRA to keep health insurance. 

…About 3 mos. before the final hearing, I met someone, and although I did not intend to start dating anyone before my divorce was final, it happened. I was quite torn over it, but I knew it was time. I think that one’s mental/emotional state, and how much one has truly worked at recovering from the pain and grief of divorce, has much, much more to do with the timing of dating again than one’s legal status. One person could be divorced and not ready to date again for years. Another could be ‘almost-divorced’ and ready. 

From a man:

I was hoping the cliff’s notes to your article about dating the not-quite-divorced would read, “Don’t”. 

It can be very hurtful to the non-dating spouse to watch this go on. They might be holding out hope for reconciliation. What is gained by jumping the gun on this? Isn’t it preferable for both parties to have a time of mourning or at least reflection before getting back out there?

I guess one upside I can see is clarity for the one dating the near-divorced. If you pay close attention, you can learn a lot about how this person handles conflict.

From a woman:

I went out once and only once with a man who claimed to be ‘separated’. I wasn’t quite as discerning as I became once I’d been out in the wide world for a while. This man had all the accessories: nice looks, good personality, owned his own business. The clinker was this ‘separated’ problem. His idea of separated wasn’t that he and the spouse lived in separate towns, not separate neighborhoods, not even separate houses. They shared a house and she wasn’t aware that he considered himself free to date other women. She just thought he slept in a separate room out of consideration for her. He “wouldn’t get a divorce because she was too old to get a job and support herself,” so he thought he was doing the honorable thing in supporting her financially but planning a bachelor life for himself.  We didn’t see each other again, and I never again was tempted to go out with a ‘separated’ man. Too, too risky.

From a woman:

…. I retain most of what I read in perpetuity. I recall reading an article in a magazine some years ago, I think it might have been Cosmo but that part I’m not entirely sure about, but the meat of the piece was about what a woman should and should not do for herself while she’s getting divorced. One of the biggest things that stuck out for me was dating. Basically, the author posited that her energies are pretty much sucked up with the intricacies of the divorce (even a “good” divorce) and this pretty much dooms a new relationship from the starting gate. Also, they noted that a divorce is a major life change, and it’s important for people to take some time to figure out who they are without their spouse. 

….[When I was separated and where I live], you can’t just up and decide to get divorced. You have to be legally separated for a year before you can even apply to the courts for a divorce. Temporary support and custodial agreements can be put into place in the interim. But if you want to be divorced sooner, you have to prove abuse or adultery. And in those cases, it takes a number of preliminary and actual hearings to hash all that out and with the court dockets already backlogged, it’d take you about a year to prove that anyway so you’re better off just waiting the year and saving yourself about 30 grand in legal fees.

I saw a few people while I was separated. Two were disasters for different reasons. One was so spectacularly normal it’s not worth mentioning, LOL. Anyway, in the first scenario - he was going through a divorce too….And that article was completely correct. At first, I didn’t mind being a shoulder for him to cry on….But I just got sick of the stress vibes from him, always bitching about [his ex’s] latest shenanigans, what have you. I felt like, “Dude my separation is no…day at the beach, the cops have been at my house ELEVEN times in the past 3 months, he hasn’t paid support in two, but I’m not sitting here whinging….” Then he snapped at me one night and said I obviously don’t have a clue how hard it is because I have family to help me take care of my kids. I had my two aunts - ages 84 and 87 respectively. Some help….

The second one was [just a terrible person]….I was going through some of the most difficult shit ever, things NO ONE should ever have to experience, and I was forbidden from bringing up depressing subjects. He was very much in control of every interaction that way…..

I guess what I learned from that one is that is that…having to “be there” for anyone else only made my problems seem worse, and made it a lot harder for me to function just day to day. I needed to be there 100% for the kids and myself, and new romantic partners, whether they know it or not, are just as needy as a new pet. You have to have the time and energy (and inclination) to work at a relationship. Just like marriage, ironically.

More recently, one of my friends was going through a divorce, and he started dating someone before the marriage dissolution was finalized. His new relationship was hot and heavy and took them both by surprise. He certainly hadn’t been looking, but they just happened to meet, through a friend I think, and he just took it as….cosmic good luck? Anyway, she actually moved in well before the divorce, and the soon to be ex-wife was none too pleased, obviously. She assumed he’d been cheating all along, this new relationship got so serious so fast.

Fast forward six months. The relationship failed so damned badly, that the jilted new girlfriend tracked down the ex-wife and spilled every incriminating bit of intel you could possibly imagine. They never became real friends, but she did help his ex-wife do some considerable damage to him in the court system. I can’t rightly say he didn’t earn it….

From a woman:

My separation was more than two years long.  I was willing to wait at first, but my then-husband would not let go.  He failed to come to court meetings, he wouldn’t sign papers, and he told me he would rather die than see our marriage end.  He said I had no right to date because we were ‘still married’, ha!  We were only ‘still married’ because he was refusing the divorce!  I was in my late 30’s and unprepared to spend the rest of my life waiting for him to let go as I watched the good men snapped up by other, younger, women.  He had taken 10 years of my life, and that was enough!  

I didn’t end up with anyone I dated during the divorce, but I think that was more about it not being the right match than not being the right time.  I feel not one shred of shame for dating while I was ‘still married’, although plenty tried to shame me.  Those men were sanity savers and I thank them for showing me that love could happen again.  I am remarried to a man who doesn’t put me in the emotional deep freeze.  He dated during his divorce too, long before we met.  Complicated issue, no one right rule for everyone. 

From a woman:

I married a man two and a half years younger than me 18 years ago.  Although that’s not a big age difference, it does make an impact depending on what age you do get married.  He just turned 22 and I was about to be 25 at the end of the year.  I was in a place to settle down and have a family but I don’t think he was quite as ready as he thought.  He didn’t; shall we say, finish partying.  That carried over into our marriage and one thing led to another to where we just grew apart.  There were also other obstacles that we just couldn’t overcome.  We were also very different people with different backgrounds and beliefs.  That didn’t help things either. 

Needless to say, we separated last year and I have since filed for divorce.  I have begun “semi-dating” someone whom I’ve known and have been friends with for a year now. We started talking and realized that we have so many things in common and come from the same backgrounds.  He’s also not quite divorced but in the process as well and we’ve been great sounding boards for one another. 

We’ve made the decision to not have our relationship out in the open until everything is final.  In the meantime, my ex has been dating out in the open since our separation and his ex has moved her boyfriend into her house. 

They say that there’s someone for everyone and if that’s the case; then when you do find that someone, why can’t you grab that happiness and pursue it as long as you’re smart about it and no one gets hurt?  I was raised by “old fashioned” parents in the belief that marriage is sacred and if for some reason there is a divorce, you shouldn’t date until it’s final.  But, we don’t live in that “old fashioned” world anymore (not saying it’s right or wrong) but life is too short and we’re not getting any younger!  So, for the first time in about 10 years…I’ve found my smile and happiness and I intend to hang onto that and enjoy my life.  And that just so happens to include a very wonderful man whom I’m enjoying my time with and taking one day at a time to see what’s in store for us.

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Do you have a question for Duana?  Email her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com.  You will receive a personal response, and if your letter is ever used on-site, it will be edited and your name will be changed prior to publication. 

Related LoveScience articles:

 —Women really do face worse marriage odds with age, and here’s what to do about it:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/women-as-sex-objects-youth-beauty-and-beating-the-odds.html 

 —Men usually remarry soon after divorce:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/put-a-ring-on-it-trial-separation-versus-trial-marriage.html 

—Jealousy, especially for women, is a tool to test a relationship’s bond and a mate’s love:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/winning-him-backwith-jealousy.html

 —Stepparenting involves many Stresses and high divorce risks, and here’s what to do about that:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/stepmarriages-keeping-love-alive-when-theyre-somebody-elses.html

 http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-stepmarriages-keeping-love-alive-when-theyre-somebod.html

The author wishes to thank the U.S. Census Bureau for stats on men’s and women’s remarriage rates (by length of time from divorce, gender, race, and age): http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/us-remarriage-poster.pdf

And all the authors cited in the related LoveScience articles above.  

Read on!

From Tara: —How Do I Become Attracted To Nice Guys?!—

As a person who has been consistently attracted to jerks, for me, I have learned it has to do with my attachment style. Learned behavior. It’s weird. I have work to do on myself. It has nothing to do with self-esteem for me. Aloof, hard to handle guys keep things from being boring. The only nice guy I ever dated bored me to death. He was just so… nice. Ugh. I do like a guy with a little spice, but jerkiness is carrying that too far. Learning to differentiate between strong, confident, non-doormat guys and then just complete assholes is a skill I have yet to master. That and I’m a sucker for a pretty face. So, I’m taking myself out of the game for a while til I can figure all this stuff out.

From Lyndsay Snyder: —Are Young Women More Attracted To Jerks?—

I love the article, but I think there is more to it than the financial aspect. I know myself, and plenty of my girlfriends, dated guys who were jerks well before we became adult women considering financial support. Might be interesting to dig a little deeper and see what we’re learning as children and teenagers that attracts us toward the “jerk” types?

Duana’s Response:

Dear Tara and Lyndsay,

Thank you for writing. Agreed, there’s likely a lot more to this than finances. Although women generally seek a man who can and will provide and protect, how a woman goes about finding it (and thus whom she finds attractive) is probably guided to a very large extent by her experience and past.

Tara, if  you’ve developed a non-secure attachment style, it’s possible you’re selecting men who represent the unattainable—men likely to fulfill the excitement and disappointment you have come to expect. Yes? No?

Most people most of the time have the same attachment style as their moms did. Attachment style affects a lot of things, including how we behave with partners and how stable the relationship is. I’m guessing it also impacts whom we choose to begin with.   

When we are very young, most of us pick someone who feels like home, literally. Securely attached people, for instance, are likely to come from secure moms; and securely attached folks are likely to find “nice” to be exciting, interesting, sustainable—not dull. One hallmark of the securely attached is agreeing with the statement that sex becomes more fulfilling and exciting the longer a relationship lasts.

I think this may be a major reason most women *don’t* like Jerks. Most women and men are securely attached—about 60%. And they’re seeking someone Nice. And not finding that dull. Quite the contrary.

Tara, attachment style can change. It usually happens accidentally, but since you’re invested in working on yourself, you might want to see if attachment is the thing for you—and if so, how you can change it intentionally.

Here’s the link: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/attachment-styles-overcoming-fear-embracing-intimacyat-last.html

Good for you for finding out more about yourself, and acting to improve your future—whatever your past.

And Lyndsay, you’ve brought up something I reaaaalllyyy wanted to say in the article, but didn’t dare because there’s no science at all on it:

I strongly suspect it’s the *youngest* girls and women who find Jerks most appealing. I think that by a woman’s 30s, most of us are way beyond Jerkdom and much more into Mr. Nice Guy.

Why? Well, keeping in mind that most of us gravitate towards what we learned from Mom and/or Dad, beyond our upbringing is the fact that females seek a high-status guy. Thirteen-year-old girls look for him; 18-year-olds and 28-year-olds and 38-year-olds do, too.  Etc. 

In high school, who are those high-status guys? The Jerks. It’s the Jerks who usually play football; the Jerks who rule the social scene with sarcasm, intimidation and cruel humor; the Jerks who command with their presence and intimidation and popularity.

Over time, though, I suspect that as most women age, we find Jerks less and less likable, nevermind lovable. It’s been interesting to note the number of my own longtime girlfriends who having been attracted to Jerks as young women, want only Mr. Nice Guy now. What changed?

First of all, many of them got emotionally hurt—badly hurt—by Jerks. If a Nice Guy can provide more than a woman can, then Nice Guy will do, economically, once women figure out that the Nice Guy is actually going to do more than just provide. He’s also going to respect, protect, be kind and loving, tell you how lucky he is to have you. After a lot of awful treatment, that feels pretty welcome.

Also, women don’t *only* value resources. Over time, especially, I think we come to value values themselves. Look again at the list of values and qualities Agreeable people possess: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/why-do-women-love-jerks.html

wanting relationships enough to work for them; putting other people first; placing love above achievement, albeit still achieving. Research shows that people who value money more than love are among the most miserable human beings; the top life satisfaction is enjoyed by those who value love far above money.

Maybe over time, we figure out that once our basic needs are met, we’re better off with the guy who offers the most love—the most happiness. Not just the most money.

And so I value, genuinely and deeply and truly, Mr. Nice Guy. Value and love him, and what he represents and brings to our family’s quality of life. And that doesn’t seem so unusual among women past their mid-30’s.

I think, in short, Nice Guys may get a late start…but ultimately, that they finish first in the ways that matter most. And they do just fine economically, too.

From Corvid: —The Fine Line Between Love & Hate—

A former lover of mine once stated that she’d have sex with someone she hated before she would have sex with someone she just mildly disliked. While the above argument you’ve made regarding jerks=financial stability makes total sense from a logical standpoint, I don’t think one can rule out the sometimes confusing emotions one feels when one truly hates someone. Lines can get rather blurry there if the jerk is simply looking for a short-term hook-up…

Duana’s response: —Passion = Intensity—And Are Jerks The Same Thing As Bad Boys?—

Mr. Corvid, your post gets to the core of the issue of Passion. It sounds like your ex-lover preferred a Passion—any Passion—to the humdrumness of everyday or moderate emotions. Hate is a passion every bit as much as love is, and for some, passion in either direction is a whole lot more appealing than any kind of middle-ground.

Your statement about lines blurring when the Jerk seeks a short-term hookup brings up some questions of my own. When I began looking into WWLJ (Why Women Love Jerks), I originally had in mind that Jerks and Bad Boys were the same thing. I thought writing an article on WWLJ would effectively cover WWLBB.

Problem: I’m not so sure that’s true. For instance, Jerks—at least as defined by Disagreeableness—usually have resources, but Bad Boys might be utter slackers who lack any job at all.

Yet Jerks and Bad Boys may have some things in common, such as great looks, a cocky attitude, a sense of fun and surprise, and/or a willingness to take risks that can push the limits and excite the women in their wake.

I’d love for science to—as we say in psychology—operationalize the variables. And then, having defined what Jerkdom and Bad-Boy-ness are, to tackle a series of studies about what the percentages are for the existence of Jerks/Bad Boys; what percentages of women prefer Jerks/Bad Boys to Good/Nice Guys; and which aspects of the woman and of the Jerk/Bad Boy are really most important in shaping a woman’s preference.

Come on, social scientists, hop to it, we’re waiting ;).

From Scott Hanson:  —The Jerk/Bad-Boy Distinction—

So, H♥ [Scott’s wife] prompted me to review and consider — not sure if it is to validate her choice, defend my honor, or take notice. I believe the key distinction b/w jerks and bad boys lies in the agreeableness trait. Both are likely to push for what they want, but in different ways. The BB will step on your toes, the jerk will step on your throat. BBs will bring excitement to the party by pushing limits (and rules); jerks will bring anxiety/stress by pushing to get their way. If you don’t follow the BB, he may leave you behind; if you don’t follow the jerk, he may slash your tires. As for H♥, I will say it takes a strong woman to stick with the ride, and I’d never leave her behind — who would be there to pick me up when the plan doesn’t come together. Great article, Duana.

Duana’s response: —Jerks Aren’t Necessarily Rude…or are they?—

Scott, thanks so much for your comment.  I think you’ve got valid points about possible differences between Jerks and Bad Boys. Still really wish someone would collect the data on that so we could do more than guess…hint, hint!  (Scott’s a social scientist, so that’s for him.) 

One of the things that interested me most about Judge and others’ research on Disagreeable men is this: They don’t think Jerky guys get ahead financially by actually being rude. In their words, “The easiest and, we think, most unlikely interpretation of our results is that persistent rudeness increases men’s salaries (Judge et al., in press, p. 35).”  http://nd.edu/~cba/Nice—JPSPInPress.pdf

Instead, they give evidence that Disagreeable men may engage in actions that are not so much rude, as self-serving; there is a difference.

To wit, sociopaths (the ultimate Jerks, maybe?) usually make *lower* incomes; if extreme Jerkiness paid well, we’d expect otherwise. Also, Fleeson & Gallagher found in 2009 that Disagreeable folks are usually rude only slightly more than Agreeable people are. Disagreeable guys don’t necessarily dick people over, in other words. Instead, they are aggressive about advocating their own position, say in salary negotiations—which means they put themselves forward without necessarily having to put anyone else down. Also, when we look at the behaviors Jerks are willing to engage in to get promotions and higher salaries, Jerks are just more money-motivated; it doesn’t take rudeness to move far away for better pay, just a willingness to move. Jerks are more prone to doing just that.

The Jerk Perk might also exist for reasons that have little to do with Jerkdom and really have more to do with how *Agreeable* men are perceived. In studies, men who are self-effacing in job situations have been liked less by raters, and have been viewed as less-qualified for jobs, compared to men who are Disagreeable. In general, people are harsher in their judgments of Agreeable men—they find men who are “too nice” to be annoying or push-over-esque. So Nice Guys are sometimes perceived to be incompetent *because* they’re seen as too accommodating.

On the other hand, Tieden found in 2001 that when a job candidate expressed anger during the interview, participants recommended higher pay and higher status for the angry applicants. So maybe it really does pay, salary-wise, to be rude.

From Paula:  —Why Don’t Young People Know How To Treat A Mate?—

I think age is a factor, as is obviously your relationship models. I think many people just do not know how to treat other human beings in relationships until we really mature. I once heard relationship radio show hosts say that no one in their twenties knows how to treat a partner. Hearing that helped me forgive my own actions, as well as others.  When we’re younger, there seems to be less on the line, and we take bigger social risks without regard to the feelings of others.

From Corvid: —Culture, Jerks, Bad Boys—

Ah, well, I think the thing to consider is whether we could create a definition of bad boy vs. jerk that is pan Homo sapien. Otherwise, how would you account for the cultural variables? I think it is interesting to note that the BBs I have known over the years actively perpetuated that image knowingly— the more successful ones made it seem effortless— but the jerks would probably be either offended or uncaring at the title. I think drive is the big thing. BBs are risk junkies, jerks simply want financial payoff and are willing to take risks and sacrifice relationships to get it. BBs are just as willing to sacrifice money and relationships to get their risks in. I think the line can get blurry there, a stock trader taking huge gambles might, in fact be both.

Duana’s response: —Culture, & What Is Undermining Marriage In America—

Mr. Corvid: Interesting…especially the part about culture and its role.

Paula: Interesting…especially the part about culture and its role.

See, I think the Young Jerk thing you’re writing about, Paula, wherein (as the host you quoted said) nobody in their 20’s knows how to treat a romantic partner, is very culture-specific and also very recent.

In our own culture, as recently as the 1940’s, couples were routinely marrying in their early 20’s…and treating each other well enough to have marriages that not only lasted a lifetime, but that, in research, were by and large found to be very happy.

Around the world right now, there are plenty of places where kids are taught how to behave such that by their late teens, they will be prepared for treating a partner well. This came up just recently in one of my classes, where a student revealed that her arranged marriage was in her late teens to a guy in his early 20’s. They’ve now been wed 15 years. And it’s worked, very happily. Why? Because both their parents had taught them specifically how to be kind and respectful, and because her father had—get this—spied on the future husband, doing everything he could to make sure his potential son-in-law was *not* a Jerk.

Even now, I see plenty of young Americans who are kind, respectful, and want to please a partner. But they often lack the modeling and leadership, either from their parents, society, or both, to pull it off. We need better training, I think…a more formal introduction of what makes for happy relationships; how crucial kindness and respectfulness are to that; and what that looks like. I try to teach it here and in college classes. But I wish it were actually a subject taught in public school, in an age-appropriate way, all along.

Thank you for the thoughts!

Christine’s response: —Too Many Choices Spoil Marital Happiness—

Great topic!

I agree that the older (and wiser) we women get, the more we appreciate Nice Guys. You simply get tired of the work that goes into maintaining a relationship with a BB/Jerk. Most women get burned a few times and learn not to play with fire again.

You bring up an interesting topic re: learned behavior and successful marriages. I’ve been reading many perspectives on the modern western relationship - and why our divorce rates are so astronomically high. And I’m still scratching my head. Why is it across the developing world today, and just a few generations ago in America, people are/were able to stay together longer? And the million dollar question: How can we mimic that behavior today to insure a long and healthy relationship?

As someone who spent two years living in rural Africa, I saw first-hand the psychological effects of eliminating choices: Happiness. Well, not quite happiness—more like contentment and acceptance. People there (including myself) were generally content with all aspects of their lives (including romantic relationships), despite living with what Westerners would consider, no resources. It seems having the freedom of choice really confuses us/can make us unhappy. It’s like a drug you need more of - hence, always chasing the illusive Mr. Perfect (in the form of BB or Jerk).

I know myself, and I’m sure millions of other American women, would love more insight on what we lost culturally that is contributing to the demise of marriage in the Western world.

Duana’s response: —Choice & Culture, Plus A Few Other Factors In Marriage (Dis)Satisfaction—

Dear Christine, great letter!

Why the American marriage has faltered is a vast topic that will require more space than this entry will permit. But some of the research-validated reasons include:

—A move towards greater incivility in public and private life. Relationships can’t thrive without a large well of kindness and respect.

—An extended youth/adolescence where people are expected to be immature.

—A youth culture where young people are told (by the media, often, and also by their friends—the two top sources of relationship information for adolescents and young adults) that they need to have a lot of dating and/or sexual experience to know what they want. In this view, commitment is seen as variously limiting personal freedom, draining resources, unworkable, undesirable, and possibly dangerous.

—Communities’ and parents’ lack of involvement in aiding marriages to thrive in young couples. Once seen as a community project and now seen as something romantic just between two people, marriage needs a village to raise it, just as kids do. This is something the Amish and some other groups still understand. Help from one’s community is help, indeed.

—A lack of positive modeling. Although 57% of first marriages last a lifetime, that means 43% of first marriages don’t; odds of dissolution increase with subsequent unions, particularly if one party brings kids to the relationship (over 60% divorce rate) or if both do (around 70% divorce rate). This means a lot of kids grow up seeing not only one, but two or more divorces.

—Financial freedom. Women just don’t have to take abuse anymore like they used to. Abuse of women is involved in up to 1/3 of divorces. Arguably, those divorces needed to occur; in the past, economics and systems of male dominance and control prevented women from escaping.

—The rise of the no-fault divorce. In every state, as soon as no-fault became available, divorce rates rose.

—The change in values from no-fault divorce. After (not before) the no-fault divorce laws came into being, a number of sociological studies found that American adults became not only more accepting of divorce, and more willing to pursue divorce as an early solution instead of a later remedy for intractable problems, but more likely to recommend divorce as a solution to their friends. Whereas people used to wait out their unhappiness (a strategy that works over 85% of the time), they now actively advocated for dissolution of troubled unions. Today, troubled couples are often told that their divorce would be ‘for the children’s best’—untrue in over half of the cases, since kids are best-served by married parents unless the parents are abusive and/or at each others’ throats with constant argument in front of the kids. 

—Another change flowing from no-fault was the rise of greater marital dissatisfaction and less investment in marriage even among the happily wed. That is, when no-fault arose and the divorce rate climbed with it, scientists found that even the *happy* married couples became less happy. Women began investing less in their marriages (ie, by going back to work sooner after a child’s birth, not out of economic necessity at the moment, but to protect themselves in the event their mate should abandon them). As did men (as with men who wanted fewer children in case the marriage didn’t last).

—A rise in the perception of commitment and marriage as just one more choice in a vast array of possible choices—no more important or unimportant than any other choice.

Which brings us to your excellent point, Christine: Too Much Choice does matter, profoundly, in happiness. Your experience in Africa mimics what has been found repeatedly in experiments here: having many choices in any area of life has the ironic impact of creating less happiness/satisfaction. Whether we’re talking about tables or cars or mates, the perception of a lot of choice makes people more stressed and less happy about the choices they make. It’s not merely correlational—it’s causal.

Finally, I’m intrigued and saddened by your turn of phrase, the demise of Western marriage. In some ways, it’s untrue—in others, true. Marriage as an event is not in any danger—Americans are rather fond of getting married, still, and we often do it two or three times. But the idea of marriage as a social contract that extends beyond the two people—the idea that marriage means something to our families and our children and our greater world—is demonstrably slipping away. The cost in terms of happiness to adults and children alike, not to mention financial costs, is great. The USA is now considered by some to be a post-marriage society, not because marriage ceased to exist but because culturally and legally, marriage’s power to create a haven of safety and comfort for adults and children has eroded very significantly.  

If you’d like to read more and haven’t yet read it, The Case For Marriage is a research-based book that says it all much better than I have here.  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FC1H6O?ie=UTF8&tag=lovesciencres-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000FC1H6O

Thank you for an important, thought-full letter.

Cheers,

Duana

Do you have a question for Duana?  Email her at Duana@lovesciencemedia.com.  You’ll get an answer—and if your letter is used on-site, your name and identifying info will be changed!

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Related LoveScience articles:

Why Women Looooove Jerks:  

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/why-do-women-love-jerks.html

Attachment Style~How we got the one we have, and how to become Secure:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/attachment-styles-overcoming-fear-embracing-intimacyat-last.html

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-attachment-styles.html

Liars: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/love-at-first-sight-or-the-truth-about-lies.html

Sexy Sons/Why Women Cheat:

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/comments-from-her-cheatin-heart-infidelitys-aftermath.html

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-for-keeping-him-faithful-10-five-guys-to-watch-out-for.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

Linda J. Waite, renowned sociologist on marriage, and the book she’s first-author of called The Case For Marriage –for explaining why marriage is really in danger (it’s not what you think!) 

Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst, for their income-personality research on which the long-term relationship part of today’s posting is based.  In a series of four studies—three correlational, one experimental—they showed that not only do strangers find Disagreeable men most worthy of promotion to management, but also that Disagreeable men make about 18% more per year than Agreeable men (at least 6 other labs in the past decade have also found agreeableness to be negatively related to income).  Judge et al. further found that Disagreeable women make less than even the Agreeable men, and Agreeable women make least of all.  Judge and colleagues have been kind enough to provide the new, full paper here: http://nd.edu/~cba/Nice—JPSPInPress.pdf

McCrae and Costa’s Big 5 Personality Traits.  Wanna see how you score on Agreeableness—and the other personality dimensions, including Openness to experience; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; and Neuroticism?  Go here and test thyself:  http://www.123test.com/personality-test/ 

David Buss and his books on Jealousy and Human Courtship/Mating.  Dr. Buss’s explanation of the sexy sons hypothesis and women’s mating strategies was core to my argument regarding women wanting jerks in the short-term. 

Why do women love jerks?  It’s a question stumping men and women alike.  One self-described gentleman wanted to know if he had to stop being a Nice Guy to get sex; he’d pretended aloof indifference and rudeness to a woman, and it worked.  And by worked, we mean it got him laid.   Other women have written in confusion as to why they are lured in by “subpar” guys when Mr. Perfect is available.       

Or consider this conversation I overheard between a teen girl and her father: “Dad, I can’t help it, I just really like Jerks.”  Response?  “Well, Sweetie, I’ve got good news for you…”

Do (Some) Women Really Love Jerks? 

If it weren’t for the stories and letters, I’d wonder—and I still think it’s atypical.   I strongly prefer Good Guys, and the research indicates that’s the norm.  For instance, the most direct path to creating mutual attraction is being positive and showing you like someone —not being cold and critical.   Also, women and men around the world put non-Jerky traits such as kindness, lovingness, and loyalty at the top of their list of what they seek in a mate.   And 40+ years of solid research on long-term mateships can be summarized this way:  If you can find and be someone kind and respectful, your relationship will work well; and if you can’t, it won’t. 

And yet we all know women who can’t seem to get excited about or stay with anyone but a Jerk. Science hasn’t directly tested Why Women Love Jerks, and scientists I approached didn’t hazard a guess (my Facebook friends’ guesses appear under my signature).  Is it something about the women—their upbringing, desire for excitement, need for someone to fix or fixate upon?  Is it something Jerky Boys bring to the table/boudoir?  Or is it a combination?

There are probably many answers.  What follows are my thoughts based on indirect scientific evidence. 

Mr. Right: Bringin’ Home The Jerk-y

For our purposes, a Jerk isn’t abusive or sociopathic, but rather someone towards the Disagreeable end of one of the Big 5 personality traits.  Before you read on, you might want to take the test yourself:

http://www.123test.com/personality-test/

In numerous studies, the more Disagreeable people are, the more they self-identify as stubborn, argumentative, difficult, critical, aloof, cold, and aggressive in getting what they want—and by their own admission, the less friendly, forgiving, trusting, helpful, warm, caring, cooperative, softhearted, and sympathetic they are.  These folks are less relationship-and-community oriented, less cooperative, and often less well-liked than those who pick Agreeable self-descriptors.  They may even be less happy, since it’s the more Agreeable who report less stress and greater satisfaction with their lives. 

Compared to the Agreeable, the Disagreeable place greater emphasis on money.  And that’s where this gets interesting. 

Across a series of correlations and experiments, Tim Judge and others found that “For men, it literally pays to be a contrarian.” 

  Highly Disagreeable guys run a slightly higher risk of being fired, yet they’re more able to compensate for a firing by getting an even better-paid job.  They’re likelier to do stuff that leads to more ka-ching, such as relocating for money rather than staying for family, or negotiating better salaries and positions, since they don’t hesitate to put themselves and their interests forward. 

It’s not just the Disagreeable who think they should be promoted or make more; apparently, most of us concur.  Jerks are seen as better-suited to jobs involving aggression and competition even though Disagreeable folks *aren’t* better workers or managers in the real world.  To wit, when lay persons— including 20-somethings, who you might think would’ve lived over the stereotypes by now—, are asked to pick promotion candidates, they disproportionately see Disagreeable men as management material. 

Monetarily, Jerks finish first.  Disagreeable men get a Jerk Perk, making 18% more –about $10k annually— than Agreeable male peers.   

Nice Guys don’t finish last, though.  Jerky women get paid only 5% more than Agreeable women, at about an $1,800 difference annually.  But even the Nicest Guys make substantially more than top-paid Disagreeable women, even when accounting for other factors that affect earnings, such as job responsibilities, job status, hours worked per week, length of employment, and education. 

Upshot?  Women place value on men’s ability to garner resources, not just because it made sense in the ancient past but because it still does.  And while Mr. Nice Guy enhances a woman’s access to resources, Jerks provide significantly more still. 

Having learned that, I readily grasped this letter sent to me from writer Naomi Desiderius about her husband (reprinted with name by permission):  “He doesn’t take no for an answer (aside from me), and will not stop until he gets exactly what he wants. I’ve seen what he’s done to people who have been stupid enough to test him, personally and professionally. He would never be unkind to me, but I know that as long as I’m with him, no one could hurt me….He’s not a pushover at work either. That’s how he got to be bossman at his old job, and why he’ll be bossman again sooner than later.  You don’t land two 6-figure a year jobs in a row by being “nice.””

Mr. Right-Now: Good-Lookin’ Liars and their Sexy Sons

If some women are motivated to choose husbands based on Jerkdom as a key to Income, mightn’t they select lovers the same way? 

In relationship media, there’s a genre directed at teaching men to be Jerks—to alternately fake long-term interest, feign indifference, and/or pretend they’ve got more money (or degrees, cars, houses) than they really do.   The idea is that women find Jerks exciting in a moist-panties kinda way, giving Jerks sex they’d never lavish on Nice Guys. 

And I think there’s probably something to it.  In extensive research, some women who’ve *already* secured a Willing, Able long-term provider will select a casual sex partner based partly on his resources.   This desire for a guy with goods—even if he’s not a Good Guy—may also inspire the occasional unpartnered woman to have casual sex.  A cocky attitude may of itself tell a woman a guy has the resources, and lying can cover the rest.   

The one thing Jerks can’t fake is great looks conveying superb Genes.  Women on the hunt for short-term sex report a guy’s appearance as critical to her Yes, and science shows men’s looks are tied to better Genetic outcomes for their kids.  The well-supported argument ala’ evolutionary psych is this: Men’s potential number of offspring is limited only by their supply of nubile women.  But women, who can only produce a few offspring in a lifetime, unconsciously look to their Sexy Sons to pass along Mama’s Genes through her Son’s indiscriminate liaisons.  How to have a Sexy Son?  Copulate with a sexy guy. 

And it’s just a hunch.  But I’d bet sexy guys are often great-looking Jerks. 

So, Wise Readers, what do we make of all this?  I don’t know—you tell me.  Really.  What do *you* think? 

Because until science really tests this straight-on, Why (Some) Women Love Jerks remains anybody’s guess.   

Cheers,

Duana

Do you have a question for Duana?  Email her at Duana@lovesciencemedia.com.  You’ll get an answer—and if your letter is used on-site, your name and identifying info will be changed!

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Facebook commentary regarding Why Women Love Jerks or Bad Boys.  First names are used where permission was granted.  I asked the question two different ways—why women love bad boys and why women love jerks.  Jerks and bad boys might be different things—I wound up only covering ‘jerks’ in the article.  But here are all the responses: 

From Chris: The conversely “nice guy” strategy fails because it lacks any sort of selectivity on the part of the desperate male. The female senses unconsciously that there is a greater risk of the easy-mark desperate guy spreading his resources amongst multiple female. In other words, “if it were this easy for me, then it will be equally easy for others.” But if you can nail down a jerk, the resources will be exclusive to the female since the jerk would be less vulnerable to other competing females. Also, successful jerks will typically have something to counterbalance the jerkiness: money (resources), good looks (attractive genes), and probably some nice guy behavior (stable spouse/parent) mixed in.

From Mimi:   Women believe he would be a good protector maybe? After all a rough around the edges guy usually doesn’t take a lot of abuse.

From Jennifer Myers (whole name used with her encouragement): Jerks keep a gal busy. Some people prefer to be in a constant state of tension because it gives so much flavor and meaning to life.  It seems kind of like the appeal that anxiety disorders have. Albert Ellis said that it is harder to treat anxiety than depression because anxiety keeps you occupied and interested in life, which makes it absorbing and is actually more appealing than trying to find a new absorption.

From SPS: IMHO, it’s okay to date them [Bad Boys], as long as you realize it’s a passing fancy and you are an honorable person, even if he is not.

From Jennifer: Please let me know when that article comes out because I’m intrigued! I’ve always fallen for the good boys, and it’s always worked out for me. I want to know why women like the bad boys…

From Duana: I love the good guys myself. 

From SPS: Once upon a time, I read (Wendy Dilemma? Smart Women Foolish Choices?) women are often pressured by society to be in relationships while men are often respected for remaining single. Women sometimes date ‘bad boys’ knowingly in order to have a guy around, knowing it’s only temporary. If society showed more respect to single women, they would not feel the need to date ‘bad boys’. So the book said. Interesting thought.

From Kristen: Ill mail u my diary!  From my twenties.

From Misty: The bad boys are so freaking hot when they love you, as soon as you are no longer their desire…. They can destroy your world emotionally, physically and verbally…. Then…. They are not so hot, but rather douche bags!

I love me some bad boys, gave my heart to a good boy, and have never regretted it since! I LOVE my good boy!

From Allen: You should interview my wife. ;P

From Sheila: Bad boys r fun! They r fun to figure out. They do have a soft side that only select few will ever know about. Good boys r cool too. but…. I find that the life with them gets boring real fast!

From John:  Women like nurturing, they like the aspect of taking in a lost cause like a lost dog. Men are generally NOT primarily into nurturing. These may be societal stereotypes, but women, by biology, have generally been tied to child raising, while men were hunter-gatherers. I didn’t make the rules.

From Naomi: I married a violent, swiftly and brutally decisive psychopath with a penchant for negotiating with a baseball bat.

So far, it’s worked out well.

From Paula: Evolutionarily speaking, are Bad Boys more likely to be Alpha Males? If women are attracted to power/status maybe that’s it? Or is it a Lone Wolf kinda thing: the mysterious outsider? I dunno. The world was (and still is) a dangerous place for women. I suppose if you think the Bad Boy is on your side and will defend and protect you (and your offspring), that’s what you’d want. IMO, the Bad Boy thing is fine for role-playing - I don’t need a man that will leave me in the dust of his motorcycle.

From Susan: We like them (I think) because, believe it or not, women like to conquer sometimes too, and we like the challenge of making him ‘good’…maybe? Or better said, perhaps we think that WE could be the one they love so much they can’t help but become a better man…lol

We are all truly ridiculous, men and women.

From Duana: Ah, but we’re lovable.

From Mimi: I agree with Susan.  I am thinking back to my youth and the boys that were hard to get or harder to keep (aka bad boys) had greater value. Women are just as competitive as men. :)

From Tara:I have lived the research, if that helps…

From Paula: We desire what is elusive.

From Mimi:  Correct! Or at least my twisted little mind did…lol

From Tex: yes, women are nutz

Patti: It’s like riding a motorcycle without a helmet or walking a tightrope without a safety net. You just can’t beat the thrill of it.

From Mimi: Yes men are nutz as well….otherwise you wouldn’t be chasing us. What fun would that be?

From Asha: I think bad boy hunters are the result of self-esteem issues and/or naivety. Some women don’t understand their worth, or were never taught their worth due to being raised in environments where either they or the feminine leaders in their lives were repeatedly devalued by men. I guess my thinking is this: if you can raise a child to hate someone because of the color of their skin, then you can also (inadvertently) raise a child to hate themselves in relationships.

From Paul: Women like to ride guys who ride motorcycles because of 3 reasons: 1) Excitement, danger is fun 2) Nurse, women want to fix broken wings, even when that’s how people fly sometimes 3) Most of all, a window opens in the mind and all sexual/mating decisions can be traced back to that exact moment. This event is triggered by hormones and the release of dopamine in the brain. Pro sports players also call this the zone, it’s not exclusive to reproduction. It’s a state of

From Corvid: Don’t trust Paul’s opinions on this. He’s a bad boy trying to score by edging out other bad boys with displays of intellect. Shameful practice.

From James T:  a rather refined young lady was dating my older son. My wife asked our younger son why she dated him and his response was “well mom some girls like to date those daring bad boys” My wife’s answer was “yes I understand” that’s why I married your dad….talking bout me Duana….should I come and be a guest spkr in your class….lol

From Lydia:  Some very vital questions: what was his dad like? Was he around? How did dad treat mom? How did dad treat the man? Lots of answers in those questions. They certainly answered my questions after I was able to answer them after 13 years of marriage. No regrets, however.

From Mimi: I married mine and we’ve been together since I was 15.

From Judy: I totally giggled when I read this! Janet Jackson’s song nasty boys was playing on the radio!

From Corvid: Pfft. They don’t mean a thing.

From Anonymous: How does one empirically prove that women like “bad boys”? I’m not saying that it isn’t true, but to study a phenomenon shouldn’t one prove its existence first? And how “bad” are we talking here? Imprisoned? Tattooed? So many questions.

From Mimi:  I think it’s subjective based on the female.

From “Cow, star of the popular Facebook series Ima Cow” (he insisted I put in the entire title): Uh, Cow IS research on this topics. You wants to know about my salacious flirtatings? My raconteur allure? My reprobate charm?

From David:  You must be talking about the “Oh he treats me so bad syndrome”

From Alan: Bad Boys was an AWFUL movie. Nuff said. No research needed.

From Kevin: How bad?

From Nancy: Pheromones? Moths to a flame?

From Cynthia:  wow, I always thought the ladies just had low self-esteem. I have always been a push over for the nice guy, Well almost always…

From SPS: BTW - another thought on ‘bad boys’.   I get tired of men complaining women only want bad boys. I doubt those same men only dated ‘good girls’. It seems the men who complain the most are not *that* good. It seems it’s their excuse for a lack in their own attractiveness. Those so-called good guys often have something very wrong with them - no job, bad habits, unattractive, still lives with mommy. You name it.

Related LoveScience articles:

Liars: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/love-at-first-sight-or-the-truth-about-lies.html

Sexy Sons/Why Women Cheat: information can be found in these pieces;  

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/comments-from-her-cheatin-heart-infidelitys-aftermath.html

http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-for-keeping-him-faithful-10-five-guys-to-watch-out-for.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst, for their income-personality research on which the long-term relationship part of today’s posting is based.  In a series of four studies—three correlational, one experimental—they showed that not only do strangers find Disagreeable men most worthy of promotion to management, but also that Disagreeable men make about 18% more per year than Agreeable men (at least 6 other labs in the past decade have also found agreeableness to be negatively related to income).  Judge et al. further found that Disagreeable women make less than even the Agreeable men, and Agreeable women make least of all.  Judge and colleagues have been kind enough to provide the new, full paper here: http://nd.edu/~cba/Nice—JPSPInPress.pdf

McCrae and Costa’s Big 5 Personality Traits. Wanna see how you score on Agreeableness—and the other personality dimensions, including Openness to experience; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; and Neuroticism?  Go here and test thyself:  http://www.123test.com/personality-test/ 

David Buss and his books on Jealousy and Human Courtship/Mating.  Dr. Buss’s explanation of the sexy sons hypothesis and women’s mating strategies was core to my argument regarding women wanting jerks in the short-term. 

Art Markman’s piece “Are Successful People Nice” in the Harvard Business Review: This is a good summary of the ‘nice guys’ part of Judge et al.’s four-study series.  The advice at the end is worth noting, for those Nice Guys & Gals who want to finish first in income. 

Men chimed in from last week’s vibe column:  Is there a certain-size vibrator that can make up for a small penis?   Is there a wattage that will desensitize the clitoris and/or create vibrator dependence?  What about a frequency of vibrator use? Do older women make better lovers—or at least tell their partners more about what turns them on?

Read on!

 From Anonymous:  —My Penis Is Small—What Size Vibrator Will Come In Handy?—

I’m worried about my penis size and wonder if there’s a certain size vibrator or dildo to get as back-up?

Duana’s response: —You Can Learn A Lot From What Women Use When They’re Alone—

 Anon, did you find me by looking up Penis Size?  That’s the most-read LoveScience column right now, and if you haven’t seen it yet, here it is:  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-size-matters-penis-size-and-womens-satisfaction.html. 

And here’s the Q&A that goes with Penis Size:  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-when-size-matters-penis-size-and-womens-satisfaction.html

In a nutshell, “the vast majority of women are satisfied with their partner’s penis size.  In fact, 84% of USA women are “very satisfied” with their partner’s size (14% want larger and 2% want smaller)—and a third are satisfied even when they define their partner as “small”!”

Yet I keep getting letters from guys who think they can’t satisfy a partner because of small penile dimensions.  To them, I say, read the articles linked above, and then read this:

Bluntly put, women are doing what they like when they masturbate.  And what they like is for their clitori to be lovingly stroked in very specific, individualized ways.  When women are alone, most don’t put *anything* into the vagina during masturbation.  They get themselves off by stimulating the clitoris only.  Any and all peni (and hands, toys, tongues…) can reach the clit. 

But what about women who use insertion to get off?  They mostly use their fingers—which don’t reach nearly as far in as the vast majority of peni.  And those who use objects inside the vagina to reach climax?  Typically use objects that are at or smaller than the size of the average male penis.  The most popular vibrator/dildo sizes are 5-6 inches…and usually get applied externally a lot more than internally. 

Upshot?  Toys are fun; if you and your partner like ‘em, use ‘em.  But toys aren’t replacements for a flesh-and-blood Man who comes with the ability to touch, to tease, to hug, to hold, to whisper, to adore, to *relate* with.  No dildo ever invented has told a woman she tastes fantastic.  No vibrator ever held a woman as she drifted off to sleep in a totally sated post-coital haze o’ bliss.  

Use normal-sized toys—and your lips, and tongue, and fingers, and ears, and brain, and yes, your penis—because they bring your partner pleasure, not because you are insufficient. 

You are enough.  Proceed with joy!

From GC: —Does Wattage/Frequency Of Vibration Create Vibrator Dependence?—

Does wattage or frequency of the vibration matter in the strength of the dependence?….I would expect that the type of successful outcomes determine the dependency rate. Oh the imagination goes wild. I totally agree with the statement about women who use such appliances learn much more about themselves and what makes them gush so to speak. 2 Cents.

Duana’s response:

GC, I looked into whether any studies show a potential for permanent numbing/desensitization of the clitoral area, based either on frequency of use or intensity of vibration. All the sources I found said there was no such outcome. 

All the studies show only positive ongoing effects to masturbating with a vibrator—such as enhanced sexual desire, better feelings of satisfaction with their sex lives over-all, easier climaxing, greater frequency of climaxing, getting wetter, and feeling more excited. 

Almost half of men use vibrators too, by the way—and they report happy sexual effects as well ;). 

Importantly, *no* study I could find—anywhere—found negative outcomes of using vibrators, with or without a partner. 

So is it possible for women to over-stimulate?  Probably—anything can be done to excess, including drinking water, or eating broccoli.  But I’m guessing women stop well short of that mark.  When the good vibrations cease to be rewarding, and actually feel more punishing, folks probably unplug. 

On the other hand, the data are pretty clear that women do learn more about themselves when they masturbate, with or without toys and with or without a partner. So you’re right!  Thanks for your 2 cents. 

From Dan Knipe: —Women, Tell Us What You Want~It’s A Turn-On And We Will Do It!—

Hey, all I can say as a guy is that I wish that women were more upfront about that sort of thing! As a rule, we men generally like to please our ladies because if the lady is happy, she’ll want to be happy more often, which only works out in our favour!

So my suggestion to every lady is to sit down with her man and have a conversation that starts with the sentence, “Sit down, shut up, and I’m going to tell you in detail what gets me off.” You’ll find that careful notes are taken. And if toys are required, the only thing a guy is going to think is, ‘That is so HOT!’ We’re easy that way.

From Steve O’Connor: —What Dan Said!—

Not to say women shouldn’t practise on their own; They damn-well should! If a lady doesn’t know for herself what works, nothing a guy can do is going to help! as I’ve aged, what I’ve found is that there’s a definite correlation between a woman’s age and her willingness to express her needs in that area- however, like all things in life, your mileage may vary. 

Duana’s response: —Women Should Show & Tell…But It’s Tough For Many—

Dan, Steve, thanks for your notes (and allow me to note that you wanted your real names used). 

Women learn to come.  Partners learn how a specific woman gets off—rules used for one woman may bore or annoy another.  Sex is much more satisfying and pleasurable if the woman *tells* her partner what she has learned about herself—fact!

Yet few young women will do the Show ‘N Tail that could liberate them and their partners.  Have you read the article on what parents teach kids about sex?  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/sex-kids-have-questionsyouve-got-answers.html

And the Q&A that goes with it?  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-s-e-x-kids-have-questions-youve-got-answers.html

It’s pretty clear that American adults are raised by uptight parents most of the time—parents who either tell them nothing about sex, or give the message (implied or directly stated) that sex is dirty, that touching yourself is dirty, that nice girls don’t do it (sex or masturbation), or that nice girls don’t enjoy it.  Yes, STILL. 

Which means, Steve, you’re correct.  It takes a lot of women quite a few years of adult sexual relating to free themselves up enough to fully explore pleasure with themselves and then a partner—to say, “This is what works for me, let me show you.” 

I hope many an older woman will pass this article along to many a younger woman, maybe with a little note: “It Gets Better.” 

Thanks for the encouragement, gentlemen. 

Cheers,

Duana

 Do you have a question for Duana?   Write to her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com.  You’ll get a response, and your real name is never used on-site. 

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Related LoveScience articles:

Vibrator dependence: Can using a vibrator make it harder to come with a partner? http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/vibrator-dependence-can-using-a-vibrator-make-it-harder-to-o.html

Masturbation: Its impact on a marriage (includes results from the LoveScience survey on masturbation): http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/masturbation-marriage.html

Questions and Answers about Masturbation and how it affects a long-term relationship’s sexuality: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-masturbation-marriage.html

Penis size: The Hole Truth http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-size-matters-penis-size-and-womens-satisfaction.html. 

And here’s the Q&A that goes with Penis Size:  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-when-size-matters-penis-size-and-womens-satisfaction.html

 What USA Parents Tell Kids About SEX—and What Needs Telling:  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/sex-kids-have-questionsyouve-got-answers.html

And the Parent Sex-Talk Q&A:   http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-s-e-x-kids-have-questions-youve-got-answers.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

Debra Herbenick, Michael Reece, and others, for research in 2009 showing vibrators’ popularity; about53% of women and 45% of men in the USA use one, alone and/or with a partner.   These surveys showed only positive outcomes associated with women’s use of vibrators, such as women having higher desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasmicity if they used vibrators.  And the men’s use was also correlated with outcomes such as improved erectile function, satisfaction with intercourse, orgasmicity, and sexual desire.  

Robert Crooks & Karla Baur, whose 11^th edition of the textbook Our Sexuality provided the only science-based advice or justification for occasionally masturbating without a vibrator so that a real-life partner could have a shot at replicating what gets a particular woman off.  They said advised that a woman can learn to orgasm from vibrator use, but after that….“it is helpful for her to return to manual stimulation….because it is easier for a partner to replicate a woman’s own touch than the stimulation of a vibrator.”  (From pp. 425-426, under the heading, ‘Becoming Orgasmic’.) 

Cindy Meston & David Buss, who expound on their research on Why Women Have Sex in a book by the same name.  In it, Meston points out that women –unlike men—*learn* how to have an orgasm.  And by the way, if you’re a human who just wants to know more about why humans (male and female, not women only) have sex—here’s a PDF of Meston & Buss’ free article:http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/MestonLAB/Publications/WhyHaveSex.pdf

The Guide To Getting It On, 6^th Edition, wherein ‘vibrator holidays’ of one week a month are recommended for anyone finding non-vibe stimulation to no longer be enough during partnered sexuality.  They didn’t provide any scientific justification for the recommendation, but based on the science I reviewed on learning/operant conditioning and women’s sexuality, it makes sense.    

More important is The Guide’s discussion of phthalates, pliable plastics present in many vibrators and dildos (non-vibrating items for insertion); if you use vibes/dildos made of glass, 100% silicon, and/or very hard plastic, you should be able to avoid ingesting possibly hazardous chemicals in your nethers. 

I’ve been single for a few months, and my vibrator and I have gotten rather close.  I’m starting to worry I won’t know how to respond to a flesh-and-blood guy.  Is there such a thing as vibrator dependence?  If so, how do I deal with it?

Erica

Dear Erica,

I’ll admit it, when I first read your letter, I thought:  How close?  Do you call out Oh My Vibrator! at crucial moments?  Is one of its designated speeds Who Needs A Man?  And most ominous of all:  Have you chipped a tooth?  

Seriously, let’s get a grip on the issue.  Scholarly investigations on Vibrator Dependence—the inability to climax without vibrator assistance—are exceedingly rare.  None of my sexuality resources includes the term; the one article I located online was shaky at best.  And the remaining pieces were about engineering, and not about engineering better vibrators.  Soooo not sexy. 

Perhaps this is topic so taboo, science won’t touch it:  “Dear Dr. Getoff, we regret that your intended study, ‘The Eternal Buzz: Vibrators’ impact on partnered orgasm’ fails to meet our ethical standards…”  That sort of thing.  But I doubt it.  Not only is there mounting research on other touchy topics—likemasturbation—, but there’s science specific to vibrator use. 

Exhibit A: Yes!  Yes!  Oh My God, Yes!  Sex With Machinery Is Good For You.

You’re likely aware that vibrators were created in the 1860’s to help doctors treat female ‘hysterias’.  The medicos—smart enough to earn MD’s, yet largely ignorant that what they were causing was orgasm—were literally tired of taking 20-40 minutes to please m’ lady.  They and their patients were relieved when a machine enabled the docs to temporarily heal more patients at a fraction of the time, effort, and repetitive-motion injury. 

We’ve come a long way, baby.  Behold the EROS, the first and only non-pharmaceutical device intended to enhance clitoral blood flow for long-term relief of numerous female sexual disorders.  Place the little suctiony thing over your clitoris, follow the timing directions—60 seconds on, 60 off, 60 on, 60 off, three to four times per week—and according to author Mary Roach’s very personal trials, you’ll be so satisfied, the damned thing will convert you into a “masturbatory layabout.”  Experiments show the Eros causes women to get hornier, wetter, orgasmic-er, and just plain happier with their sex life.  Whether or not you’ve experienced sexual dysfunction or even radiation treatments for cervical cancer that can physically impair sexual function and feeling, EROS works. 

Despite smart women’s collective willingness to do whatever we can for science, the $375 price tag—about 8x the cost of the Cadillac of vibes—plus the EROS’ by-prescription-only availability in the USA may keep the EROS out of reach.  But if our curiosity must remain unsated, at least our libidos can still run wild, because an ordinary vibrator may well supply what the EROS does.  Although no lab has yet compared the two, vibrator-wielding survey respondents’ results seem eerily similar to experimental results via the EROS:  The near-53% of American women using vibrators report higher desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasmicity than non-vibe-using women. 

Exhibit B: Can Sex With Machinery Can Teach You To Only Come With Machinery?  Maybe.  But that’s easily fixed. 

With results this positive, it’s no wonder few scientists are examining a possible bad side of Good Vibrations.  Yet letters like yours, plus dozens of Google hits about normal people experiencing or worried about Vibrator Dependence, plus some guys telling me their partner can only get off with a vibrator—get me wondering.  And when I couple those observations with facts of learning and sexuality, things get curiouser and curiouser.

Consider what we know per science: 

 —A major mode of learning is operant conditioning, where whenever we do a thing that gets rewarded—like plugging in, then getting off—we become more likely to do that particular thing again.  Repeated rewards strengthen the rewarded behavior:  The more we vibrate, the more we wanna vibrate. 

—Unlike men, women must generally learn to have an orgasm.  Most women learn most easily with masturbation, and research shows it’s easiest for women to learn to orgasm with a vibrator. 

—Women are highly variable from one to the next in terms of what gets us off.  We have better sex when we teach partners to replicate what we know works for us.  And champion banjo-pickers notwithstanding, few partners can create or sustain the stimulation of a vibrator. 

So based on all that, here’s what I think: If you rely *only* on orgasm by vibrator, you could indeed train your body to be responsive mainly, or maybe exclusively, to the vibrator. 

What’s The Fix?

Fortunately, even if you were Vibrator Dependent, there’s a simple solution:  Unplug until you’ve fully reconnected with yourself via hands-only masturbation—techniques a flesh-and-blood guy can replicate.  Then—after you’ve gotten back in touch with yourself acoustically— you can turn up the amp again and play electrically, taking acoustic breaks as needed or desired. 

And maybe include toys in some of your human interactions.  As sociologist Pepper Schwartz has so aptly put it, vibrators aren’t guys’ competition; “they’re your colleagues.” 

Whatever you do, don’t toss out your toys.  Variety is the spice of sex-life.  Orgasms are literally great for the heart and the head, not only the loins. And no study yet has discerned any but positive outcomes from Good Vibrations. 

Cheers,

Duana

Do you have a question for Duana?   Write to her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com.  You’ll get a response, and your real name is never used on-site. 

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Related LoveScience articles:

Masturbation: Its impact on a marriage (includes results from the LoveScience survey on masturbation): http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/masturbation-marriage.html

Questions and Answers about Masturbation and how it affects a long-term relationship’s sexuality: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-masturbation-marriage.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

Debra Herbenick, Michael Reece, and others, for research in 2009 showing vibrators’ popularity; about53% of women and 45% of men in the USA use one, alone and/or with a partner.   These surveys showed only positive outcomes associated with women’s use of vibrators, such as women having higher desire, arousal, lubrication, and orgasmicity if they used vibrators.  And the men’s use was also correlated with outcomes such as improved erectile function, satisfaction with intercourse, orgasmicity, and sexual desire.  

Robert Crooks & Karla Baur, whose 11^th edition of the textbook Our Sexuality provided the only science-based advice or justification for occasionally masturbating without a vibrator so that a real-life partner could have a shot at replicating what gets a particular woman off.  They said advised that a woman can learn to orgasm from vibrator use, but after that….“it is helpful for her to return to manual stimulation….because it is easier for a partner to replicate a woman’s own touch than the stimulation of a vibrator.”  (From pp. 425-426, under the heading, ‘Becoming Orgasmic’.) 

Ricardo Munarriz and others, for research on the EROS Clitoral Therapy device that showed the EROS does indeed increase blood flow to the clitoris.  (Another study by other researchers showed enhanced blood flow to the vagina as well: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11480099.) Others’ research using the EROS on women with and without various sexual disorders finds that the EROS is helpful in enhancing sensation, lubrication, orgasmicity, and over-all sexual satisfaction: http://www.eros-therapy.com/index.cfm?option=view&newsitemid=1044&optionid=546.  It even works to enhance these qualities for women who may suffer a loss of sexual function following treatment for cervical cancer:http://radonc.ucsd.edu/news/Documents/CTD_FSD_CA_Survivors.pdf.

However, none of the studies assessed EROS’ efficacy versus manual masturbation and/or use of commercially available vibrators—which some of the scientists admit might do just as much good, sans EROS’ $375 price tag!

Mary Roach, author of Bonk: The curious coupling of science and sex.  Her chapter on vibrators, dildos, and the science behind the EROS Clitoral Therapy device (which she jokes will turn women into ‘masturbatory layabouts’) is not to be missed.  In fact, the entire book is screamingly funny and informative. 

Cindy Meston & David Buss, who expound on their research on Why Women Have Sex in a book by the same name.  In it, Meston points out that women –unlike men—*learn* how to have an orgasm.  And by the way, if you’re a human who just wants to know more about why humans (male and female, not women only) have sex—here’s a PDF of Meston & Buss’ free article:http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/MestonLAB/Publications/WhyHaveSex.pdf

Rachel P. Maines, who wrote a history of the vibrator.  The vibrator was invented in the 1860’s to relieve doctor’s tired hands (they were treating ‘hysteria’ by giving women hand-jobs).  If you’d like to take a virtual tour of the vibrator’s history, visit the Good Vibrations Antique Vibrator Museum, in person or online here: http://antiquevibratormuseum.com/index-1.html 

Joani Blank, founder of Good Vibrations, and author of Good Vibrations, The New Complete Guide To Vibrators 

The Guide To Getting It On, 6^th Edition, wherein ‘vibrator holidays’ of one week a month are recommended for anyone finding non-vibe stimulation to no longer be enough during partnered sexuality.  They didn’t provide any scientific justification for the recommendation, but based on the science I reviewed on learning/operant conditioning and women’s sexuality, it makes sense.    

More important is The Guide’s discussion of phthalates, pliable plastics present in many vibrators and dildos (non-vibrating items for insertion); if you use vibes/dildos made of glass, 100% silicon, and/or very hard plastic, you should be able to avoid ingesting possibly hazardous chemicals in your nethers. 

Finding someone just like you is usually a good bet for a great match.  But when should you avoid picking a mate with your same attachment style?  What styles tend to wind up (happily) together?  What style partner should you pick if you yourself are Insecurely attached?  And how can you change your sweetie’s style? 

Read on!

From Kimberly: —I’m Insecure; Who Should I Pick, And How Can I Change A Partner?—

Loved the article although it made me sad. I was engaged to a man who as I read this article I’d say is avoidant, and I am anxious ambivalent. He was always distancing and I was clamoring to win him back. I always felt there wasn’t enough intimacy, and he felt there was too much. It was a nightmare. Is our pattern unusual, and what do you know about the match between attachment styles and couples’ success? Should I pick someone with my same style in the future? Any other advice?

PS: Your article told me how to change myself, and now I’m wondering, is there a way to change someone else? Could I have done something to keep my fiance?

Duana’s response:

 Dear Kimberly, I’m sorry your engagement didn’t work out. One of the more common issues in long-term relationships is the dreaded Intimacy Gap (term courtesy of relationship author Susan Page)—a phenomenon where one partner craves more genuine sharing of all aspects of the self than the other does.

Here’s the thing: We all want some connection. Evolution long ago cast from the Gene Pool those who didn’t play at all with others. But some of us want a lot more real sharing than others do, often due to attachment style differences. And that’s when you fall into The Gap.

Intimacy, which Susan Page defined as “sharing all aspects of the self without fearing loss of identity”, is a gradual thing in its real form; indeed, it’s smart to become intimate slowly, only revealing your core Self across time, because it’s time and experience with others that allow us to make sure our partner is trustworthy and loyal.

But people with Insecure attachment styles will often fake or rush intimacy, becoming pseudo-intimate because that way, at least a few emotional needs are quickly met with less investment and lower odds of getting hurt.

For instance, folks with Anxious/Ambivalent attachment, such as yourself, may want a lot of emotional reassurance and personal revelations (too) early and often in the relationship. Intimacy—or its signs—can assuage fears that you’re more in-love than you are beloved, that you are expendable and will be abandoned. But the reassurance is short-lived. Then it’s time for your partner to negate these frightening emotions by showing more commitment, emotional attachment, and admiration—or else watch as the Anxious/Avoidant partner is filled with greater and greater fear.

On the other hand, people with Avoidant styles—such as your ex— tend to want the immediate *trappings* of intimacy—perhaps some intense emotional sharing up-front, combined with sex—because they don’t want or are fearful of the gradual and continual unfolding of Self that is true intimacy. They may confuse their partners by emotionally and physically distancing just when things seemed like they were going great. These are the lovers who look at you like you’re nuts when you express an interest in moving the relationship to the next level…after they themselves have alluded to or outright planned it; the partners who tell you their last lover caused all the trouble in the relationship—but then they fabricate issues just when things are perking along problem-free with you; the boyfriends and girlfriends who offer their bathrobe and house key so you can come by anytime—then get cold and aloof when you use said bathrobe and/or key; the would-be spouses who offer an engagement, then won’t set the date; the husbands or wives who manage to be married-but-not-married—taking separate vacations, not consulting their spouse about matters great or small, and generally acting single even though they signed The Piece Of Paper. I suspect that most Come Closer, Go Away behavior at every level of relationship has Avoidant attachment as its backdrop. As you know, it’s painful~and confusing as heck if you’re on the receiving end.

And ironically, Avoidant people *are* more likely to do what Anxious/Ambivalent types fear: abandon partners. Which means that the concerns you may have had all along with your ex may have been warranted, and the signs of an Intimacy Gap you saw really were indicators of separation to come.

Which brings us to your questions and answers:

“Is our pattern unusual, and what do you know about the match between attachment styles and couples’ success?” and “Should I pick someone with my same style in the future?”

Kimberly, I don’t have stats on how unusual the Avoidant + Anxious/Avoidant pairing is, but it’s common enough that I regularly get letters from some very confused, hurt and angry folks who want more intimacy while their partner does his or her—but usually his—damndest to keep that Gap wide open.

The couples with the greatest odds of success are those where both mates have a Secure attachment style coming into the relationship—and as research on 144 young dating couples by Jerry Simpson showed, men and women alike would rather date someone with a Secure style even if they themselves aren’t Secure.

Which makes sense. Because in the two-Secure-people scenario, both partners are ready, willing and able to mutually trust, respond to, depend upon, and gradually open up to one another for lasting intimacy. And if you are Insecure but your partner is Secure, then the Secure partner is doing their best to respond appropriately, take troubles in stride, and make the relationship run smooth.

Although I’ve written elsewhere that finding a partner just like oneself tends to be ideal, that’s a No in this case. I wouldn’t advise you to find a person matching your own Anxious/Ambivalent style. Having two people who need very high levels of reassurance; two people likely to see problems where there aren’t any; two people who might see a failure to call at lunch as outright rejection; two people who might, just sometimes, be a bit like Human Cling-Wrap…well, it’s asking a lot of a partner and a relationship. And it’s volunteering for a ton of stress.

And stress is not our friend when it comes to building a life with someone else.

Above all, I’d recommend avoiding another relationship with someone of Avoidant style—especially because you are a woman. Women—even when Secure—have an evolved psychology that tells us to feel happy and calm in the presence of Ye Olde Willing & Able Provider & Protector. If a guy is running away from you, as an Avoidant man is, then how willing is he to commit? And how satisfying is that ever going to feel? Not very.

Indeed, in Simpson’s study, women were least happy with Avoidant men. And men—whose evolved psychology says to hold out for a woman who is high-status—tend to see Anxious/Ambivalent women as trouble; the insecurity can seem desperate. And longtime LoveScience readers know what comes after that: There’s never been a perfume called Desperation. 


 

“Is there a way to change someone else? Could I have done something to keep my fiance?”

Kimberly, I don’t know the details of your breakup, but I doubt you could have kept your fiancé, at least not in a way that would have made him worth keeping.

First of all, your combination of styles, with neither of you being Secure, and with the male being the Avoidant one, is likely to generate continual problems. Your feeling that he was never giving enough was not likely to lessen; his feeling that he was being (I’m guessing) imprisoned or overwhelmed with emotional demands was going to escalate. Perpetually.  Some couples find ways to Be Happy Anyway, but why sign on for a perpetual issue as thorny as that when other options abound? 

Second, people vary on dimensions of avoidance (how much we seek or avoid intimacy and interdependence with others) and anxiety (how much we worry that another will care for us). So some have more intense Insecurity than others; and there are Avoidant people, and then there are AVOIDANT people. To the extent that your ex was very set on never trusting/depending on someone else, another person’s example and input was either going to be non-influential, or might have created push-back where the highly AVOIDANT person runs away screaming. Even a Secure person is no match for someone committed to not committing.

But let’s say your ex had been just a little bit Avoidant. And you had been Secure. Or even better, let’s say you were the Avoidant one (providing a hard-to-get, high-status feeling for the man pursuing you) and he was Secure (providing the pursuit cues women  need so we can relax and Trust). In that case, I’d have said: Okay, let the Secure guy gradually win over the slightly Avoidant woman.

Ultimately, though, I suspect that in cases where a Secure partner creates the experiences of loving trustworthy safety that help an Insecure partner to change, the influence is unintentional. And it’s risky to spend a lot of time on a program of transforming another person, too. Changing ourselves is tough enough. Changing others is something that only works if the other signs up…and often, not even then.

Upshot? Instead of finding someone to change, find someone to stand by as you change yourself. Seek out a Secure mate and work on changing yourself to be open to his Security. You’ll be changing the one person you’ve got the best shot at—you—and you’ll be allowing someone else to help you do that. I was you—the Anxious/Ambivalent—and with efforts outlined in last week’s article, plus a Secure mate, I did change. Several of my clients have likewise become Secure. It can be done. I wish you all the best.

From Mocha’s Mom: —Goodwill Among The Insecure; And Is Attachment Style Related To Morality?—

Two things occur to me: (1) it must be incredibly hard to have goodwill in a marriage where one or both partners do not have a secure attachment style. Is it possible to build goodwill without that factor? What if both partners have the same non-secure style — does that enable them to have goodwill due to understanding each other?

(b) Does attachment style play a role in morality? Are people with one attachment style “gooder” than people with others?

Duana’s response:

Dear Mocha’s Mom,

Goodwill—holding our partner’s best intentions in mind and cutting them some slack even if they disappoint us, because we know they’re doing the best they can—probably is much harder to come by when both partners lack Secure attachment.  For example, it’s tough to see how much of a break folks are going to give each other if one partner feels trapped (Avoidant) and the other feels rejected and unloved (Anxious/Ambivalent), or if both people feel trapped/rejected/unloved.  Also, if neither person in the relationship is Secure, then we can expect a lot less goodwill just because people with non-Secure styles tend to see ill intentions and problems even where there are none, and tend to have a much harder time accepting what the partner offers as being Enough. 

So having at least one Secure person in a union is a Very Good Thing. Having two is even better.

But morality? You’ve just totally stumped me. Whether Secure people are more moral might depend on how we define morality.   If we equate morality with causing fewer problems in our relationships, graciously accepting what other people have to offer, responding appropriately to others’ needs, trusting easily where warranted and moving on where trust is unwise, and generally being dependable? Then yes, perhaps the Secure are more moral.

But researchers define morality as comprising two parts: self-control and empathy.  To be moral, we have to be able to stop ourselves from doing harm even when we are sorely tempted, as when we are inclined to strangle someone in an argument but we do not; and we must be able to understand that other people feel as we do—they have the same wants, needs, and emotions we ourselves possess. 

We learn self-control at our parents’ knees: “Yes, you can play with your friend after you hang up your coat.”  “You can have snack time after you make your sandwich for tomorrow.”  You can do this fun thing after you’ve done this less-fun thing. 

And we can likewise learn empathy from early childhood training:  “How would you feel if someone hit you?”  “If you take Tommy’s toy, what do you think he will feel and do?”  Other people have the same rights, needs, wants, and feelings that you do.    

By that moral definition of empathy + self-control, I doubt if there is any one attachment style that is more moral than another. 

According to the Big Cheese of moral reasoning, Lawrence Kohlberg, the most moral people are those who believe and behave in line with perceived Universal Rights even when the law or society disagrees (fascists, authoritatians, and/or totalitarians need not apply).  For instance, in Hitler’s Germany there were those who chose to hide Jewish neighbors at great risk to their own lives. These people not only controlled impulsive (and rational) fears—they acted out of line with their society and laws at the time for a greater cause, the support of their neighbors’ Universal Right to remain alive.

That’s morality, whatever one’s attachment style.  And although I can’t prove it, I’ll bet those who saved their Jewish neighbors had all the different attachment styles.  Their morality sprang from their beliefs that humans are of value, that life is of value, and that they were to support those beliefs through action.   Because it is Right. 

Thanks as ever for stimulating thoughts and the time and energy you devote to sharing them for everyone’s benefit.

Cheers,
Duana

Do you have a question for Duana?  Email her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.

Psssst: Sharing this and all LoveScience articles is welcome and encouraged.  Thank you!

Related LoveScience articles:

The article on which this Q&A was based: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/attachment-styles-overcoming-fear-embracing-intimacyat-last.html

Other articles at LoveScience that discuss attachment can be found at this link: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/tag/attachment-style

Why you should look for someone very similar to yourself: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/display/Search?moduleId=9130610&searchQuery=traits+for+a+mate

When Opposites attract: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-opposites-attract-happily-or-crabbily-ever-after.html

What if you have Perpetual Problems in your union?  Here’s how to Be Happy Anyway: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/solving-your-unsolvable-problems-what-happy-couples-know.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

Susan Page, who while not being a social scientist, has a series of outstanding books the ideas of which are firmly supported by social science.  Concepts such as goodwill, the Intimacy Gap, and the definition of intimacy are just starting points.  Here’s one of my favorite of her books for singles who want to find a great lifemate: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0609809091/ref=cm_rev_all_1?n=283155

Jerry Simpson, whose research elucidated which attachment styles tend to work in couples, for men, and for women—for better and for worse. 

Lawrence Kohlberg, whose research identified basic components of the different levels of morality, including the rare postconventional moral reasoners who do what is right because of a Universal Human Right—whether or not their laws or society agree with them. 

I was raised by a perfectionist mother and a loving father who traveled a great deal. Our extended family was thousands of miles away. Mom was in leadership positions at church and community groups and never delegated well. I learned that if you want something done right, do it yourself. She didn’t have many close friendships, and I never learned how to form them. My siblings are the same way. We talk about how hard it is to make close friends. My ex-husband often scared me because it felt like he wanted to merge completely with me. I prefer to have some separateness. My current boyfriend complains that I don’t trust him enough to let him take care of me. How do I learn this skill that affects my life so much?

—“Becky”

Dear Becky,

Thank you—and 58 others—who took the Attachment Style Questionnaire.  Your responses, fully reported under my signature, got right to the heart of why I wanted to discuss attachment:  Some people have a tremendous advantage in forming intimacy and feeling comfortable with interdependence, and maybe there’s a way to help more folks obtain that edge.    

Where does our attachment style come from?

Thanks to research starting in the 1970’s to now (please see links to articles at the end of today’s post), we know that attachment styles initially come from our Experience with whoever has The Mom role, and that The Mom’s own attitude and attachment style tend to be carried forward by her children—as your letter indicates may have occurred with you. 

A mom who finds it easy to bond with and mutually depend on others tends to be highly responsive and available to her babies, and her babies then learn that others can be relied on to meet their needs.  This responsive-and-available dynamic remains vital at least through middle school.  Kids on its receiving end usually become Secure themselves—a style that frequently helps those children for many decades of their lives. 

What are the four attachment styles, and how do they affect our adult relationships?    

Secure adults tend to develop low *anxiety and low **avoidance when it comes to forming and keeping relationships through life.  They trust their partner, accept the offered intimacy without blowing problems out of proportion, and respond the way their partner needs them to—sustaining not only the relationship’s length, but its happiness.  And in various studies, including ours at LoveScience, about 60% of infants and adults have won the style lotto for Security.  As one woman on our survey said,

 “I…like to see the good in people.  Even when I see the wrong!  What can I say, a true optimist!” 

But there are three other styles, and all three tend to do stuff that plain makes it tougher to relax, already, and Be Happy With Someone Else—because these other styles involve high anxiety, high avoidance, or both.  Non-Secure-style folks tend to be a lot more prone to noticing problems, enlarging on them, and even creating issues/dramas that don’t really exist.  They may not respond as needed, and/or accept the support their partner can give.  No wonder so many find themselves stymied in their search for a good relationship. 

For instance, folks who self-i.d. as Anxious/Ambivalent (aka Preoccupied) have high anxiety but low avoidance; they tend to feel sure of other people’s lovability, but hesitant about their own.  These are folks who say they’d like to merge totally with another person, perhaps like your ex-husband wanted with you, but they worry they’ll scare others away.  Some Preoccupied folks worry so much, they begin protecting against eventual abandonment by doing the one thing that really could get them dumped: having affairs!  Although just 7% of our sample identified with this style, other studies find that about 15-20% of babies and adults are Anxious/Ambivalent.  Said one woman,

“I am very much an extrovert and tend to be able to help people open up quickly. Intimacy comes naturally to me, but I do crave stability.”

Said another:  “I…have difficulty believing that I am lovable.” 

And then there are those who i.d. as Avoidant (about 25% of infants and adults in most studies, but 36% of our sample), which breaks down into two categories: Dismissive and Fearful. 

Avoidant/dismissive folks are inclined to have high avoidance and low anxiety; they often think trust isn’t worth the effort, and they feel safest living life on their own terms, without much real intimacy.  I suspect these are the folks who not only find long distance relationships tolerable—they prefer them!   It’s not just that they don’t rely on others much; they truly value independence.  As one man put it,  

“Never felt the need to be that close to anyone. I believe most relationships are not going to last that long and you must do the things that you would count on others to do.” 

And one woman said: “I am not the long-term relationship type. I have always been able to move on very easily. I guess I don’t let myself get too attached because things always change.  My feelings toward the other person tend to be fleeting so I don’t want them to get too attached to me either. I don’t like hurting people….I am very comfortable with my attachment style. It makes transitions much easier. Although, I have been told recently that I am heartless…..”

And then there’s the style you selected as best describing you: Avoidant/fearful.  This is often an emotionally rough road for the person who has it, since this style involves high anxiety and high avoidance—a pull towards intimacy, coupled with so much fear of being hurt that self-protective actions can ironically derail the longed-for closeness. Wrote one woman:

“I feel naked letting anyone actually know me.” 

Said another: “My first reaction when receiving a hug is to push away.” 

And one man wrote:  “I like women, but just prefer to keep in light and airy, no strings attached. I’m very personable and accommodating. If something happens, it happens, but I prefer to stay at a distance. I will never live with a female. No way.”

 Why do we all—even the most Avoidant—still get involved?    

Although it might sound as if entire groups avoid relating, Evolution has ruthlessly selected against a preference to be truly alone; those unmoved by attachment may be part of history, but they’re not part of our ancestry. Those of us now living inherited our psychology from those who sought connection. 

So even those of us who say we don’t want connection, do…at least enough to keep getting into and back out of relationships.  Our attachment style doesn’t predict whether we’re going to be in relationships at times; we are.  Instead, our style represents *what we do while we’re there*. 

How do people change their style? 

Mostly, they don’t.  Across many studies, including studies following the same individuals from infancy to adulthood, about 70% of us carry the attachment style we learned at home out into our world—for keeps.  But that means that about 30% of us change.  How?    

Per our own survey and many other studies, people usually don’t change on purpose; change happened to them via Experience, for better or for worse.  

So some people become more Secure over time; research and our own sample indicated that such a change usually happens in response to a good marriage.  Said one Avoidant/fearful woman who has moved towards greater Security:

“Once married, I’ve become more secure and do not feel as if I will be abandoned (at least not by my spouse)….My biggest worry is that I could revert back to the insecure person I used to be.”

And some people become less secure, often due to a severe betrayal.  To wit, this woman, now Avoidant/fearful, wrote: 

“I used to be very trusting of everyone in my life but a very bad relationship blew my trust out of the water. Trust is now earned and the only people I truly depend on for support and love are my parents. I don’t even think I am capable of fully depending on the person I’m in love with…yet I still want them to depend on me.”

But waiting for a magically transformative relationship is not the style at LoveScience.  So although few people say they intentionally changed their attachment style, here is cognitive behavioral therapy’s scientifically validated way for people to change whatever it is folks want to alter about themselves—including attachment style:

1. Notice when you’re doing whatever it is you want to change.  For instance, if you are pushing your boyfriend away, catch yourself at it.  If you’re thinking thoughts about how nobody is trustworthy, say to yourself: “I’m doing it again.”  Don’t beat yourself up over it; just notice.  Noticing is the gateway to change.

2. Redirect your thoughts to align with reality by comparing your thoughts and behaviors against what is truly going on.  Is your boyfriend doing something to deserve mistrust?  If so, that’s reality, not your attachment style.  But are you catching yourself creating occasions to distrust him; setting traps to prove he’s a bad guy; generally making trouble in your relationship and manufacturing problems and issues to keep him at a comfortable (for you) distance; or avoiding discussions as soon as they turn emotional?  Challenge yourself and own up to your part in this. 

3. Repeat.  Thousands and thousands and thousands of times.  

That’s it.  It’s simple, but it sure isn’t easy.   Yet over time, it’s the solution for those of us who don’t want to wait for Luck to step in.   

Is the continuous effort worth it, just to have greater stability and less fear and more love?  Well, I did it—I am *still* doing it—and I think so.  I hope you’ll try it for yourself and see.  Regardless of style, we all crave some connection.  May greater intimacy be yours. 

Cheers,

Duana

*Anxiety is how much we worry about whether another will care for us.

**Avoidance refers to how much we seek or avoid intimacy and interdependence with others.  

RESULTS from the Survey, “Folk Wisdom: How Do You Feel About Getting Close To Others?”

With sincere gratitude to the 59 Wise Readers who served as survey respondents.

Opening directions:  “This survey asks how you feel about getting close to others.  It’s quick, anonymous, and will form the basis for an upcoming LoveScience.  Thank you for answering!”

Note:  All percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number; thus, some totals are slightly lesser or greater than 100%.

“What is your gender?”  —37% male; 63% female

“What is your age?”

—10% age 18-24

—10% age 25-34

—37% age 35-44

—22% age 45-54

—15% age 55-64

—5% age 65-74

—0% age 75 and up

“Which of the following best describes you?”

NOTE (which didn’t appear in the survey): Although it was initially thought that there were just three attachment styles, it’s generally conceded now that there are four, and this questionnaire used scientists’ wording to ask our Wise Readers to identify which style is theirs.  However, various reseearchers have used various tools and assessment techniques, so it’s not a guarantee that their methods would yield the same results obtained here.  Also, people vary continuously on anxiety (how much we worry that our attachment figure will or won’t care for us) and avoidance (how much we seek out or avoid others).  So if you see yourself in more than one descriptor, that’s normal! 

—58%: A: Secure Attachment [NOTE: Participants were given only labels of A, B, or C.  I have here put the research-designated name for the corresponding attachment style here]: “I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me.  I don’t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.”

—36%: B: Avoidant Attachment: “I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them.  I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.” 

[NOTE: Shaver & Hazan’s wording was used for the A, B, and C descriptors.  However, later research by Bartholomew showed that those with Avoidant Attachment are further classified as either Fearful or Dismissing.  Thus, those who answered that they were Style B were asked about their feelings, using Bartholomew’s descriptors.]

            “If your answer above was B, please tell me more here by choosing which option below best describes you (if you gave answer A or C above, please don’t answer this question).” 

            —67% of the Avoidant chose: Avoidant/fearful [NOTE: respondents chose from 1 or 2, they did not see the label names]: “I am uncomfortable getting close to others.  I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely or to depend on them.  I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.”

            —33% of the Avoidant chose: Avoidant/dismissive: “I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.  It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.” 

—7%: C: Anxious/Ambivalent: “I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.  I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me.  I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.” 

“The questions above deal with how comfortable you feel getting close to and being interdependent with others.  Do you think the attachment style you have now is the same as it was when you were little (and attached to your parents)?”

—63% = yes (attachment style has remained the same)

—37% = no (attachment style has changed)

“If your attachment style changed, what changed it?  Please describe here.” 

—28 answers, as follows: 

—Woman, age 18-24, who has a Secure attachment style: 

My attachment style has not changed so much as progressed over time. When I was little I was shy and very gullible. Now, I am less shy and mentally analyze everything anyone says, especially in regard to the truth.

—Woman, age 55-64, whose style changed to be Secure:

I think I was a C [Anxious/Ambivalent] when I was little. I remember sitting and weeping as a child because nobody would touch me. My hands were sweaty so nobody wanted to hold my hand and I was too big to be carried to bed when I fell asleep somewhere else like the car. My mom was alcoholic so I realized later was either drunk or hung-over most of the time and became suicidal after my older sister died in a car accident just as I turned 11 until she finally was taken to a hospital with AA peer counselors instead of the psych ward where she was usually sent to dry out. I am getting to A [Secure style] now but still have elements of C [Anxious/Ambivalent]. I recently started a relationship and took his cues for sex after we had been associating for about 3 months. It was too soon for him apparently and probably too passionate. As soon as it happened he dropped me like a hot potato. I am a complex, wonderful woman so he has been approaching me again but tentatively. It’s really frustrating. I love sex too much. I started way too early in life because it was such a wonderful way to find the affection that had been missing. Now I am going to have to find a way to keep a lid on that. Maybe I’ll find someone who will like having his mind blown now and then and can do the same for me. If the fellow I mentioned can communicate and let me know how he likes it and when he wants it, we might be able to enjoy intimacy on many levels. That would be lovely. Meanwhile, I’m a busy, happy woman creating a full, rich life.

—Man, age 65-74, Secure attachment style:

I’ve been mellowed by age and am not quite as quick on the acceptance of new relationships as I was as a child. I try to get to know people as I encounter them and then decide what level of relationship to try and establish.

—Man, age 45-54, Avoidant/dismissive attachment style:

Never felt the need to be that close to anyone. I believe most relationships are not going to last that long and you must do the things that you would count on others to do.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose style has changed to be a Secure attachment style

My parents are alcoholics, and I felt abandoned, as a child and now in retrospect.

—Woman, age 25-34, whose style has changed to be Avoidant/fearful: 

I used to be very trusting of everyone in my life but a very bad relationship blew my trust out of the water. Trust is now earned and the only people I truly depend on for support and love are my parents. I don’t even think I am capable of fully depending on the person I’m in love with. Yet I still want them to depend on me.

—Man, age 55-64, whose attachment style changed to be Avoidant/dismissive:

When I was small, I was very close to my parents. As I grew older, I became more and more emotionally distant from them. I am sure they sensed this, and were hurt by it. I realized I dared not confide in them, because they would act to stop me doing things of which they would not approve. I understood early on that there would be consequences if I were discovered, let alone if I TALKED about what I was doing. I have been somewhat aloof and diffident toward others from early adolescence.

—Woman, age 55-64, whose attachment style changed to be Anxious/Ambivalent:

As a child I was desperate for my dad’s attention. His attention was directed more towards my middle sister, who was more of the tomboy in the family. Dad wanted girls, but she represented a more masculine female, which dad obviously preferred. I know this had a negative impact on my eldest sister and myself. This, I feel, caused me to try too hard to have a guy in my life and I ended up being a really good “doormat”. Another thing that changed how I viewed getting close to others was a situation at a work site that left me feeling that I was responsible for a student’s drowning. I happened not to be there that night; was resting with bad cramps, but should have been there. That left me with a breakdown and a rough journey to get back to life again. I discovered that you are never the same after a mental breakdown. But if you can make it through somehow, you can survive. I became unable to attach to anyone, except my mother, who didn’t understand what had happened to me, but who accepted me back home unconditionally. I know have a relationship with a man who is so very similar to my dad…………………I am not surprised.

—Woman, age 18-24, whose attachment style changed to be Anxious/Ambivalent:

I was never very close with either of my parents until I moved out and they got divorced. My father and I don’t talk, but I’ve always wanted a relationship with him. His alcoholism makes it exceedingly difficult to have a relationship with him, so I suppose my want to be attached to the hip to my significant other stems from the want to have a relationship with a male figure in my life.

—Man, age 35-44, whose attachment style changed to become Secure: 

I had to forgive the past and forgive it to the extent of trying to provide answers for it. I had to completely let it go. Time and maturity can mend a broken childhood. Also, although I have not had a “successful” long-term 1:1 romantic relationship, I am intimately related to my pursuits in life and more so I am becoming intimately related to pursuits built to incorporate people together and teamwork efforts. One can survive abandonment attachment issues and trust that the world is a safe place to offer up their love and compassion to others, but it takes seeing one’s self as a leader and forerunner in this pursuit. Be the manager in charge of this area of your life - mange those expectations and know when projects are either dynamic and on-going, and/or for the short-term. Get involved with people and then when you start to experience that it is possible for you to be “included.” or “chosen for the team,” start bringing connections between other people together so that a chain reaction of this sort of bonding trend can continue for the health of others.

—Woman, age 18-24, whose attachment style has remained Anxious/Ambivalent: 

This is a good question. As a family, we moved around a lot. We had to be our own friends, family, support, etc. because it was so hard to build an exterior community and then rebuild it every time. Interesting.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose attachment style was Anxious when she was little but who has changed her style to be Secure: 

I cut off contact with my parents 7 years ago. Before that, I was probably anxious style. (I know about attachment theory.) Having fewer withholding or for-whatever-reason-unable-to-give-me-what-I-needed people in my life allowed me to redefine what’s normal and accept my needs. Even though I don’t have a partner right now, I’m less frantic, confused, and depressed, and have more energy freed up for reciprocity as well as self-protection and self-care.

—Man, age 45-54, whose style has changed to be Avoidant/fearful: 

I’ve just learned over time that people are not dependable, more so significant others, they’re certain to always be disappointing. Trusting is really over-rated. I’d say, it’s best to just not trust anyone. I don’t worry about being hurt. My skin is very thick. My parents were not to be trusted. I wouldn’t even trust them around my children and never left them unattended for even a few minutes. My son who lives with me is 16. He can’t stand his grandmother.

—Woman, age 45-54, who chose the Secure attachment style but indicates she used to be more secure than she is now: 

I was much more trusting when I was young. But the people I knew were more dependable and more loving and trustable. Most of the adults I know now are not interested in being close, and I worry that I am a bother. Also, as my siblings have grown distant to me, I am more insecure.

—Woman, age 45-54, who has a Secure attachment style:

I don’t have the same feelings for others as I do for my parents.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose style changed to become Secure: 

I am much more confident now than I was when I was little, which I feel has resulted in a healthier attachment style than I had in my youth.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose style has changed to become Avoidant/fearful: 

Chronic illness has been a barrier in recent years. I find I want to invest more in relationships than I have energy to give. But others who can tolerate that become even more treasured.

—Man, age 55-64, whose style changed to become Secure:

Naiveté

—Man, age 45-54, who is working on changing his style to be less Avoidant/fearful:

I’m learning to to allow people to become closer because I am learning to love myself more.

—Man, age 35-44, whose style has become Secure:

I have a propensity of getting close to others, More closer emotionally and even secretly (intimately) inside than I should with some….

—Woman, age 45-54, whose self-described style has been Avoidant/fearful throughout her life:  

Once married, I’ve become more secure and do not feel as if I will be abandoned (at least not by my spouse). But, I have also found, that my partners attachment style (or lack of attachment) has caused me to become more independent. My biggest worry is that I could revert back to the insecure person I used to be.

—Woman, age 25-34, who used to be more secure but whose attachment style has become Avoidant/fearful: 

I used to be more open and ready and willing to trust people, but life interfered and got in the way and slowly conditioned me to think that everyone is basically untrustworthy. I was always pretty independent, but I trusted people. Now I am still independent, but when people want to get close I find it difficult to totally let them in and share myself with them. I have developed more of a mistrust of people’s actions than their willingness, I think many/most people INTEND to be good/trustworthy people, but I don’t think most people are capable of not failing or letting me and others down through their actions. My many (failed) romantic relationships and through the course of my friendships in life I have chosen to feel that the people who failed me did not set out or intend to fail me in the beginning, but that they just didn’t care enough, or were incapable of being the people they wanted to be… the cheating spouse didn’t marry me thinking “I’m going to cheat on them!” but… they did anyway, because in spite of their intentions, their ability to follow through with their intentions is faulty and incompetent. The same thing with friends and family members who have betrayed my trust… they didn’t set out to betray me, that was not their goal of the interaction, but eventually their own selfish/opportunistic nature or just plain laziness gets the better of them, and again I am betrayed. So now I limit my interactions with people, I only tell people (even ones who I am seemingly close with) things about my life and myself that I would not be mortified to have spray painted on a wall. Confidences are mostly internal and I just work through things myself, I no longer turn to others for support because I don’t trust them.

—Woman, age 25-34, whose attachment style she describes as having been Avoidant/fearful since childhood: 

I was a Daddy’s girl. At some point in elementary school I disappointed him too many times and he backed off. Later saying “l have to love you because you’re my daughter, but I don’t have to like you”. I felt emotionally abandoned. My mother had an affair and left our family when I was 16. I think it all plays a part of why I have been labeled ‘cold’.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose Secure attachment style emerged after childhood (when she had another style): 

I’m a lot stronger now!

—Man, age 55-64, whose Avoidant/dismissive attachment style emerged after childhood (when he had another style): 

I have always been independent.  While I would much rather be in a healthy relationship, my ideals and expectations seem to have created an invisible wall.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose style is now Avoidant/dismissive but who says she was more dependent as a child: 

Living apart from my parents during college made me more independent in daily life. Now, I depend on my partner to provide and he depends on me to take care of kids and house. However I do not tell him how to provide and he doesn’t tell me how to keep the house, we share in raising kids. I think we have a healthy dependence on each other, definitely not over dependent, like I was when little.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose style has changed after childhood to become Secure: 

I think I felt more like C [Anxious/Ambivalent] and then a lot of bad relationships with men made me even clingier. I’ve been married to a man I can trust for a long time though and that is what changed me. Much happier this way (as an A) [Secure]!

“Is there anything else you want to tell me about your own attachment style/feelings?”

—21 responses, as follows:

—Man age 35-44, Avoidant/dismissive attachment style:

I am careful selecting few upon whom I would depend. I am willing to have others depend on me and believe I’m good about being there for them or being clear that our friendship is not that serious if they ask more than I can give. I’m fairly well liked but have few close friends.

—Man, age 65-74, Secure attachment style:

I try to be open and accepting of others, but find that that is tempered by my experiences of the past.

—Woman, age 35-44, Secure attachment style:

I am more cautious forming relationships with people of the same gender now than I was in my late teens early twenties. I believe it has to do with the knowledge that not everyone has my best interests in mind. I try to be friendly to everyone but I am aware that the friendliness may not be returned.

—Woman, age 25-34, whose style changed to be Avoidant/fearful: 

The older I get and based off my own experiences… I’ve learned that the best thing in all relationships is to just give the love and the understanding, let it be in the moment, without expectations or demands that the other person loves or understands me back. It allows me to love someone but still be able to go on with my day and focus on loving myself.

—Man, age 55-64, whose attachment style changed to be Avoidant/dismissive:

I hardly know you well enough!

—Woman, age 35-44, whose attachment style has always been Secure: 

The feeling of wanting to connect to people sometimes is a psychological need, that especially with people of my age group or peers have the same predicament. The larger insecurities of being loners in life perhaps makes it certain that through age, contact with the larger world gets shrunk. Furthermore, sharing experiences builds memories and that is a sure way to take you through old age. A life full of experiences is what I would want to have and therefore forming relationships is healthy.

—Woman, age 18-24, whose attachment style has remained Anxious/Ambivalent: 

I am very much an extrovert and tend to be able to help people open up quickly. Intimacy comes naturally to me, but I do crave stability.

—Man, age 45-54, whose style has changed to be Avoidant/fearful: 

I like women, but just prefer to keep in light and airy, no strings attached. I’m very personable and accommodating. If something happens, it happens, but I prefer to stay at a distance. I will never live with a female. No way.

—Man, age 18-24, whose attachment style has been and remains Secure:

After being left by my fiancé, I definitely withdrew my style of attachment. It is not that I don’t need or thrive on such an attachment, but I got very scared of losing it. But it has slowly reverted back.

—Man, age 55-64, who chose the Avoidant/fearful attachment style descriptor as his lifelong style:

Your questions are framed to reflect desire for close relationships with “significant others”; it can also apply, however, to friendships in general, correct? In my case, I have a close and trusting relationship with my wife, but find it difficult to form close friendships outside of marriage. I have a lot of cordial relationships; people I kid around with, people I interact with at the workplace, people who consider me a “good guy”, but not people who depend on me or would consider me the person to call during a personal crisis. This may stem from being an introvert, and from being busy and not having the time to pursue such friendships. As a little kid I was something of a “mama’s boy” due to chronic ill health, and was too shy to have real school chums. All this is probably irrelevant to the focus of your study, but it’s my answer!

—Woman, age 35-44, who chose the Avoidant/fearful style as consistently hers: 

I feel naked letting anyone actually know me.

—Woman, age 35-44, who describes her style as having always been Secure: 

I trust people until they prove I can’t. Then I don’t trust them again.

—Man, age 35-44, whose style has become Secure:

I sometimes find myself getting very attached to people of the opposite sex that show me friendship, in ways I shouldn’t because I see things in them I wish I had in my partner and it becomes an attraction, similarities in likes and professions etc…

—Woman, age 35-44, whose described attachment style is Secure:

The A-C options above don’t allow for much nuance. One little caveat to my apparent secure attachment style is that I hate having people depend on me. This aversion was unconscious for much of my life, and was expressed with lateness to meetings and appointments. This is mostly with professional relationships. My children can always depend on me, but I find I’m deliberate about not over committing.

—Woman, age 45-54, whose self-described style has been Avoidant/fearful throughout her life:

My parents divorced when I was very young and to this day I remember watching my father pack a suit case and leave us. My childhood growing up consisted of men coming in and out of our lives to the point where I can honestly say that my happiest moments did not include a man in the house. I do not trust and have difficulty believing that I am lovable.

—Woman, age 25-34, who chose Avoidant/dismissive descriptors as matching her style:

I enjoy relationships with others as long as I feel we are both getting what we need. I am not the long-term relationship type. I have always been able to move on very easily. I guess I don’t let myself get too attached because things always change. My feelings toward the other person tend to be fleeting so I don’t want them to get too attached to me either. I don’t like hurting people. I am generally up front with the person from the beginning about what I am looking for or what I am not. I am very comfortable with my attachment style. It makes transitions much easier. Although, I have been told recently that I am heartless…..maybe it’s a good thing that I stay away from serious relationships. I am very loving with my children though. They are stuck with me for life!

—Woman, age 35-44, who responded that she has had an Avoidant/fearful attachment style throughout her life:

I was raised by a perfectionist mother and a loving father who traveled a great deal. Our extended family was thousands of miles away. Mom was in leadership positions at church And Community groups and never delegated well. I learned that if you want something done right, do it yourself. She didn’t have many close friendships, and I never learned how to form them. My siblings are the same way. We talk about how hard it is to make close friends. My ex-husband often scared me because it felt like he wanted to merge completely with me. I prefer to have some separateness. My current boyfriend complains that I don’t trust him enough to let him take care of me. How do I learn this skill that affects my life so much?

—Woman, age 25-34, who used to be more secure but whose attachment style has become Avoidant/fearful: 

I don’t want to be like this, but it is hard to trust people after all that has happened in my past.

—Woman, age 25-34, whose attachment style she describes as having been Avoidant/fearful since childhood: 

My first reaction when receiving a hug is to push away.

—Woman, age 35-44, whose Secure attachment style emerged after childhood (when she had another style): 

I do get attached too easily but I also like to see the good in people. Even when I see the wrong! What can I say, a true optimist!

—Man, age 55-64, whose Avoidant/dismissive attachment style emerged after childhood (when he had another style): 

While I can’t explain this, it seems my very first relationship as a teenager, had a better chance of being the real deal than most other relationships throughout my entire life.

Do you have a question for Duana?  Write to her at Duana@LoveScienceMedia.com.

All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012. 

Related LoveScience articles:

Momma’s Boys can be a good thing: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/mommas-boys-the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-loving-a-guy-who-adores.html

Conquering Confusion: Does this person love you, or not?!  http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/conquering-confusion-he-loves-her-he-loves-her-not.html

People who prefer long distance relationships might have an Avoidant attachment style: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-long-distance-relationships.html

The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:

 John Bowlby, for formulating attachment theory in the 1960’s.

 Mary Ainsworth, for inventing the strange situation to assess babies’ attachment styles, and thus making it possible not only to test Bowlby’s ideas—but to launch generations of researchers down the empirical path of attachment research. 

Cindy Hazan & Phillip Shaver, for being the first to notice and study the similarities between infant attachment styles and adult attachment styles, categorizing adults’ styles and setting off an avalanche of research into why people have the style they do; how long it lasts; how style affects our relationships throughout life; and how styles change and remain the same over a lifetime. 

Emre Selcuk and others, for research on how a mom’s attachment style can lead to the same attachment style in her child.  

Kim Bartholomew, for research that made it clear that the Avoidant style is really two different styles—based on whether the motivation is more fearful or dismissive—and for leading attachment theory to its current understanding that we all vary on a continuous (not categorical) line of anxiety (how much we worry about whether another will care for us) and avoidance (how much we seek or avoid others). 

Jerry A. Simpson, for research showing how people with different styles behave in relationships and after a break-up; his research elucidated how a Secure style is actively helpful in sustaining the quality and duration of relationships, and how the other styles behave in ways that actively undermine how long and happily relationships last.  His article is also important because it discusses how the relationship progresses if it’s the woman versus the man who is Anxious or Avoidant, and which styles tend to wind up together.  Here’s an overview: http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/document/264.html

Everett Waters and others, for research that tested young adults’ attachment 20 years after their attachment had been assessed as infants—finding that 72% of them had kept the same style and going over many kinds of experience that could change attachment style. 

R. Chris Fraley, for research on how and why attachment styles stay the same or change:  Experience with those to whom we are attached. 

David Buss & Heidi Greiling, who did a series of four studies to assess why women mate-switch (trade up); one reason turned out to be because some women with an anxious/ambivalent style are scared of losing their current partner, so they line up a back-up.  One place you can read about this is Buss’ book The Evolution Of Desire, Revised Edition 4.   

Thomas N. Bradbury & Benjamin R. Karney, for their new edition of their Intimate Relationships textbook, where they treat attachment styles at length in two separate chapters.  By far the best and most up-to-date summary of the research I’ve ever found, I found here. 

Ralph Ellis, for launching cognitive behavioral therapy and making it understandable and usable for everyone in his classic book, A Guide To Rational Living.  Warning: Ellis’ style is not for the feint of heart.  If you are sensitive, please use Burns’ book instead (below).  

David Burns, for a more recent, outstanding cognitive behavioral psychology book about how those of us wishing to change ourselves—can:  The Feeling Good Handbook.