The previous paper has examined ways in which the three behavioural systems, attachment, caregiving and sexual mating interact to affect relationship quality in the transition to parenthood. The present paper sets out to examine some further specific implications of attachment style alone, and in so doing will report a further subset of data from the longitudinal study described in Dr. Hohaus et al.’s (1998) paper. Specifically, the present paper is concerned with possible relations between attachment style as measured during the mid-semester of pregnancy and coping strategies reported shortly, i.e. four to six weeks, after the birth of a couple’s first infant. In order to provide a theoretical justification for examining these variables, it is necessary to consider attachment theory as a theory of affect regulation.

Attachment theory provides a particularly rich understanding of human social behaviour and in so doing can be conceptualized in a number of ways, e.g. as a developmental personality theory. Recently, a number of researchers have emphasised the value of attachment theory as a theory of affect regulation (e.g. Simpson & Rholes, 1998), and consideration of the fundamentals of attachment theory confirms the centrality of affect regulation.

In their theorizing and research, Bowlby and his colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) proposed that for infants, at least, there is an inherent connection between attachment behaviour and stress/distress. Bowlby defined attachment behaviour as the expression of a system which serves to regulate proximity between infant and caregiver, taking into account dangers perceived in the physical/social environment; hence, in so much as a caretaker serves as a source of comfort, attachment behaviour serves to regulate the distress associated with perceived threat. In the absence of threat, the infant is likely to engage in exploratory behaviour. By contrast, when threat is perceived, attachment behaviour is elicited, and the caregiver serves as a potential source of comfort.

Bowlby argued that three classes of stimuli could be perceived as threats, hence producing distress and triggering attachment behaviour: First, internal states of the infant (e.g., cold, hunger, illness); second, aversive caregiver behaviours (e.g., perceived rejection); and third, environmental events (e.g., occurrence of a frightening event). Since attachment behaviours serve to keep the infant safe from danger and to regulate distress, the attachment system should be activated by any stimulus that is perceived as a threat.

It is this central role of stress/distress in attachment theory that has led a number of researchers to describe attachment theory as a theory of affect regulation, i.e. a theory of how individuals handle negative emotions (e.g., Feeney & Ryan, 1994; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). An important tenet of attachment theory is that caregiver responsiveness and sensitivity to the child’s affective signals provide a critical context within which the child organizes emotional experience and regulates "felt security" (Sroufe & Waters, 1977).

The specific strategies used to achieve felt security are seen as contingent on an individual’s history of regulating distress with attachment figures. If the caregiver is available and responsive to the child’s signals of distress, distress can be regulated with strategies that involve active seeking of comfort and support from the caregiver. If the caregiver is unavailable, unresponsive or unpredictable, alternative strategies for regulating distress will be developed (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Over time, strategies for regulating distress become incorporated into rules that guide individuals’ responses to distressing situations, and different rules are expected to be associated with different working models of attachment figures. Secure attachment is expected to be associated with rules that allow acknowledgement of distress and turning to others for support, avoidant attachment with rules that restrict such acknowledgement and support-seeking, and anxious/ambivalent attachment with rules that direct attention toward distress and attachment figures in a hypervigilant manner (Kobak & Sceery, 1988).

Since around 1992, a number of studies have demonstrated the relevance of attachment style to the behaviour of adults under conditions of stress (Feeney, 1998; Feeney & Ryan, 1994; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993; Simpson, Rholes & Nelligan, 1992). Some of these studies will be briefly reviewed. However, it is necessary first to introduce the literature concerning coping, as this material is central to two of the studies to be reviewed.

In general, coping refers to an individual’s attempts to deal adaptively with stress; the outcome of these attempts is known as adaptation. There is a substantial literature concerned with stress, coping and adaptation. Currently, the most widely employed approach to the study of coping is that of Lazarus and Folkman (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).

Lazarus and Folkman define stress as "a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as relevant to his or her well-being and in which the person’s resources are taxed or exceeded" (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985, p.152). In coping with stress the individual will draw on his or her coping resources to develop coping strategies.

Coping resources can be broadly divided into personal (e.g., self-esteem) or environmental (e.g., social support). A number of studies have illustrated the importance of both classes of resources (e.g. Terry, 1991a). Coping strategies can also be divided into two broad groups according to their primary functional focus (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Problem-focused strategies are directed at doing something to change for the better (i.e., to make less stressful) the circumstances which are inducing stress. Emotion-focused strategies are directed primarily at the regulation of distressing emotions associated with stress-inducing circumstances.

Following Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model, research has identified many coping strategies that can be classified as either primarily problem-focused or emotion-focused. In addition, the strategy of "seeking social support" has been widely described and classified as containing both problem and emotion focii (e.g., Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Vitaliano, Russo, Carr, Maiuro, & Becker, 1985).

Just as Bowlby (1969) argued that three classes of distressing stimuli (internal states, aversive caregiver behaviours, and environmental events) were likely to elicit attachment behaviour, researchers have examined the relevance of adult attachment style to responses to these three classes of stressors. Feeney and Ryan (1994) investigated the effects of attachment style on adults’ responses to illness, an internal state stressor. Feeney (1998) investigated the effects of attachment style on adults’ responses to stressors inherent in close relationships themselves; Simpson et al. (1992), Mikulincer et al. (1993) and Mikulincer and Florian (1998) investigated the effects of attachment style on adults’ responses to environmental stressors.

Feeney and Ryan (1994) studied reports of early family experiences of illness, attachment style, emotionality, and health behaviour in a sample of 287 university students on two occasions (10 weeks apart). They found clear relationships between attachment style and symptom-reporting, and between attachment style and visits to health professionals (controlling for symptom-reporting). Specifically, symptom-reporting at both Time 1 and Time 2 was associated positively with anxious/ambivalent attachment, with this link being partially mediated by negative emotionality. Visits to health professionals at Time 2 were inversely related to avoidant attachment. Feeney and Ryan reasoned that the restriction of this latter effect to Time 2 may have reflected the approach of university exams; hence the levels of stress in the student population could have been expected to be higher than at Time 1, making attachment style differences in health behaviours more pronounced.

Feeney (1998) investigated the effects of attachment style on responses to emotional distancing in a study of 72 couples in long-term dating relationships. Subjects were videotaped during three conflictual interactions, two of which were designed to elicit anxiety concerning issues of distance and closeness. Prior to the interactions, subjects completed rating scales assessing their expectations for their partner’s behaviour and motives in the forthcoming interactions. Immediately after each interaction, subjects rated their own discomfort and their own satisfaction with the interaction. Independent judges rated four aspects of the subjects’ behaviour in the interactions: conflict resolution, affect, non-verbal behaviour, and conversational patterns.

Results showed clear and expected effects of attachment style. Secure subjects expected more positive behaviour and motives from their partners and gave lower ratings of discomfort and higher ratings of satisfaction for all three interactions. In contrast, when judges’ ratings were examined, secure attachment was associated with less negative affect, less avoidant non-verbal behaviour, and more constructive conversational patterns in interactions involving issues of closeness and distance, but not in an interaction involving conflict over the use of leisure time. As Feeney concludes, "these results support the proposition that attachment style differences in behaviour are more pronounced under conditions of stress, but also point to pervasive effects of attachment style on subjects’ perceptions of relationship functioning" (Feeney, 1998).

Simpson et. al. (1992) studied the effects of attachment style and experimentally-induced stress on support-seeking and support-giving behaviours in 83 dating couples. Couples’ behaviours as wives’ levels of anxiety were manipulated were unrelated to the Anxious-Nonanxious dimension of attachment, but were related to the Secure-Avoidant dimension. Specifically, secure women sought more support from their partners as their level of anxiety (observer-rated) increased, whereas avoidant women sought less support as their anxiety increased. Moreover, secure men offered more support as their partner’s level of anxiety increased, whereas avoidant men offered less support as their partner’s anxiety increased.

In discussing their results, Simpson et al. (1992) note that one cannot adequately characterize typical behaviours reported by secure or avoidant persons without specifying the context in which behaviour occurs; for example, although avoidant men were more cool and aloof when their partners experienced high levels of anxiety, they were not more cool and aloof in general. These findings clearly support the notion that attachment style differences in behaviour are more pronounced in stressful circumstances.

Mikulincer et al. (1993) made a "naturalistic" study of the effects of attachment style on the way people reacted to the Iraqi missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War. They found with respect to coping strategies that, overall, secure subjects used relatively more support-seeking, avoidant subjects used more distancing, and ambivalent subjects used more emotion-focused strategies. The effects for secure and ambivalent subjects were unrelated to level of stress, but for the avoidant subjects, greater use of distancing was reported only by those closer to the missile strikes. Mikulincer et al. suggest that the effects of the stress variable may have been limited by the fact that, in the war context, even the "low stress" group may have experienced relatively high levels of stress.

Overall, the above studies form a coherent picture. All but Simpson et al. (1992), show that attachment style has pervasive effects on how adults cope with negative affect but that its impacts are more pronounced under increased levels of stress. Simpson et al. (1992) do not illustrate the pervasive effects of attachment style but do confirm the interactive effects of attachment style and stress. Finally, Mikulincer et al. (1993) provide direct evidence of a relationship between attachment style and coping strategies adopted by individuals.

Mikulincer and Florian (1998) review a number of studies relating adult attachment style to affect regulation and also report some previously unpublished data. Of most interest to us is some cross-sectional data gathered from 80 first-time mothers of 2-3 month infants, from 44 mothers of 4-5 year-old children who had mild mental retardation, and from 39 mothers of adolescents who were hospitalized due to psychiatric disorders. In each of these studies attachment style was assessed using Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) forced-choice measure and coping strategies using Folkman and Lazarus’s (1985) Ways of Coping Checklist. In all three samples studied relationships were found between attachment style and coping strategies, and in all three samples the secure groups differed from both the avoidant and ambivalent groups, whilst the latter two groups did not differ from each other. For the new mothers, the securely attached group reported more problem-focussed coping than did either of the other two groups; for the mothers of children with mild retardation, secure attachment was associated with more support-seeking; and for the mothers of hospitalized adolescents, secure attachment was associated with more problem-focussed coping and more support-seeking.

The preceding paper has canvassed the literature on the transition to parenthood and made it clear that this transition is a time when multiple stressors occur, and couples are required to make major adjustments in their relationships (e.g. Levy-Shiff, 1994). Terry (1991c) has successfully used a stress/coping model to examine this transition. In a longitudinal study of 123 couples, coping resources were assessed at Time 1 (last trimester of pregnancy); subjective stress (strain) and coping strategies at Time 2 (4 weeks after birth); and adaptation at Times 2 and 3 (4 and 18 weeks after the birth). As predicted, level of strain and use of emotion-focused coping strategies were negatively related to adaptation. There was also evidence that, for males at least, use of problem-focused coping strategies benefited adaptation. In relation to coping resources, the data were also consistent with the model. Self-esteem, internality, and both marital and family support were all positively related to adaptation. Terry’s study provides firm evidence of the usefulness of the stress/coping model for understanding the transition to parenthood.

The theoretical formulations and empirical evidence we have reviewed all indicate that individual reactions to stressors will be related to an individual’s attachment style. In addition, in conjunction with the previous paper, we have also established that the transition to first parenthood is a time when a number of major new stressors occur in the lives of new parents and coping responses are required (e.g. Terry, 1991b). Hence, the present paper tests the proposition that attachment style as measured before the birth of a first child will predict coping strategies reported shortly after the birth. In view of predictions from the coping literature that coping resources are also predictive of coping strategies (e.g. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), the impact of two coping resources, viz. self-esteem and social support, was also assessed. It should be noted, however, that these coping resources were themselves expected to be related to attachment style.

The evidence is clear that attachment style and associated mental models of self, others, and the social world are constructed very early in the individual’s development, and tend to endure over time (e.g. Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). Furthermore, there are many theoretical and empirical reasons to suggest that variables which have generally been regarded as representing coping resources are fundamentally related to attachment style. For example, securely attached individuals have been shown to make more use of social support than do others (Mikulincer et al., 1993), and such "internal resources" as self-esteem (e.g. Terry, 1991c) are reliably associated with attachment style (e.g. Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).

The hypotheses were as follows:

H1. At Time 1 (during the second trimester), spouses’ own attachment styles will be related to internal (self-esteem) and external (social support) coping resources. It was expected that security of attachment would be positively related to levels of these resources (e.g. Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994; Mikulincer et al., 1993).

H2. Coping resources at Time 1 will be related to coping strategies reported shortly (4-6 weeks) post-birth. Specifically, it was predicted that higher resource levels would be associated with more adaptive coping strategies, viz. problem-focussed coping and social-support seeking, and less reliance on emotion-focussed coping (e.g. Lazarus, 1993).

H3. Attachment style at Time 1 will be related to coping strategies reported shortly (4-6 weeks) post-birth. It was predicted that secure attachment would be associated with more adaptive coping strategies, viz. problem-focussed coping and social-support seeking, and less reliance on emotion-focussed coping (e.g. Lazarus, 1993). Additionally, it was predicted that avoidant attachment would be associated with low levels of social-support seeking as a coping strategy, and that in contrast, anxious/ambivalent attachment would be associated with over-reliance on support-seeking (Feeney & Ryan, 1994; Mikulincer et al., 1993).

H4. Relationships between attachment styles and coping strategies will be more marked for the transition group than for the comparison group since the transition group should be experiencing higher levels of stress (Feeney, 1998; Simpson et al., 1992).

The general method, time-frame and population for the study has been described by Hohaus et al. in the previous paper. I will concentrate on the measures particular to the present study. Attachment style, self-esteem and social support were measured at Time 1. Coping strategies, infant temperament, and parenting experience were measured at Time 2. Infant temperament and parenting strain were included as indices of stress/strain which would be expected to be related to coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).

In the present paper we will deal with the continuous measures of attachment. The categorical data will be reported at a later time.

The measures used were as follows:

1) Attachment style was measured using Griffin and Bartholomew’s (1994) forced-choice measure and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ) (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). The ASQ was scored to provide measures of the two principal dimensions underlying attachment: Discomfort with closeness and Anxiety over relationships (Feeney et al., 1994).

2) Self—esteem was measured using the adult form of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967). This measure provided a single index of global self-esteem.

3) Social support was measured using Brown’s (1986) Support Behaviours Inventory (SBI). This measure was created specifically to assess social support for pregnant couples and has demonstrated reliability and validity. The SBI provides separate scales for partner, family and friend support but these were combined to provide a single index of overall support.

4) Infant temperament was measured using six items from the Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (ICQ) (Bates, Freeland, & Lounsbury, 1979). The six items form a subscale which represents the main dimension of infant temperament: easy vs. difficult.

5) Parenting strain, (the individual’s appraisal of the stressfulness of an event), arising from the arrival of the first baby, was measured by a rating scale developed by Terry (1991c, 1991d). This scale has twenty-three items, most of which were drawn from previous literature and all of which were deemed appropriate by a group of health professionals. Three items deal with overall appraisals of the event; for example, "Is the arrival of your baby one of the most difficult events that you and your partner have experienced?" Respondents are then presented with a list of twenty difficulties commonly associated with new parenthood, (e.g., loss of sleep, being interrupted in the middle of doing something), and asked to indicate which ones they have experienced and, if applicable, how difficult they have found them in the past fortnight. The scale provides a single index of parenting strain.

6) Coping strategies were measured using the Ways of Coping Checklist (Revised) (WCC-R) (Vitaliano et al., 1985). The WCC is the most widely used instrument in the coping literature. Some items of marginal relevance to the transition to parenthood, e.g. "Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind", were deleted, as, for the sake of brevity, were some items from the longer scales, leaving 39 items. The checklist was scored to measure the three main types of coping strategies identified in the literature (e.g. Folkman & Lazarus, 1985): problem-focussed coping, emotion-focussed coping and social-support seeking.

In order to test the reliability of scales Cronbach’s reliability procedure was used. All scales had excellent reliability with alpha values ranging from .91 to .97.

In order to test the hypotheses, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between all variables, separately for transition and comparison groups and for husbands and wives. The correlation matrices for transition and comparison husbands is shown in Table 1 and the matrices for wives in Table 2. These matrices show a number of significant relationships amongst the variable with different patterns of relationships being apparent between the two groups and between husbands and wives.

Stepwise multiple regression analyses were also performed to investigate how the variables combined to predict coping strategies. Three sets of regressions were calculated; one for each dependent variable, problem-focussed coping, social-support seeking and emotion-focussed coping. Since the raw correlations had shown both that more significant relationships amongst variables existed in the transition group than in the comparison group and that different patterns of relationships occurred for husbands and wives, only the data from the transition group were included in the regression analyses and separate analyses were performed for husbands and wives. In the analyses, the variables were entered in three steps. Own and partner’s attachment style were entered at step one; self-esteem and overall social support at step two; and infant difficultness and parenting strain at step three.

The regression analyses are summarised in Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. For problem-focussed coping and for social-support seeking, the regression equation reached statistical significance only at step three and only for husbands. Hence, for problem—focussed coping and for social-support seeking, no table is given for wives; and, for husbands, only step three of the regression analyses are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. For emotion-focussed coping, the regression equation reached or approached significance at each of three steps for husbands and wives: hence, in Tables 5 and 6, all three steps of the regression analyses are shown for husbands and wives, respectively.

Overall, the current findings offer substantial support for our hypotheses. However, they suggest that the relationships amongst variables may be more complex than we initially posited. The validity of the hypotheses can be addressed directly by examining the correlation matrices shown in Tables 1 and 2. The complexity of inter-relationships amongst sets of variables is also suggested by these correlation matrices, and is further explored by the regression analyses summarised in Tables 3 to 6.

Firstly, it is clear that at Time 1 attachment style is related to both internal and external coping resources. Self-esteem is negatively correlated with both Discomfort with closeness and with Anxiety over relationships, for both genders, and for both groups (transition and comparison). Overall social support, on the other hand, shows different relationships to Discomfort and to Anxiety. It is negatively correlated with Discomfort for both genders and for both groups. However, whilst it is negatively correlated with Anxiety for wives in both groups, it is correlated (negatively) with Anxiety for husbands in the transition group only. This pattern of findings confirms the hypothesised relationships between attachment style and coping resources. In addition, the finding that, for husbands but not for wives, Anxiety is correlated with overall social support only for the transition group supports the hypothesis that effects of attachment style will be most apparent under conditions of stress, and is congruent with previous suggestions that various attachment styles may have different implications for males and females (e.g. Feeney & Noller, 1996).

Secondly, there is support for the proposition that Time 1 coping resources influence Time 2 coping strategies. However, these effects were apparent only for seeking social support and for emotion-focussed coping and were complicated by effects of group and gender. For transition wives only, overall social support was positively correlated with social-support seeking. For transition husbands only, self-esteem was negatively related to emotion-focussed coping. However, for both transition and comparison wives, self-esteem was negatively related to emotion-focussed coping. It is interesting to note that the effects of coping resources on wives’ social support seeking and on husbands’ emotion-focussed coping were restricted to the transition group. This finding is parallel with our prediction that the effects of attachment style would be more pronounced for the transition group. This parallel finding would be consistent with a mediational model in which attachment style influences coping indirectly in part, through its effects on self-esteem and overall social support. Such mediational models have recently been suggested (e.g. Ognibene & Collins, 1998; Roberts, Gotlib, & Kassel, 1996).

Thirdly, there is support for the proposition that Time 1 attachment style influences Time 2 coping strategies. However, as was found with coping resources, these effects were apparent only for seeking social support and for emotion-focussed coping, and were complicated by effects of group and gender. For transition wives only, Discomfort with closeness was negatively correlated with social-support seeking. For transition husbands only, both Anxiety over relationships and Discomfort with closeness were positively related to emotion-focussed coping. In contrast, for both transition and comparison wives, Anxiety was positively related to emotion-focussed coping. The group and gender effects are consistent with our hypothesis that the effects of attachment style would be more pronounced under conditions of increased stress, and with previous suggestions of interactive effects of attachment style and gender.

Fourthly, it is already clear from the above discussion that more effects of attachment are apparent for the transition group, which is presumed overall to be subject to higher levels of stress.

In addressing our four hypotheses, we have thus far examined only correlations between single pairs of variables and this has been sufficient to test these hypotheses. However, certain patterns in the correlation matrices and certain parallels in our findings regarding attachment style and coping resources suggest some important questions regarding the interactions between attachment styles and coping resources in influencing coping strategies. We have begun to address these questions using multiple regression analyses for the transition group data and by further inspection of the correlation matrices. The regression analyses have been useful in clarifying some relationships, but are best considered along with the correlation matrices, since some simple effects become obscured in the regression analyses.

The regression equations for wives’ problem-focussed coping and for wives’ social support seeking did not reach overall significance. This was not unexpected for problem-focussed coping, since no correlates had been found for this coping strategy. However, in contrast, both Discomfort with closeness and overall social support had been found to correlate modestly, but significantly, with social support seeking. These relationships appear to have been lost in the regression analyses.

The regression equations for husbands’ problem-focussed coping and social support seeking reached significance at the third step only. In both cases, husbands’ parenting strain was a predictor and, for problem-focussed coping, husbands’ Anxiety was also a predictor. This was unexpected since the individual correlation between Anxiety and problem-focussed coping did not approach significance. Anxiety may be acting as a suppressor variable in this regression equation and the meaning of this is unclear.

The regression equation for husbands’ emotion-focussed coping reached significance at all three steps. Husbands’ Anxiety over relationships was a predictor at step one, husbands’ self-esteem at step two, and husbands’ self-esteem and parenting strain at step three. This is suggestive of a mediational model, with Anxiety operating through its impact on self-esteem, and parenting strain becoming salient at step three.

Similarly, the regression equation for wives’ emotion-focussed coping approached or reached significance at all three steps. Wives’ Anxiety over relationships was a predictor at step one, wives’ overall social support and self-esteem at step two, and wives’ Anxiety, social support and parenting strain at step three. This is somewhat suggestive of a mediational model, with Anxiety operating through its impact on self-esteem and social support, and parenting strain becoming salient at step three. However, the model is not clear as Anxiety also seems to be acting as a suppressor variable.

Overall, we are encouraged to find support for our basic hypotheses and intrigued to see that the regression analyses and patterns of correlations amongst attachment, resource and coping variables suggest mediational models. Our next step will be to investigate path models, as for example Ognibene and Collins (1998), and Roberts, Gotlib & Kassel (1996), in an initial effort to clarify and test these mediational models.

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bates, J. E., Freeland, C. A. B., & Lounsbury, M. L. (1979). Measurement of infant difficultness. Child Development, 50, 794-803.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman.

Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and relationship-centred anxiety: Responses to physical and emotional distancing. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 189-218). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the conceptualization of security and insecurity. In M.B. Sperling & W.H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp.128-152). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J. A., & Ryan, S. M. (1994). Attachment style and affect regulation: Relationships with health behavior and family experiences of illness in a student sample. Health Psychology, 13, 334-345.

Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.

Griffin, D. W. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement; The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Hohaus, L., Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1998, November). The transition to parenthood from an attachment perspective: a study in progress. Paper presented at the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234-247.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Levy-Shiff, R. (1994). Individual and contextual correlates of marital change across the transition to parenthood. Developmental Psychology, 30, 591-601.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 3-21). New York: Guilford.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 817-826.

Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 323-345.

Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassell, J. D. (1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms of depression: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310-320.

Rothbard, J. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Continuity of attachment across the life span. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.) Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives. New York: Guilford.

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W.S. (1998). Attachment in adulthood. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 3-21). New York: Guilford.

Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., & Nelligan, J.S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 50, 821-829.

Terry, D. J. (1991a). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 1031-1047.

Terry, D. J. (1991b). Transition to parenthood. In P. C. L. Heare (ed) Lifespan development, Sydney: H.B.J..

Terry, D. J. (1991c). Stress, coping, and adaptation to new parenthood. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 8, 527-547.

Terry, D. J. (1991d). Predictors of subjective stress in a sample of new parents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43, 29-36.

Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Carr, J. E., Maiuro, R. D., & Becker, J (1985). The Ways of Coping Checklist: Revision and psychometric properties. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, 3-26.