INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES

A Secure Base: Responsive Support of Goal Strivings and Exploration in

Adult Intimate Relationships
Brooke C. Feeney
Carnegie Mellon University
A theoretical framework is proposed for examining the interpersonal processes involved in the support
of a relationship partners goal strivings, personal growth, and exploratory behavior, and for examining
consequences of receiving either responsive or unresponsive support in this domain. These processes
were examined using both observational and experimental methods. In Phase 1, couples were videotaped
as they discussed personal goals for the future. In Phase 2, support behavior was experimentally
manipulated to examine immediate effects on the recipient. Results indicated that responsive (nonintru-
sive) support of a relationship partners goal strivings and explorations have important implications for
the recipients happiness, self-esteem, and perceived likelihood of achieving specific goals. The impor-
tance of research examining this type of support is discussed.
All of us, from the cradle to the grave, are happiest when life is
organized as a series of excursions, long or short, from the secure base
provided by our attachment figure(s). (Bowlby, 1988, p. 62)
Many individuals assign credit for their accomplishments to the
support of the significant people in their lives. This is evident in
the speeches of actors at the Oscars, in the interviews of athletes
who have won a medal at the Olympics, in the commencement
speeches of graduates, in acknowledgments and dedications of
book authorsand the list continues. It is therefore surprising that
research examining this important type of support has been largely
overlooked in both the relationships and social support literatures.
Historically, the social support literature has focused on one gen-
eral type of support, which is the comfort and assistance that is
provided to another person in stressful situations. However, re-
search examining the support of a relationship partners personal
growth, exploration, and goal strivings has been virtually nonex-
istent (see Brunstein, Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Ruehl-
man & Wolchik, 1988, for exceptions). Moreover, both the social
support and relationships literatures have a great deal to accom-
plish in the way of elucidating the specific interpersonal processes
involved in the provision and receipt of both general types of
support (support provided in times of stress and support provided
in an effort to assist another persons growth and exploration).
These issues are addressed in the current investigation, first, by
outlining a theoretical framework that incorporates both general
types of support and, second, by exploring some of the interper-
sonal dynamics involved in the support of a relationship partners
goal strivings and explorations. Some immediate consequences of
receiving either responsive or unresponsive support in this domain
are also examined.
Guiding Theoretical Framework
Attachment theory provides a useful framework for studying
both types of support because it provides a basis for understanding
the complex interpersonal dynamics involved in three important
and interrelated components of human nature: attachment, explo-
ration, and caregiving (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980, 1988).
First, attachment theory regards the propensity to form strong
emotional bonds with particular individuals (attachment) as a basic
component of human nature, present in infants and continuing
through adulthood. According to the theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982,
1973), individuals come into the world equipped with an attach-
ment behavioral system that functions to maintain the individuals
safety and security through contact with nurturing caregivers. The
attachment system will be activated most strongly in adversity, so
that when an individual is distressed, he or she will seek protec-
tion, comfort, and support from a primary caregiver (Bowlby,
1969/1982; Bretherton, 1987).
Attachment theory states that another basic component of hu-
man nature is the urge to explore the environmentto work, play,
discover, and take part in activities with peers. It is important to
note, however, that this behavior can be antithetic to attachment
behavior (Bowlby, 1988). That is, when an individual of any age
This research was supported by the Carnegie Mellon University Berk-
man Faculty Development Fund and by National Institute of Mental Health
Grant MH066119. I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Laura
Zajac, who supervised data collection and all project-related procedures.
Special thanks to all couples who participated in this investigation and to
Elissa Chin, Peter Caprariello, Kathy Davis, Dan Fernandez, Stephanie
Lesniak, Abbie Luff, Meredith McConnochie, Candice Morgan, Danielle
Virgile, and Yanna Weisberg for their assistance with material preparation,
data collection, data entry, and video coding.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brooke
C. Feeney, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pitts-
burgh, PA 15213. E-mail: bfeeney@andrew.cmu.edu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004, Vol. 87, No. 5, 631648
Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.631
631
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
is feeling secure, such that the attachment system is deactivated, he
or she is likely to explore away from the attachment figure.
However, when alarmed or distressed, the individual will feel an
urge toward proximity. According to the theory, when individuals
are confident that an attachment figure will be responsive when
called on, then they should feel secure enough to explore the
environment, take on challenges, and make discoveries. In adult-
hood, these exploratory activities may take many forms and may
last for varying lengths of time; nonetheless, a secure home base is
presumed to be crucial for optimal functioning and mental health.
A third major component of human nature, according to attach-
ment theory, is caregiving, and caregiving is viewed as serving two
major functions: (a) providing a safe haven for the attached person
by meeting his or her needs for security and (b) providing a secure
base for the attached person by supporting his or her autonomy and
exploration in the environment. Although the concept of a secure
base has been viewed more broadly as an attachment relationship
that incorporates both safe haven and secure base dynamics in
some important related research (e.g., see Crowell et al., 2002;
Waters & Cummings, 2000), the terms safe haven and secure base
are conceptualized here as serving two different support functions,
which are described in detail below.
Safe Haven
The provision of a safe haven is the type of support that occurs
in response to a significant others distress. From an attachment
perspective, good caregivers/support-providers are those individ-
uals who are able to effectively restore their partners felt security
when it is neededby facilitating problem resolution and allevi-
ating distress. Therefore, responding to an attached partners needs
as they arise is crucial in the maintenance of felt security. How-
ever, responding to need is more complex than simply being
supportive of ones partner. It involves the provision of the type
and amount of support that is dictated by the situation and by the
partners needs (Cutrona, 1990; Dakof & Taylor, 1990; Lehman &
Hemphill, 1990). Because attachment behavior varies enormously
in form and intensity, caregiving/support behaviors should also
vary greatly. For example, when the attachment system has been
activated with high intensity, relatively intense support behaviors,
such as bodily contact, are necessary. However, when the attach-
ment system has been activated with low intensity, more relaxed
support behaviors, such as verbal encouragement, are sufficient.
Therefore, in its optimal form, caregiving includes sensitivity,
responsiveness, and flexibility in responding to attachment needs.
Secure Base
The provision of a secure base is the type of support that occurs
with regard to a significant others exploratory behavior. Good
caregivers/support-providers must not only know how to intervene
actively and respond appropriately to signals of distress but also
know when to simply be available and wait and how to support
their partners personal growth and exploration (Bowlby, 1988).
Bowlby describes a central role of caregiving as that of providing
a secure base from which an attached person can make sorties
into the outside world (p. 11), knowing that he or she can return
for comfort, reassurance, and/or assistance should difficulties be
encountered along the way. Bowlby (1988) describes the concept
of a secure base most eloquently as follows:
In essence this role is one of being available, ready to respond when
called upon to encourage and perhaps assist, but to intervene actively
only when clearly necessary. In these respects it is a role similar to
that of the officer commanding a military base from which an expe-
ditionary force sets out and to which it can retreat, should it meet with
a setback. Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but
it is none the less vital for that. For it is only when the officer
commanding the expeditionary force is confident his base is secure
that he dare press forward and take risks. (p. 11)
Thus, good caregiving/support provision appears to be an on-
going process that occurs even when a partners security is not
immediately threatened. In this sense, taking care of a partner
involves taking on the responsibility of looking out for that person
on a continual basisby supporting that persons needs for com-
fort and assistance when the attachment system is activated and by
supporting that persons personal growth, explorations, and dis-
coveries when the attachment system is not activated.
Proposed Theoretical Model
On the basis of prior empirical and theoretical work, an inter-
personal model of support processes in adulthood, which incorpo-
rates both secure base and safe haven support dynamics, is pro-
posed (see Figure 1). This model, referred to as the Circle of
Security in Adulthood, was inspired by attachment theory, by
impressive work involving a Circle of Security attachment-
based intervention with parentpreschool child dyads (Marvin,
Cooper, Hoffman, & Powell, 2002), by previous empirical work
(Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001; Hazan &
Shaver, 1990), and by other relevant theories in the relationships
and social support literatures (e.g., Barbee, 1990; Cutrona, 1996;
Reis & Shaver, 1988). This model depicts the normative interper-
sonal processes involved in attachment (support-seeking), caregiv-
ing (support-provision), and exploration, as well as the ways in
which these three behavioral systems are likely to influence the
functioning of one another. For simplicity, the model refers to the
member of the dyad who could potentially provide support in a
given situation as the support-provider and to the person who
could potentially benefit from support as the support-receiver.
However, it is important to note that in adult relationships, the
roles are not exclusively assigned to one member of the couple
versus another. Depending on the situation, adult partners are
likely to move fluidly from one role to the other.
The bottom portion of Figure 1 (beginning with the support-
receivers experience and perception of a life stressor) depicts the
safe haven function of support, which is set into motion when an
individuals attachment system is activated in response to a life
stressor. As depicted in the model, the experience of a stressful
event should lead an individual to desire proximity, support, and
reassurance from an attachment figure (Path f); this support-
seeking behavior should motivate the partner to provide support
(Path g); the provision of responsive support should lead the
individual to feel supported (Path h); and perceptions of being
supported should contribute to the individuals overall sense of
security and well-being (Path i). Thus, the provision of a safe
haven occurs when an individual supports his or her partners
632
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
attachment behavior or behavior that involves coming in toward
the partner/relationship. Some of these interpersonal processes
have been established in previous empirical work with samples of
dating couples (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001).
The top portion of the figure depicts the secure base function of
support, which is set into motion when an individuals exploratory
system is activated in response to challenges and potential explor-
atory opportunities. The use of the term challenge here refers to
events that are possible to accomplish with some effort, focus, and
planning, and not to those events that are impossible or beyond
ones abilities to accomplish, which would create distress and
activate the attachment system and safe haven behavior (Kobak &
Duemmler, 1994). The provision of a secure base occurs when an
individual supports his or her partners exploratory behavior or
behavior that involves going out from the partner/relationship.
Because secure base support provision has been understudied with
regard to adult relationships, the current investigation focuses on
this top portion of the model.
According to attachment theory, an individuals overall percep-
tion that his or her home base is secure (presumably based on
many interactions involving the provision of a safe haveninter-
actions in which the individuals partner has been responsive to
signals of distress) should lead that individual to (a) have a greater
desire for exploration than would otherwise be the case and (b)
perceive that exploratory opportunities (goals, challenges) are im-
portant, attainable, and worth the effort and risk (Path j, Hypoth-
esis 1). In the next stage of the model, greater desires for explo-
ration and greater perceptions that the pursuit of goals,
explorations, discoveries, and challenges are worthwhile, should
predict (a) more exploratory behavior (efforts to identify and
achieve personal goals, a desire to take on challenges, efforts to
learn new skills) and (b) a greater willingness to seek goal-relevant
support (Path a, Hypothesis 2). It is important to note that not
every personal goal or challenge will require support or assistance
from others. Thus, it is expected that challenges and goals that are
perceived to be more daunting and difficult to obtain will increase
ones desire for support from a significant other and lead one to
solicit more active forms of secure base support (e.g., assistance,
encouragement). In other cases, simply the perception that ones
home base is secure and available if needed should suffice.
In the next stage of the model, the behaviors of the support-
provider and support-receiver are expected to mesh in complemen-
Figure 1. Circle of security in adulthood: Interpersonal model of support-seeking (attachment), support-
provision (caregiving), and exploration.
633
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
tary ways. Adults are likely to function as a secure base for their
romantic partners by (a) not interfering or intruding in the partners
explorations; (b) encouraging the partner to accept challenges; (c)
showing interest in the partners personal goals, plans, and desires
for the future; (d) supporting the partners goal pursuits (such as by
helping to remove obstacles); and (e) balancing an acceptance of
the partners need for self-growth with the conveyance of a con-
tinued availability if needed. The presence or absence of these
behaviors should be associated with recipient behaviors including
support-seeking, openness in discussing exploratory opportunities,
receptiveness to support attempts, and expressed confidence in
exploration. Clear and direct expressions of a need for support
should be associated with more active secure base support (e.g.,
encouragement, assistance in removing obstacles), whereas ex-
ploratory behavior on the part of the support-receiver should be
associated with less active, noninterfering, nonintrusive secure
base support (Path b, Hypothesis 3).
Intrusive/interfering behavior is highlighted in both phases of
this investigation because, according to attachment theory, it is
antithetic to sensitive/responsive support provision and it is a
major inhibitor of exploration. In fact, there is strong evidence that
mothers interference with childrens exploratory activities is as-
sociated with a variety of negative outcomes, including disrupted
concentration, less persistence and enthusiasm in exploration,
more passivity, more negative emotion, less competence, and less
curiosity on the part of the child (e.g., Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton,
1974; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Egeland & Farber, 1984; Main,
1983; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978). In the adult attachment
literature, Kunce and Shaver (1994) and Feeney and Collins (2001)
have also highlighted compulsive/intrusive support-provision as
being associated with attachment insecurity.
In the next stage of the model, the support-receivers subjective
perception of the partners behavior should depend on the degree
to which the partner functions as a secure base. Behaviors that
sensitively encourage and support the recipient in his or her
explorations, in the attainment of goals, and in the pursuit of
personally rewarding challenges, as well as behaviors that convey
availability if needed and that are appropriately contingent on the
needs of the recipient, should be perceived as supportive. In
contrast, intrusive, interfering, or discouraging behaviors should be
viewed as unsupportive (Path c, Hypothesis 4).
Finally, to the extent that the support-receiver perceives the
partner to have effectively provided a secure base for exploration,
he or she should experience both short-term and long-term benefits
in well-being. Because each type of support serves a different
function, it is expected that secure base support (the support of a
partners going out for exploration) will have important imme-
diate and long-term consequences that are distinct from those that
are likely to be afforded by safe haven support (the support of a
partners coming in in times of stress). According to attachment
theory, a secure base gives individuals the confidence and courage
to explore the environment, accept challenges, and take risks
(Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988). In fact, the theory stipulates that the
individuals who make the most of their opportunities and who are
the most stable emotionally and socially have caregivers who
provide a secure base by encouraging autonomy while remaining
available in the event that their support is needed. This theoretical
proposition is supported by empirical evidence indicating that
good support-providers offer situationally contingent support that
is tailored to their partners needs (Simpson, Rholes, Orina, &
Grich, 2002). Thus, the unique consequences of receiving secure
base support (both immediately and over time) are expected to be
higher levels of self-esteem, perceived competency, self-
confidence, and self-efficacy; increases in exploratory behavior
and goal pursuit; and increases in learning, discovery, and overall
happiness and well-being. Therefore, improvements in the self
(personal growth) are likely to be important consequences of
secure base support (Path d, Hypothesis 5). Self-esteem is espe-
cially likely to be improved or eroded over time as a function of
the presence or absence of secure base support in ones most
significant relationship. For example, intrusive (overinvolved)
support, which discourages the recipients exploratory behavior, is
likely to result in less exploratory behavior, thus inhibiting the
recipients development of new competencies and eroding that
persons self-esteem and perceptions of self-efficacy over time.
The current investigation focuses on some immediate outcomes of
the presence or lack of secure base support, such as state self-
esteem, modified perceptions of the likelihood of attaining ones
goals, and mood.
These hypotheses regarding changes in the self as a function of
the relationship (i.e., the way the self is molded by the relationship)
are consistent with research and theory indicating that (a) ones
self-concept may expand as a result of entering a relationship with
another person and cognitively incorporating that person as part of
the self (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991), (b) positive illusions
regarding ones partner may support the partners personal devel-
opment in the direction of fulfilling the illusions (Murray &
Holmes, 1997; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996), (c) relationship
partners may sculpt one another into their ideal selves through a
process of behaving toward the partner in a manner that is con-
gruent with the partners ideal self (Drigotas, Rusbult, Wieselquist,
& Whitton, 1999), and (d) the degree to which individuals are
proactive and intrinsically motivated is largely a result of the social
conditions in which they develop and function (Deci & Ryan,
2000). This project investigates another important method by
which relationship partners may either promote or hinder the
growth of the selfthat is, by supporting the relationship partners
explorations (e.g., goal strivings).
The current investigation was designed as an initial examination
of some basic interpersonal processes involved in the provision of
a secure base (outlined above). These processes were examined
using both observational and experimental methods. The observa-
tional phase of the investigation considers the ways in which
secure base processes operate in the context of discussions that
couple members have about personal goals and exploratory op-
portunities. The experimental phase involves a manipulation of
secure base support to establish some effects of this type of support
(or lack thereof) on the recipient.
Observational Phase
Method
Participants
Participants were 116 couples recruited from a large metropolitan area
through local newspaper advertisements and posted flyers. Couples had
been romantically involved for an average of 4.4 years, and 70% were
living together. All but 3 couples were heterosexual. Thirty-one percent
634
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
were married, 13% were engaged, and 51% were dating seriously (in a
committed relationship for at least 6 months). Couples were paid $40 for
their participation.
Before arriving for the study, each member of the couple was randomly
assigned to the role of either support-provider or support-receiver. The
mean age of support-receivers was 27.9 years (range 1862 years), and
the mean age of support-providers was 27.1 years (range 1851 years).
Fifty-five women and 61 men were assigned to the support-receiver role,
and 63 women and 53 men were assigned to the support-provider role.
Demographics for support-receivers included: 66.0% Caucasian, 10.3%
African American, 13.8% Asian, and 2.0% Hispanic or Native American;
42.2% high school education or some college credit, 45.7% college edu-
cation, and 9.5% advanced professional degree. Demographics for support-
providers included: 59.5% Caucasian, 12.1% African American, 11.2%
Asian, and 6.9% Hispanic or Native American; 37.1% high school educa-
tion or some college credit, 44.9% college education, 13.8% advanced
professional degree. Eight couples were excluded from data analyses for
the observational phase because they either did not speak English or
requested that their tapes be erased.
Procedure
Couples visited the laboratory, one couple at a time. Couple members
first completed a packet of background questionnaires, which included
measures of variables relevant to the hypotheses under investigation (de-
scribed below).
Preliminary Measures
Home base security. As a measure of home base security (i.e., the
degree to which ones partner is generally responsive to signals of distress
and provides a safe haven when needed), support-receivers completed a
four-item measure of their perceptions of the degree to which their partners
are generally responsive to their needs (e.g., My partner is responsive to
my needs; .94). Each item was rated on a scale ranging from 1
(disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly).
Perceptions of exploratory opportunities. Support-receivers completed
several indexes intended to tap their perceptions of exploratory opportu-
nities. First, they completed a Future Goals and Plans Questionnaire, on
which they were asked to list their personal goals for the future. These
goals are the exploratory opportunities under consideration in this phase of
the investigation. Each participant was instructed to list goals that are
personally relevant to him- or herself (e.g., developing a new hobby,
switching jobs) and not those that involve the active participation of both
couple members (e.g., having a baby). Support-receivers were instructed to
list as many or as few goals as they actually had (M6.4, SD 2.4). Then
they were asked to rate their perceptions of these goals: They rated (a) the
importance of each goal on a scale ranging from 1 (not that important to
me at all) to 5 (extremely important to me) and (b) their perceived
likelihood of achieving each goal on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all likely
to achieve that goal) to 5 (almost certain that Ill achieve that goal). The
averages of the support-receivers ratings for Importance of Goals and
Likelihood of Achieving Goals were computed and used in data analyses.
Support-receivers perceptions of exploratory opportunities were also
assessed by obtaining their reports of the degree to which they are gener-
ally willing to engage in exploration. Support-receivers completed a five-
item questionnaire on which they reported their willingness to approach
exploratory opportunities (e.g., I am usually willing to accept challenges
and try new things; .77) on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly)
to 6 (agree strongly). On the basis of these ratings, a Willingness to
Explore Index was computed for use in data analyses.
As an index of the degree to which they feel efficacious and capable of
successfully engaging in exploratory opportunities, support-receivers com-
pleted the Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982). They responded to 23
items assessing their perceived self-efficacy ( .90; e.g., When I make
plans, I am certain I can make them work) on a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Control variables. Support-receivers completed measures of general
self-esteem and general mood. General self-esteem was assessed with
Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item scale ( .86). General mood was assessed
by asking support-receivers to rate (on 5-point scales) the extent to which
they generally feel 23 emotions. Positive Mood (5 items; e.g., pleased,
happy; .83), Anxious Mood (5 items; e.g., nervous, worried; .81),
Angry Mood (3 items; e.g., frustrated, annoyed; .78), Sad Mood (7
items; e.g., sad, distressed; .92), and Ashamed Mood (3 items; e.g.,
ashamed, embarrassed; .79) Scales were computed. A principal-
components analysis indicated that all mood scales loaded on a single
factor (mean r .43). Thus, a composite General Mood Index (higher
scores indicate more positive mood) was computed for use in data analyses.
Distractor Activity
To reduce the likelihood of the questionnaires priming and influencing
behaviors of interest, and to help couples get comfortable interacting in the
lab, couple members interacted for 5 min while playing a cooperative game
(a version of the game Taboo; Hasbro, Pawtucket, RI).
Preinteraction Mood
After completing the distractor activity, support-receivers completed a
measure of preinteraction mood. They rated the extent to which they feel
right now the same 23 emotions that were used to assess general mood.
Positive Mood ( .83), Anxious Mood ( .68), Angry Mood (
.63), Sad Mood ( .84), and Ashamed Mood ( .75) Scales were
computed, and a composite Mood Before Discussion Index (mean r .39)
was computed as described above.
Future Goals and Plans Discussion
Couple members were seated in a laboratory living room, the support-
receiver was given an index card on which his or her personal goals were
listed, and the couple members were asked to discuss these goals. Their
interactions were unobtrusively videotaped for 10 min and later coded for
content relevant to understanding secure base support processes.
Coding system. Support-receiver and support-provider behaviors were
coded by two trained, independent observers who were unaware of study
hypotheses.
1
To assess interobserver reliability, intraclass correlation co-
efficients (ICCs) were computed (McGraw & Wong, 1996) for all coded
dimensions. Averages of the two observers ratings were used in data
analysis.
The extent to which the following support-receiver behaviors occurred
was coded on well-defined 5-point rating scales: (a) Confident Exploration
of Goals (ICC .72): the support-receiver confidently explores avenues
for achieving his or her goals and appears comfortable with the autono-
mous pursuit of goals; (b) Open Discussion of Goals (ICC .88): the
support-receiver openly and thoroughly discusses his or her goals (e.g.,
1
The independent coding refers to the fact that two individuals, who
had been extensively trained in the use of the coding system, coded each
couples interaction independently of the other coder. Each coder watched
each interaction several times focusing only on the support-receiver and
coded that individuals interaction behaviors. Then each coder again
watched each interaction several times focusing only on the support-
provider and coded his or her interaction behaviors. These procedures were
followed in an attempt to minimize the potential for coders assessments of
one couple member to be influenced by what the other couple member was
doing during the interaction.
635
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
initiates discussion of various aspects of the goals, elaborates on issues
raised by the partner); (c) Emotional Disclosure (ICC .82): the support-
receiver openly describes, talks about, and shares emotions and feelings;
(d) Descriptive Disclosure (ICC .80): the support-receiver talks openly
about the factual details of his or her goals; (e) Receptiveness to Support
Attempts (ICC .83): the support-receiver conveys either verbally or
nonverbally that the partners input is welcomed and appreciated; (f)
Avoidance Behaviors (ICC .71): the support-receiver exhibits a reluc-
tance to openly discuss his or her goals (e.g., by changing the topic, acting
distracted, withdrawing physically); (g) Warmth/Positive Affect (ICC
.83): the support-receiver interacts in a warm, pleasant, and positive man-
ner (e.g., by exhibiting positive facial expressions, positive voice tone); (h)
Negative or Hostile Affect (ICC .81): the support-receiver exhibits
negativity or hostility toward the partner (e.g., by expressing dissatisfac-
tion, criticizing, showing annoyance); (i) Minimizing Behaviors (ICC
.54): the support-receiver downplays the significance or importance of his
or her goals; (j) Maximizing Behaviors (ICC .57): the support-receiver
appears to catastrophize the significance or importance of problems/
concerns related to his or her goals; (k) Modification of Goals (ICC .65):
the support-receiver changes his or her goals; (l) Blending of Goals (ICC
.71): the support-receiver appears to merge his or her personal goals with
the partner (to include the partner/relationship); (m) Proximity Seeking
(ICC .93): the support-receiver initiates and/or seeks physical affection;
(n) Overall Support Seeking (ICC .82): the support-receiver openly
expresses goal-related concerns and worries, requests understanding or
reassurance, and/or asks for assistance in accomplishing goals; and (o)
Apparent Security in Relation to Partner (ICC .73): the support-receiver
engages in an open, easy, and connected interaction with the partner and
shows evidence of being able to explore his or her goals while feeling
supported and understood by the partner. The total number of goals and the
nature of the goals discussed were coded for descriptive purposes.
Because several of the coded dimensions were highly intercorrelated
(r .50), and to simplify data presentation, a principal-components anal-
ysis was conducted. Open discussion of goals, descriptive disclosure,
emotional disclosure, receptiveness, confident exploration, overall support-
seeking, and avoidance loaded on a single factor. Therefore, a composite
variable indicating an Open, Receptive, Confident Discussion was formed
for use in data analyses (mean r .55). Positive and negative affect (r
.27, p .01), as well as blending of goals and modification of goals (r
.23, p .05), loaded on separate factors. Thus, composite variables
indicating Expressed Affect (higher scores indicate greater positive affect)
and Modify/Blend Goals were formed. Other variables loaded on indepen-
dent factors, with the exception of apparent security, which was retained as
a separate dimension reflecting observed attachment security. Intercorre-
lations among support-receiver behavioral scales are presented in Appen-
dix A.
The extent to which the following support-provider behaviors occurred
were coded on well-defined 5-point rating scales: (a) Listening/Attentive
(ICC .70): the support-provider displays clear signs of being focused on
his or her partner and processing the partners disclosure of information
(e.g., eye contact, nods); (b) Support of Goals and Autonomous Explora-
tion (ICC .81): the support-provider supports his or her partners
autonomous pursuit of goals (e.g., by facilitating dialogue about the goals,
expressing understanding and respect for the partner and the partners
goals); (c) Encouragement of Goals and Autonomy (ICC .83): the
support-provider encourages the partner to pursue his or her personal goals;
(d) Communication of Future Availability (ICC .55): the support-
provider conveys that he or she will be available to help as needed in the
future attainment of the partners goals; (e) Comfort With the Partners
Autonomous Goal Pursuit (ICC .75): the support-provider behaves in a
manner indicating that he or she feels comfortable with the partners
pursuit of autonomous goals; (f) Avoidance Behaviors (ICC .63): the
support-provider exhibits a reluctance to openly discuss the partners goals
(e.g., by changing the topic, acting distracted, withdrawing physically); (g)
Intrusiveness/Interference (ICC .76): the support-provider either overtly
or subtly interferes with the partners goals (e.g., by inserting him- or
herself into the goals, trying to change the goals, preventing the partner
from pursuing the goals); (h) Controlling Support (ICC .82): the support-
provider appears to be too bossy, too directive, or too dominating in his or
her support attempts (e.g., telling the partner what to do to accomplish a
goal instead of offering helpful suggestions); (i) Warmth/Positive Affect
(ICC .88): the support-provider interacts in a warm, pleasant, and
positive manner (e.g., by exhibiting positive facial expressions, positive
voice tone); (j) Negative or Hostile Affect (ICC .85): the support-
provider exhibits negativity or hostility toward the partner (e.g., by ex-
pressing dissatisfaction, criticizing, showing annoyance); (k) Emotional
Support (ICC .82): the support-provider is responsive to the emotional
needs of the partner (e.g., by validating feelings, making empathic remarks,
encouraging disclosure of feelings); (l) Instrumental Support (ICC .83):
the support-provider provides actual, tangible assistance that is focused on
fixing a specific goal-related problem or helping to make a plan for how a
particular goal may be achieved; (m) Minimizing Behaviors (ICC .73):
the support-provider minimizes or downplays the significance or impor-
tance of the goals; (n) Maximizing Behaviors (ICC .58): the support-
provider appears to catastrophize the significance or importance of prob-
lems/concerns related to the goals; (o) Proximity Seeking (ICC .93): the
support-provider provides physical affection; and (p) Overall Support
Effort (ICC .83): the support-provider demonstrates an active effort to be
sensitive and responsive to the partner and his or her goals and goal-related
problems throughout the discussion.
A principal-components analysis was conducted on the coded dimen-
sions. Listening, support of goals, encouragement of goals, comfort with
goals, instrumental support, emotional support, overall support effort, and
avoidance loaded on a single factor. Therefore, a composite variable
indicating Sensitive and Responsive Support was formed for use in data
analyses (mean r .65). Positive and negative affect (r .52, p .001),
as well as intrusive and controlling support (r .71, p .001), loaded on
separate factors. Thus, composite variables indicating Expressed Affect
(higher scores indicate greater positive affect) and Intrusive/Controlling
Support were formed. Other coded dimensions were retained as separate
variables. Intercorrelations among support-provider behavioral scales are
presented in Appendix B.
Nature of goals discussed. Couples discussed an average of 5.2 goals
(SD 2.4); 70% of the sample discussed career goals, 78% discussed
education goals, 47% discussed travel goals, 32% discussed athletic/phys-
ical fitness goals, 36% discussed goals related to improving relationships
with others (e.g., friends, siblings), 28% discussed creative goals (e.g.,
writing, art), 50% discussed goals related to obtaining new possessions
(e.g., car), 10% discussed spiritual goals (e.g., developing a closer rela-
tionship with God), 27% discussed personal development goals (e.g., begin
a new hobby), 27% discussed finance goals, and 55% discussed goals that
were difficult to classify (e.g., get back to nature, organize and compart-
mentalize daily life).
Postinteraction Measures
Immediately following the discussion, support-receivers completed
measures of their perceptions of support, as well as measures of immediate
consequences of secure base support (i.e., mood, self-esteem, perceived
likelihood of achieving the goals).
Perceptions of partner support. Support-receivers completed a number
of items designed to assess their perceptions of their partners supportive-
ness during the discussion. First, support-receivers responded to five items
that explicitly asked them to report how supportive the partner was during
the discussion (e.g., Overall, how supportive was your partner with regard
to your future goals and plans?). Support-receivers responded to each item
on a 5-point scale with appropriate anchors. The items were averaged to
form a composite measure of the degree to which the partner was perceived
to be supportive and attentive ( .83).
636
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
Next, support-receivers completed a 20-item measure designed to assess
additional perceptions of their partners behavior during the interaction.
They were presented with the phrase, During our discussion, I felt that my
partner. . . , then they were asked to rate their agreement with 20 sentence
completions (e.g., would rather I did not do the things on my list) on a
5-point scale. Based on the results of a principal-components analysis,
three composite perception variables were formed: perceptions of the
partner as being Encouraging and Sensitive (e.g., showed genuine concern
for my feelings, 11 items, .94), perceptions of the partner as being
Self-Focused and Disappointing (e.g., was selfish, 5 items, .81), and
perceptions of the partner as being Rude and Critical (e.g., was somewhat
critical or sarcastic, 4 items, .80). For use in some analyses, a
composite index of recipients Perceptions of Partner Support was com-
puted by standardizing and averaging (with the negative scales reverse
coded) the four perception subscales (mean r .66, p .001).
State self-esteem. Support-receivers completed a modified version of
McFarland and Rosss (1982) state self-esteem measure. They were asked
to describe themselves on 27 pairs of opposing attributes by circling a
number between 1 and 7 that corresponds to how they feel about them-
selves right now. For example, the first 7-point scale was anchored with the
adjectives goodbad. Other scales included the adjectives competent
incompetent, worthlessvaluable, adequateinadequate, and capable
incapable. Responses were averaged to form a composite measure of State
Self-Esteem After Discussion ( .97).
Perceptions of goals after discussion. Support-receivers were asked to
rate the Importance of the Goals and their perceived Likelihood of Achiev-
ing the Goals in a manner similar to that described above.
Mood. Support-receivers completed a measure of postinteraction
mood identical to that described above. Positive Mood ( .83), Anxious
Mood ( .81), Angry Mood ( .78), Sad Mood ( .93), and
Ashamed Mood ( .79) Indexes were computed, and then a composite
Mood After Discussion Index (mean r .59) was computed as described
above.
Results
Path j: Is Home Base Security Associated With
Perceptions of Exploratory Opportunities?
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine whether the
support-receivers home base security was associated with his or
her perceptions of exploratory opportunities. As described above,
home base security was operationally defined as the support-
receivers report of the degree to which his or her partner is
generally sensitive and responsive to signals of distress. As shown
in Table 1, the more secure their home base, the more willing
support-receivers were to engage in exploratory activity, the more
self-efficacy they reported with regard to accomplishing goals, and
the more achievable they perceived their goals to be. Thus, the
degree to which an individual perceives that his or her partner
provides an adequate safe haven is associated with the individuals
perceptions of life opportunities that involve exploration away
from the partner.
Path a: Are Perceptions of Exploratory Opportunities
Associated With Confident Exploration and Support-
Seeking Behaviors?
Regression analyses were conducted to examine whether the
support-receivers perceptions of exploratory opportunities were
associated with the degree to which they engaged in confident
exploration of their goals and sought goal-related support during
the discussion with their partner. First, a simultaneous regression
analysis was conducted in which all perception variables (willing-
ness to explore, self-efficacy, likelihood of achieving goals, im-
portance of goals) were entered as predictors of observers ratings
of the degree to which the support-receivers confidently explored
their goals during the discussion. Results indicated that support-
receivers who were more willing to explore, and support-receivers
who perceived their goals to be more achievable before the dis-
cussion, engaged in more confident exploration of their goals
during the discussion with their partners (see Table 2). Support-
receivers perceptions of the importance of their goals were neg-
atively associated with their exploratory behavior during the dis-
cussion. Although in the expected direction, the beta for self-
efficacy predicting exploration during the discussion did not reach
significance.
Second, a simultaneous regression analysis was conducted in
which all perception variables were entered as predictors of ob-
servers ratings of the degree to which the support-receivers sought
support during the discussion. Results indicated that the more
self-efficacy support-receivers reported and the more achievable
they perceived their goals to be before the discussion, the less
support-seeking they exhibited during the discussion (see Table 2).
However, support-receivers who indicated that they were willing
to explore (accept challenges and try new things) engaged in more
support-seeking during the discussion. The beta for importance of
goals predicting support-seeking was not statistically significant.
Nevertheless, the results provide initial support for the hypothesis
that support-receivers perceptions of exploratory opportunities are
associated with the way they approach their goals and discuss them
with their partners.
Path b: How Do Support-Receiver and Support-Provider
Behaviors Influence One Another?
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the associa-
tions among support-receiver and support-provider behaviors that
Table 1
Correlations Between Recipients Perceived Home Base Security and Perceptions of Exploratory
Opportunities
Recipient perceptions
Willingness
to explore Self-efficacy
Likelihood of
achieving goals
Importance
of goals
Home base security .35*** .33*** .29** .10
Note. N 108.
** p .01. *** p .001.
637
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
were coded from the videotaped discussions. As shown in Table 3,
support-providers who were coded by observers as being sensitive
and responsive had partners who discussed their goals in an open
and confident manner, showed warmth and positivity during the
discussion, and exhibited security in relation to the support-
provider. In contrast, support-providers who were coded by ob-
servers as being intrusive and controlling had partners who mod-
ified their goals during the course of the discussion, exhibited less
positive affect, and exhibited low levels of security. Support-
providers maximization of goal-related problems was also asso-
ciated with support-receivers modification of goals.
Results also revealed that support-providers and support-
receivers reciprocated expressions of positive and negative affect,
maximizing behaviors, and proximity-seeking behaviors during
the discussion. Support-provider expressions of positive affect
were associated with less maximizing, more proximity seeking,
and more security on the part of the support-receiver. Likewise,
support-receiver expressions of positive affect were associated
with less maximizing and minimizing behaviors and with more
proximity seeking on the part of the support-provider. Support-
providers communication of future availability was positively
associated with support-receivers proximity seeking and security,
and support-providers minimizing behavior was negatively asso-
ciated with support-receiver security. Taken together, the results
indicate that the behaviors of each interaction partner are linked in
complementary ways; the behavior of each partner is likely to play
a role in shaping the behavior of the other.
Path c: Are Observed Support Behaviors Associated With
Perceptions of Support?
Next, analyses were conducted to examine whether the behav-
iors exhibited by the support-provider during the discussion pre-
dicted the support-receivers perceptions of having been sup-
ported. As shown in Table 4, support-providers who were
observed as being more sensitive and responsive, more communi-
cating of future availability, and more proximity seeking during
the discussion were seen by their partners as being encouraging,
Table 2
Regression Analyses Predicting Exploratory Behavior and Support-Seeking Behavior During
Discussion From Recipients Perceptions of Exploratory Opportunities
Recipient perceptions B SE sr
2
R
2
Exploration during discussion
Perceptions of exploratory opportunities .13*
Willingness to explore .365* .214* .187 .04
Self-efficacy .185 .161 .143 .02
Likelihood of achieving goals .756** .290** .285 .07
Importance of goals .318* .206* .158 .04
Support seeking during discussion
Perceptions of exploratory opportunities .18***
Willingness to explore .356* .222* .155 .05
Self-efficacy .376** .312** .142 .06
Likelihood of achieving goals .391* .219* .184 .04
Importance of goals .124 .115 .121 .01
Note. N 108.
* p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
Table 3
Correlations Among Observed Support-Receiver and Support-Provider Behaviors
Support-receiver
Support-provider
Sensitive and
responsive
support
Communication
of future
availability
Intrusiveness and
controlling
support
Expressed
affect
Minimizing
behaviors
Maximizing
behaviors
Proximity
seeking
Open, receptive, confident discussion .57*** .18 .04 .13 .10 .00 .10
Modify/blend goals .09 .10 .25** .09 .07 .19* .03
Expressed affect .34*** .17 .45*** .74*** .37*** .32*** .30**
Minimizing .15 .06 .15 .10 .13 .02 .05
Maximizing .07 .01 .12 .22* .06 .35*** .00
Proximity seeking .01 .26** .02 .29** .02 .03 .76***
Security .63*** .28** .23* .47*** .24* .16 .14
Note. N 108.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
638
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
sensitive, and supportive. In contrast, support-providers who were
observed as being intrusive or controlling, as well as support-
providers who exhibited minimizing or maximizing behaviors,
tended to be perceived by their partners as rude and critical.
Support-providers more positive (and less negative) expressed
affect was associated with partner perceptions of the support-
provider as being more encouraging and supportive and less self-
focused and rude/critical. Thus, the support-receivers perceptions
of their partners behaviors appear to be rooted in what their
partners actually did during the interaction.
Path d: Are Recipient Perceptions of Secure Base Support
Associated With Important Outcomes?
Regression analyses were conducted to examine whether the
support-receivers perceptions of goal support predict some im-
portant immediate outcomes for the recipient. The immediate
outcomes examined in this investigation included state self-
esteem, perceptions of goals, and mood after the discussion. Re-
sults are described for each outcome measure below.
State Self-Esteem
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the hypoth-
esis that support-receivers perceptions of secure base support
predict their self-esteem after the discussion. The support-
receivers general self-esteem was entered into the regression
analysis as a control variable in the prediction of state self-esteem
following the discussion. General self-esteem was expected to
predict a substantial portion of variance in state self-esteem fol-
lowing the discussion. However, it was expected that additional
variance in postdiscussion self-esteem would not be accounted for
by general self-esteem. To test the hypothesis that perceptions of
secure base support influence self-esteem after the discussion by
predicting above and beyond the support-receivers general self-
esteem, a composite measure of the support-receivers perceptions
of support was simultaneously entered into the analysis as another
predictor variable. The dependent variable was state self-esteem
following the goal discussion.
As shown in Table 5, results revealed that support-receivers
general self-esteem was a strong predictor of their state self-esteem
following the discussion. However, consistent with hypotheses,
support-receivers perceptions of partner support also strongly
predicted their state self-esteem following the discussion (by pre-
dicting above and beyond general self-esteem). Support-receivers
who perceived greater secure base support from their partners
reported higher self-esteem after the discussion. Likewise,
support-receivers who felt that their goals were not supported by
their partners reported lower self-esteem following the discussion.
Perceptions of Goals
Likelihood of achieving goals. Next, multiple regression anal-
yses were conducted to test the hypothesis that support-receivers
perceptions of secure base support predict changes in their per-
ceptions of their goals from before to after the discussion. In the
first analysis, the support-receivers perceptions of partner support
and the support-receivers perceived likelihood of achieving their
goals before the discussion (the control variable) were simulta-
neously entered as predictors of the support-receivers perceived
likelihood of achieving their goals after the discussion. Support-
receivers ratings of their perceived likelihood of achieving their
goals before the discussion were expected to predict a substantial
portion of variance in their postdiscussion ratings. However, it was
expected that additional variance in postdiscussion ratings would
not be accounted for by the prediscussion ratings. It was expected
that the support-receivers perceptions of support would predict
this additional variance representing the change in ratings from
before to after the discussion.
As shown in Table 5, results revealed that support-receivers
prediscussion ratings were strong predictors of their postdiscussion
ratings. However, consistent with hypotheses, support-receivers
perceptions of partner support significantly predicted variance in
the postdiscussion ratings that was not accounted for by the pre-
discussion ratings. Specifically, when they felt that their goals
were supported by their partners, support-receivers rated the like-
lihood of achieving their goals to be higher after the discussion
than before the discussion. To verify the pattern of change, pre-
dicted means were computed for changes in perceived likelihood
of achieving goals at one standard deviation above and below the
mean on perceived support. The predicted mean change at low
levels of perceived support was .10, indicating that individuals
Table 4
Correlations Between Observed Support Behaviors and Recipients Perceptions of Support
Observed support behavior
Recipient perceptions
Encouraging,
sensitive partner
Supportive,
attentive partner
Self-focused,
disappointing
partner
Rude, critical
partner
Sensitive and responsive support .28** .36*** .28** .33***
Communication of future availability .22* .22* .11 .08
Intrusiveness and controlling support .12 .04 .11 .23*
Expressed affect .40*** .39*** .35*** .27**
Minimizing behaviors .18 .16 .08 .27**
Maximizing behaviors .15 .08 .16 .24*
Proximity seeking .37*** .33*** .19 .13
Note. N 108.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
639
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
who perceived low levels of support perceived that they were less
likely to achieve their goals after the discussion than before, and
the predicted mean change at high levels of support was .31,
indicating that individuals who perceived high levels of support
perceived a greater likelihood of achieving their goals after the
discussion than before.
Importance of goals. In the next analysis, the support-
receivers perceptions of partner support and the support-
receivers prediscussion ratings of the importance of their goals
(control variable) were entered as predictors of their postdiscus-
sion ratings of goal importance. Neither the prediscussion ratings
of goal importance nor the support-receivers perceptions of sup-
port emerged as significant predictors of postdiscussion impor-
tance ratings (see Table 5).
Mood
A regression analysis was conducted to examine changes in
mood as a function of perceived partner support. The support-
receivers perceptions of partner support and the support-
receivers prediscussion mood ratings (control variable) were en-
tered as predictors of the support-receivers postdiscussion mood
ratings. As shown in Table 6, when recipients felt that their goals
were supported by their partners, they experienced increases in
positive mood (and decreases in negative mood) after the discus-
sion. To verify this pattern, predicted means were computed for
changes in mood at one standard deviation above and below the
mean on perceived support. The predicted mean change at low
levels of perceived support was .39, indicating that individuals
who perceived low levels of support experienced decrements in
positive mood, and the predicted mean change at high levels of
support was .15, indicating that individuals who perceived high
levels of support experienced increments in positive mood. The
analysis was repeated with general mood as the control variable,
and the pattern remained ( .67, p .001, sr
2
.41, for
perceptions of support predicting postdiscussion mood).
The results of this phase of the investigation provide initial
support for the proposed model. The support of a partners goal-
strivings and explorations appear to have some important impli-
cations for the recipients happiness and self-esteem and for their
perceptions of the likelihood of achieving specific goals, at least in
the short term. However, another important test of the immediate
effects of secure base support (Paths c and d) involves experimen-
tally manipulating this type of support (and lack thereof) during a
laboratory exploration activity.
Experimental Phase
Overview
The purpose of the next phase of the study was to provide an
experimental examination of some immediate effects of secure
base support, or the lack thereof, on the recipient. According to
attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), and as indicated in empirical
work examining individual differences in responsiveness to part-
ners needs (e.g., Crowell et al., 2002; Feeney & Collins, 2001;
Simpson et al., 2002), an important function of a secure base is to
be available, encouraging, and ready to respond when called on,
but to intervene actively only when clearly necessary. Attachment
theory postulates that noninterference/nonintrusiveness is an im-
portant feature of a secure base, and subsequent research examin-
ing interactions between parents and children has indicated that
intrusiveness is a major inhibitor of exploration and is associated
with negative outcomes such as passivity, less competence, and
less curiosity on the part of the child (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1974;
Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Egeland & Farber, 1984; Main, 1983;
Matas et al., 1978). Although adult attachment researchers have
shown that compulsive or intrusive support in stressful situations is
associated with attachment insecurity (e.g., Feeney & Collins,
2001; Kunce & Shaver, 1994), the consequences of this type of
Table 5
Regression Analyses Predicting Self-Esteem and Changes in Perceptions of Goals From
Recipient Perceptions of Partner Support
Outcome variable B SE sr
2
R
2
State self-esteem after discussion .531***
General self-esteem .372*** .363*** .068 .125
Perceptions of partner support .239*** .551*** .029 .287
Perceived likelihood of achieving goals after discussion .546***
Perceived likelihood before discussion .801*** .708*** .075 .497
Perceptions of partner support .045* .153* .019 .076
Perceived importance of goals after discussion .013
Perceived importance before discussion .084 .093 .087 .009
Perceptions of partner support .018 .072 .024 .005
Note. N 108.
* p .05. *** p .001.
Table 6
Regression Analyses Predicting Changes in Mood From
Recipient Perceptions of Partner Support
Outcome variable B SE sr
2
R
2
Mood after discussion .629***
Mood before
discussion .530*** .357*** .097 .099
Perceptions of partner
support .406*** .559*** .048 .243
Note. N 108.
*** p .001.
640
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
support in exploratory situations have not been established in
adulthood. Therefore, the goal of this experiment was to provide
further evidence of Paths c and d by manipulating support-provider
intrusiveness, which indicates a lack of secure base support, in
order to examine some immediate effects of the waiting, nonin-
terfering aspect of secure base support on the recipient.
Method
Participants
Participants were the same as those described above, and couple mem-
bers maintained their support-provider and support-receiver role as-
signments. Sample size varied slightly across analyses due to missing data
(e.g., computer problems, incomplete questionnaire data).
Procedure
The experimental procedure took place immediately following the ob-
servational session. Couple members completed their final activities in
separate rooms. First, they were asked to participate in a communication
activity involving instant messaging (a) as a filler activity to reduce
possible carryover effects from the prior goal discussion and (b) to famil-
iarize couple members with the use of the Yahoo instant-messaging sys-
tem. The username that had been established for the support-receiver was
romanticpartner1, and the username for the support-provider was ro-
manticpartner2. After being given instructions, couple members were
given 5 min to interact with one another using the instant messaging
system.
Second, the support-receiver was asked to explore a new activity (a
computer puzzle game) while the support-provider waited in the other
room. A computer puzzle activity was selected as the exploratory activity
for two reasons. First, the goal was to select a novel activity that adults
might enjoy exploring in a laboratory situation in a manner comparable to
the way in which children are observed exploring toys in laboratory
situations in developmental research (e.g., see Grossmann, Grossmann, &
Zimmerman, 1999, for a review). The goal was to create an analogue
situation in which adults might explore an adult toy. The puzzle activity
was selected to be enjoyable and solvablechallenging in a pleasurable,
but not in a difficult or stressful, way. Participants were instructed to have
fun with it, and there was no pressure for them to perform well. They were
instructed to try the activity so that they could report (on a questionnaire)
what they thought about it afterward. Overall, participants rated the activity
as being enjoyable (M 5.0, on a 7-point scale) and not very difficult
(M 3.2, on a 7-point scale). The second major consideration in choosing
this activity involved the goal of experimentally manipulating partner
intrusiveness/interference to examine the effects on the recipient. A com-
puter provided an ideal means of standardizing and delivering support to
the recipient.
The support-receiver was told that the partner could watch the game on
a computer while waiting in the other room if he or she chose to do so. The
experimenter explained that the partner would wait in the other room so
that the support-receiver would not be distracted while playing the game.
These instructions were intended to (a) make it unlikely that the recipient
would expect any messages given he or she knew of the experimenters
desire for the recipient not to be distracted, but at the same time (b) make
it possible and believable that the messages sent to participants in the
experimental conditions could have come from the partner. Neither mem-
ber of the couple was told that the support-receiver might receive mes-
sages. The experimenter set up the game for the support-receiver by
making the puzzle completely visible on the left of the computer screen,
and by leaving the instant messenger window (from the previous activity)
visible on the right side of the screen. The support-receiver was given
instructions about how to play the game and was then left alone to play for
5 min.
Experimental Manipulations
Before arriving for the study, support-receivers had been randomly
assigned to one of four support conditions (described below). The support
manipulations were delivered by the experimenter through the instant-
messaging system. The experimenter had closed the instant messenger in
the support-providers room and taken over the romanticpartner2 username
in the control room.
Intrusive/controlling condition. Support-receivers received frequent
messages, ostensibly from the partner, that provided the answers to the
puzzle (e.g., 1 down texas) or told the support-receiver what to do (e.g.,
do 12 down). The experimenter monitored the support-receivers
progress from the control room and was careful not to give answers to the
puzzle that had already been solved. Twelve messages were delivered at
15-s intervals for 3 min (the first message was delivered immediately), then
3 messages were delivered at 30-s intervals for the remaining 2 min.
Intrusive/supportive condition. Support-receivers received frequent
messages, ostensibly from the partner, that were intrusive but emotionally
supportive (e.g., good luck, , not bad, nice try, hard one). The
experimenter monitored the support-receivers progress so that an appro-
priate message was delivered based on what the recipient actually did.
Twelve messages were delivered at 15-s intervals for 3 min (the first
message was delivered immediately), then 3 messages were delivered at
30-s intervals for the remaining 2 min.
Nonintrusive/supportive condition. Support-receivers received two
messages, ostensibly from the partner, that were nonintrusive and emo-
tionally supportive. One message (good luck) was delivered immedi-
ately, and another message (good job or some of these are hard,
depending on how the recipient was doing) was delivered 4 min into the
game.
Control condition. Support-receivers received no messages. Because
no messages were expected, the control condition was intended to provide
a baseline so that perceptions in the experimental conditions could be
compared with perceptions that would be present in neutral circumstances
(when working alone without any interruption).
Dependent Measures
After the game, the support-receiver completed measures of his or her
perceptions of the messages and the partner, state self-esteem, and mood
(described below).
Perceptions of partner support. Support-receivers answered a number
of questions designed to assess their perceptions of their partners support-
iveness during the puzzle activity. First, support-receivers responded to
four items that asked them to report their perceptions of the partner during
the time they were playing the game. Three of the items were combined
into a Helpful/Supportive Partner Index (e.g., How helpful or supportive
was your partner while you were playing the game?), and one item
represented an Intrusive/Interfering Partner Index (How intrusive or in-
terfering was your partner while you were playing the game?). Support-
receivers responded to all items on scales ranging from 1 to 7 with
appropriate anchors.
Second, support-receivers who received messages were asked to rate, on
a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely), the degree to which 12
adjectives described their perceptions of the messages. Six positive adjec-
tives (helpful, thoughtful, caring, kind, warm, loving) were combined into
a Helpful/Thoughtful Messages Index ( .91), and 6 negative adjectives
(frustrating, annoying, insensitive, bossy, controlling, interfering/
meddlesome) were combined into a Frustrating/Insensitive Messages Index
( .89). Because control condition participants received no messages,
they were not included in analyses involving these indexes. For use in some
641
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
analyses, a composite Perceptions of Partner Support variable was com-
puted by standardizing and averaging the four perception variables (
.81).
Responses to messages. To provide a supplementary indicator of the
way messages were perceived by the recipients, two independent observers
coded the support-receivers written responses to the messages they re-
ceived (for those who responded by sending a message in return). The
responses were coded for the degree to which the recipient appeared to
accept or reject the messages. Acceptance of support was coded as the
degree to which the support-receiver was receptive to the partners assis-
tance by conveying that it is welcomed and appreciated (e.g., by thanking
the partner, asking for additional hints or answers; ICC .64). Rejection
of support was coded as the degree to which the support-receiver was
unreceptive to the partners assistance by conveying that it is not welcomed
or appreciated (e.g., by telling the partner to stop sending messages; ICC
.81). Hostile response to support was coded as the degree to which the
support-receiver demonstrated negativity and hostility in response to the
partners assistance by conveying that he or she feels very annoyed and
irritated about it (ICC .95). Responses were coded on scales ranging
from 1 (none at all) to 5 (a great deal). For participants in the intrusive/
controlling condition (the only condition in which participants received
answers to the puzzle), coders also computed the percentage of answers,
out of the total number given, that the support-receiver filled into the
puzzle (ICC .98).
State self-esteem. Support-receivers completed the same state self-
esteem measure described above. Responses to the 27 items were averaged
to form a composite measure of State Self-Esteem After Puzzle Activity
( .97).
Mood. Support-receivers completed a measure of postactivity mood
identical to that described above. Positive Mood ( .78), Anxious Mood
( .67), Angry Mood ( .76), Sad Mood ( .85), and Ashamed
Mood ( .79) Indexes were computed, and then a composite Mood After
Puzzle Index (mean r .47) was computed as described above.
Results
Path c: Are Experimentally Manipulated Support
Behaviors Associated With Support Perceptions?
First, analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to ex-
amine condition differences in perceptions of support and provide
experimental evidence for Path c. Support condition was the
between-couples independent variable, and the four perception
variables (helpful/thoughtful messages, frustrating/insensitive
messages, helpful/supportive partner, and intrusive/interfering
partner) were the dependent variables. As shown in Table 7, results
revealed statistically significant condition differences in all four
perception variables. Follow-up analyses examining differences
among conditions indicated that support-receivers in the intrusive/
controlling condition perceived their partners messages to be less
helpful and thoughtful than did support-receivers in both
the intrusive/supportive and nonintrusive/supportive conditions.
Support-receivers in the intrusive/controlling condition perceived
their partners messages to be more frustrating and insensitive than
did support-receivers in the intrusive/supportive condition, and
support-receivers in both intrusive conditions perceived their part-
ners messages to be more frustrating/insensitive than did support-
receivers in the nonintrusive/supportive condition.
With regard to perceptions of the partner, support-receivers in
all experimental conditions rated their partners as being more
helpful and supportive than support-receivers in the control con-
dition. However, support-receivers in the intrusive/controlling
condition perceived their partners to be more intrusive and inter-
fering than did support-receivers in the intrusive/supportive con-
dition, and support-receivers in both intrusive conditions perceived
their partners to be more interfering than did support-receivers in
both the nonintrusive/supportive and control conditions. All
means, standard deviations, and effect sizes are presented in
Table 7.
Supplementary Analyses of Reactions to Manipulated
Support Behavior
As additional evidence that intrusive support during exploration
is likely to be perceived negatively by the recipient, ANOVAs
were conducted to examine condition differences in the support-
receivers observable reactions (written responses) to partner sup-
port for those who sent instant messages back to their partners.
Support condition was the between-couples independent variable,
and reactions to support (acceptance, rejection, hostile response)
were the dependent variables. As shown in Table 8, results re-
vealed statistically significant condition differences in rejection of
support and hostile response to support. Follow-up analyses indi-
cated that support-receivers in the intrusive/controlling condition
were more rejecting of their partners support attempts than were
support-receivers in the intrusive/supportive condition, and
Table 7
Analyses of Variance Examining Support Condition Differences in Perceptions of Support
Perceptions of support
Support condition

2
F(df)
Intrusive
Controlling
M (SD)
Intrusive
Supportive
M (SD)
Nonintrusive
Supportive
M (SD)
Control
M (SD)
Perceptions of messages n 23 n 23 n 24
Helpful/thoughtful messages 2.63 (0.92)
a
3.58 (1.10)
b
3.38 (1.11)
b
.14 5.27 (2, 67)**
Frustrating/insensitive messages 2.12 (0.88)
a
1.57 (0.82)
b
1.08 (0.25)
c
.28 12.59 (2, 67)***
Perceptions of partner n 29 n 29 n 29 n 28
Helpful/supportive partner 5.34 (1.17)
a
5.43 (1.35)
a
5.41 (1.13)
a
4.55 (0.77)
b
.10 4.03 (3, 111)**
Intrusive/interfering partner 4.62 (2.04)
a
3.32 (2.06)
b
1.72 (1.19)
c
1.48 (1.12)
c
.37 20.49 (3, 111)***
Note. Subscripts denote statistically significant differences between means.
** p .01. *** p .001.
642
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
support-receivers in both intrusive conditions were more rejecting
than support-receivers in the nonintrusive/supportive condition
(who exhibited no signs of rejection at all). Support-receivers in
the intrusive/controlling condition reacted with more hostility than
did support-receivers in the nonintrusive/supportive condition;
however, support-receivers in the intrusive/supportive condition
did not differ significantly from either group. The ANOVA exam-
ining condition differences in acceptance of support revealed a
marginally significant condition effect. Follow-up analyses indi-
cated a significant difference between the two intrusive conditions
in acceptance of support, with less acceptance occurring in the
intrusive/controlling condition.
The above results indicate that participants in the intrusive/
controlling condition were more negative than any other group in
their perceptions of and reactions to their partners messages. As
an additional index of this negativity, the percentage of answers
(out of the total given) that support-receivers in the intrusive/
controlling condition filled into the puzzle was examined. Results
revealed that support-receivers filled in an average of only 57% of
the answers that were given to them (range 17%100%; SD
.26), suggesting that they may have been ignoring some of their
partners support attempts.
Path d: Are Recipient Perceptions of Manipulated
Support Associated With Important Outcomes?
A series of regression analyses was conducted to examine
whether the support-receivers perceptions of manipulated secure
base support predict some important immediate outcomes for the
recipient, including state self-esteem and mood after the puzzle
activity.
State Self-Esteem
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the hypoth-
esis that support-receivers perceptions of support predict changes
in their self-esteem from before to after the puzzle activity.
Support-receivers state self-esteem before the puzzle activity was
entered into the regression analysis as a control variable in the
prediction of state self-esteem following the puzzle activity. To
test the hypothesis that perceptions of secure base support may
influence self-esteem after the puzzle activity by predicting above
and beyond the support-receivers preactivity self-esteem, a com-
posite measure of the support-receivers perceptions of support
(described above) was simultaneously entered into the analysis as
another predictor variable. The dependent variable was state self-
esteem following the puzzle activity.
As shown in Table 9, results revealed that support-receivers
preactivity self-esteem was a strong predictor of the support-
receivers state self-esteem following the puzzle activity. How-
ever, consistent with hypotheses, support-receivers perceptions of
support also strongly predicted their state self-esteem following
the puzzle activity (by predicting above and beyond preactivity
self-esteem). To verify the pattern of change, predicted means
were computed for changes in self-esteem at one standard devia-
tion above and below the mean on perceived support. The pre-
dicted mean change at low levels of perceived support was .39,
indicating that individuals who perceived low levels of support
Table 8
Analyses of Variance Examining Support Condition Differences in Reactions to Support
Reactions to support
Support condition

2
F(df)
Intrusive
controlling
M (SD)
n 15
Intrusive
supportive
M (SD)
n 19
Nonintrusive
supportive
M (SD)
n 15
Control
M (SD)
Acceptance 2.17 (0.90)
a
2.95 (1.13)
b
2.83 (0.79) .12 3.02 (4, 46)
Rejection 2.77 (1.25)
a
2.00 (1.31)
b
1.00 (0.00)
c
.31 10.24 (2, 46)***
Hostile 1.83 (0.77)
a
1.58 (1.19) 1.00 (0.00)
b
.14 3.73 (2, 46)*
Note. Subscripts denote statistically significant differences between means.
p .10. * p .05. *** p .001.
Table 9
Regression Analyses Predicting Changes in Self-Esteem From Recipient Perceptions of Support
Outcome variable B SE sr
2
R
2
State self-esteem after puzzle .532***
State self-esteem before puzzle .740*** .699*** .069 .483
Perceptions of support (composite variable) .206* .148* .091 .022
State self-esteem after puzzle .300***
General self-esteem .546*** .505*** .086 .250
Perceptions of support (composite variable) .207 .149 .111 .022
Note. N 114.
p .10. * p .05. *** p .001.
643
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
experienced decrements in self-esteem, and the predicted mean
change at high levels of support was .08, indicating that individ-
uals who perceived high levels of support experienced no changes
in their self-esteem from before to after the puzzle activity (with a
tendency toward experiencing an increase in self-esteem). A sim-
ilar pattern of results emerged when general self-esteem was the
control variable (see Table 9).
Mood
Next, a regression analysis was conducted to examine changes
in mood as a function of perceived partner support. The support-
receivers perceptions of support and the support-receivers pre-
activity mood ratings (the control variable) were simultaneously
entered as predictors of the support-receivers postactivity mood
ratings. As shown in Table 10, recipients who felt more supported
by their partners experienced more positive mood following the
puzzle activity. To verify the pattern of change, predicted means
were computed for changes in mood at one standard deviation
above and below the mean on perceived support. The predicted
mean change at low levels of perceived support was .16, indi-
cating that individuals who perceived low levels of support expe-
rienced decrements in positive mood after the puzzle activity, and
the predicted mean change at high levels of support was .09,
indicating that individuals who perceived high levels of support
maintained their initial mood and showed a tendency toward
experiencing increases in positive mood after the puzzle activity.
This analysis was repeated using general mood ratings as the
control variable, and the same pattern of results was obtained (
.24, p .01, sr
2
.06, for perceptions of support predicting
postactivity mood).
2
Taken together, the results provide additional evidence for Paths
c and d by indicating that (a) manipulated support behavior influ-
ences perceptions and (b) the degree to which a partner is per-
ceived as supportive versus insensitive and interfering during
exploration activities has implications for the recipients subse-
quent happiness and self-esteem.
General Discussion
The current investigation was intended as an attempt at estab-
lishing a theoretical framework for examining secure base support
processes in adult relationships. As described above, the urge to
explore the environment (e.g., pursue goals, grow personally and
professionally, learn, discover) is as basic to human nature as the
urge to seek proximity to a significant other in times of distress.
Thus, the support of a relationship partners going out or ex-
ploratory behavior (goal strivings, personal growth, learning, dis-
covery) is likely to be just as important for his or her happiness and
well-being as supporting the partners coming in or comfort-
seeking behavior. The results of this investigation provide some
preliminary evidence for the hypothesized model and for the
importance of secure base support in predicting benefits for the
recipient that are likely to be distinct from the types of benefits that
relationship partners derive from safe haven support. Phase 1
provided an observational assessment of a number of processes
involved in the provision of a secure base (Paths jd of Figure 1).
Phase 2 enhanced the investigation by experimentally manipulat-
ing secure base support behavior and examining influences on
perceptions and outcomes (Paths c and d of Figure 1).
The results of Phase 1 indicated that, within the context of a
discussion about personal goals for the future, perceptions of home
base security were associated with perceptions of exploratory
opportunities (Path j), perceptions of exploratory opportunities
were associated with exploration and support-seeking behavior
during the goal discussion (Path a), support-receiver and support-
provider behaviors were linked in complementary ways (Path b),
specific support behaviors exhibited during the discussion pre-
dicted the recipients perceptions of having been supported (Path
c), and perceptions of support predicted important immediate
outcomes for the recipient (Path d). Specifically, support-providers
who were coded by observers as providing sensitive/responsive
support during the discussion were also perceived by their partners
as being sensitive and supportive, whereas support-providers who
were observed as being intrusive, controlling, and unsupportive
were perceived by their partners as being rude and unsupportive.
Then, support-receivers who perceived that they were supported
by their partners reported greater self-esteem and positive mood
after the discussion (controlling for self-esteem and mood before
the discussion), and they rated their likelihood of achieving their
goals to be higher after the discussion than before. The results of
Phase 2 corroborated those of Phase 1 by showing that (a) exper-
imentally manipulated intrusive/interfering support behaviors (in-
dicating a lack of the sit back and wait aspect of secure base
support) are perceived more negatively than nonintrusive support
behaviors (Path c) and (b) perceptions of experimentally manipu-
lated support behavior during a laboratory exploration activity
2
A series of analyses was conducted to examine whether support re-
ceived or perceived by support-receivers during the observational phase of
the study systematically affected the major outcome variables in the
experimental session (i.e., support-receivers perceptions of the messages
that were sent to them, state self-esteem after the puzzle, mood after the
puzzle). Because of the random assignment to experimental conditions, no
such effects were anticipated. However, to rule out the possibility of a
contamination effect, regression analyses were conducted in which (a) the
interaction of observed support during the Phase 1 discussion and exper-
imental condition was entered as a predictor of all outcome measures and
(b) the interaction of the support-receivers perceptions of support during
the Phase 1 discussion and experimental condition was entered as a
predictor of all outcome measures. The interaction terms for all analyses
were nonsignificant, indicating that support-providers perceived and rated
behavior during the observational phase did not interact with experimental
condition to predict the Phase 2 outcome measures.
Table 10
Regression Analyses Predicting Changes in Mood From
Recipient Perceptions of Support
Outcome variable B SE sr
2
R
2
Mood after puzzle .328***
Mood before puzzle .446*** .516*** .067 .263
Perceptions of support .114** .201** .044 .040
Note. N 114.
** p .01. *** p .001.
644
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
predicted changes in self-esteem and positive mood from before to
after the activity (Path d).
It is hoped that this investigation will contribute to research and
theory development in both the social support and attachment
literatures. Although the social support literature has become quite
massive in the past couple of decades, there has been very little
empirical work examining the support processes that occur within
adult close relationships, particularly as they unfold within the
context of specific support interactions. Moreover, although at-
tachment theory is a rich and complex theory that crosses many
disciplines and has prompted a proliferation of research on close
relationships, the theory focuses primarily on attachment dynam-
icsonly half of what is known as the attachmentcaregiving
bond. Theory regarding the nature and function of caregiving
across the lifespanparticularly secure base dynamicshas not
been detailed in the same way. Bowlby (1969/1982) emphasized
the need for additional research on caregiving processes and stated
that caregiving should be studied systematically within a concep-
tual framework similar to that adopted for attachment behavior.
However, theory and empirical evidence regarding the functioning
of the caregiving system was never developed in his writings in the
same way. George and Solomon (1989, 1999a, 1999b) have noted
this as well and have launched a program of research in an effort
to provide theoretical and empirical elaboration of maternalinfant
caregiving dynamics. A similar theoretical elaboration and inten-
sive program of research regarding support-provision/caregiving
in adult relationships is needed, and it is hoped that the current
investigation will contribute in this regard.
Several specific aspects of the current results deserve comment.
First, with regard to the goal discussion, it is interesting to note that
observational ratings of support-receivers security in relation to
their partners were consistently associated with observed support
behaviors that, according to attachment theory, should distinguish
secure and insecure individuals. For example, individuals who
exhibited behavioral signs of security during the discussion had
partners who were sensitive and responsive (e.g., attentive, encour-
aging), did not exhibit intrusive or controlling behaviors, were
affectively warm and not negative or hostile, and did not minimize
or maximize goal-related problems. Second, it is important to note
that observational ratings of intrusive and controlling support, as
well as minimizing and maximizing, were somewhat weakly as-
sociated with recipient perceptions. These weak associations may
indicate a need to examine individual differences in the degree to
which people find these behaviors aversive (e.g., a support-
receiver who is not confident in his or her ability to pursue goals
may appreciate a partner who is intrusive and controlling), or they
may indicate the need for a more sensitive system for coding
behaviors or for measuring related perceptions.
Third, with regard to the Phase 2 experimental results, it appears
to be the negative perception indexes that most clearly distinguish
among the groups. Intrusive behaviors that were controlling (e.g.,
telling the recipient what to do and giving away answers) were
perceived more negatively than intrusive behaviors that were emo-
tionally supportive, and both forms of support were perceived
more negatively than nonintrusive support or no support at all.
With regard to the positive perception indexes, support-receivers in
the intrusive/controlling group rated their partners messages as
less helpful and thoughtful than support-receivers in the other
groups; however, recipients in all experimental conditions rated
their partners as being more supportive than those participants in
the control condition. It is likely that participants in the experi-
mental conditions rated their partners as more helpful/supportive
than participants in the control condition because (a) the control
condition represents a neutral, baseline index of partner helpful-
ness/support and (b) participants in the experimental conditions
even those in the intrusive conditionswere given either instru-
mental or emotional support by their partners, and it is likely that
support-receivers recognized this effort and gave their partners
credit for helpful intent. Participants in the intrusive/controlling
condition were probably acknowledging the fact that the partners
assistance helped them solve the puzzle (participants were given
the answers to the puzzle in this condition!), and participants in the
intrusive/supportive condition were probably acknowledging their
partners efforts to be supportive by sending many messages
throughout the activity. However, the ratings for positive percep-
tion and negative perception indexes must be considered simulta-
neously when interpreting the results. Although participants in the
intrusive conditions acknowledged their partners support at-
tempts, they also reported negative perceptions of partner interfer-
ence, which were shown in the current investigation to have some
negative consequences for the recipient. When results are inter-
preted in light of all partner perception indexes, they support the
theoretical model proposed. Of course, one must be cautious when
interpreting the support perception results for the control condi-
tion, given that participants in that condition were not given any
tangible support during the activity.
Fourth, the results of this investigation are noteworthy in that
they reveal some important immediate consequences for the self of
receiving secure base support from ones close relationship part-
ner, and they are consistent with results of Brunstein et al. (1996),
who showed that self-reports of personal goal support from inti-
mate partners were predictive of affective relationship satisfaction
and enactment of personal goals. Of course, a limitation of this
investigation into secure base support processes is that it examined
only short-term outcomes of the presence or absence of secure
base support. An important avenue for future research will be to
follow relationship dyads longitudinally to examine long-term
effects of secure base support on outcomes such as actual goal
pursuit, future decisions to engage in exploratory or challenging
activities, and changes in the self over time with regard to learning,
discovery, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. According to attachment
theory, individuals whose partners provide them with a secure base
from which to explore the world are likely to engage in a variety
of exploratory activities, experience increases in self-esteem, self-
efficacy, and self-confidence as they gain more knowledge of the
world, learn and discover more than they would otherwise, be
more healthy emotionally and physically, have better functioning
relationships, and hold positive perceptions regarding the benefit
of seeking support from others. Many of these important postulates
await future investigation. Because the benefits derived from se-
cure base support are likely to be distinct from the types of benefits
derived from safe haven support, much work remains to be done
with regard to identifying and examining the consequences of
each.
It is also important to keep in mind that the hypotheses de-
scribed and tested here reflect what are believed to be normative
support processes if all goes well. However, although not illus-
645
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
trated in Figure 1, individual difference factors may moderate any
of the paths in the model. Not all individuals are equally willing
and able to engage in exploratory behavior (e.g., Elliot & Reis,
2003; Hazan & Shaver, 1990) and seek support when needed, and
not all support-providers are equally skilled and motivated to
provide a secure base or a safe haven for their partners. Moreover,
preexisting beliefs and expectations that partners bring into their
interactions may act as interpretative filters and shape the way they
perceive one anothers behavior. Thus, a number of individual
difference factors may facilitate or interfere with each step in the
model. Some of these individual difference factors have been
examined with regard to safe haven processes (Collins & Feeney,
2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001, 2003; Kunce & Shaver, 1994;
Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992), and similar work is needed
with regard to secure base processes. Although conceptualized
somewhat differently than presented here, impressive work regard-
ing individual differences in secure base use and support in adult
relationships is underway (e.g., Crowell et al., 2002; Waters &
Cummings, 2002).
We cannot assume, however, that individual difference factors
will operate in the same manner for both general types of support.
Consistent with Marvin et al.s (2002) description of their
attachment-based intervention with parents and children, it is
likely that many adults will function more effectively as support-
providers on one side of the circle than the other. That is, some
adults may feel more comfortable and skilled at providing a secure
base for their romantic partner (i.e., supporting their partners
going out behavior), whereas others may feel more comfortable
and skilled at providing a safe haven for their partner (i.e., sup-
porting the partners coming in behavior). For example, individ-
uals who have an insecure-anxious attachment style may have
difficulty with the noninterfering aspect of secure base support.
This speculation is consistent with the infant literature indicating
that insecure parents tend to interfere with their babys exploratory
activity (see Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Grossmann et al., 1999, for
reviews). In contrast, individuals who have an insecure-avoidant
attachment style may do well with regard to encouraging their
partners autonomous exploration; however, because of their dis-
comfort with intimacy, they are unlikely to provide responsive care
when the partner needs to come in for comfort and support.
Individuals who have secure attachment styles may effectively
balance both general types of support.
It is noteworthy that the data from both phases of the investi-
gation provided support for all the hypothesized links in the model.
Of course, it is important to note that the correlational analyses
presented in Phase 1 reveal relationships among variables, but they
do not establish that the relationships are causal. Also, replications
in which goal discussions focus on one specific goal, replications
in which a wider variety of prediscussion perceptions are assessed
(particularly ones that are specific to the goal or exploratory
activity under consideration), and replications in which more ex-
tensive measures of home base security are used, as well as new
studies that examine secure base support processes in a variety of
exploration contexts, will be important next steps in this line of
research. Because the model depicted in Figure 1 is a simplified
version of what are likely to be very complicated interpersonal
dynamics, it will also be important to isolate, examine, and refine
specific aspects of the model. For example, the model depicts one
possible causal influence regarding the link between support-
provider and support-receiver behaviors; however, it is most likely
the case that the behaviors of each interaction partner play a role
in shaping the behavior of the other person. An important goal for
future work will be to conduct more detailed, sequential analyses
of behaviors exhibited during support discussions. In addition, a
variety of personal- and relationship-level mechanisms (e.g.,
support-provider skills and motivations) may be advanced to ex-
plain individual differences in each of the elements. Some of these
mechanisms have been examined in samples of dating couples
with regard to safe haven support processes (Feeney & Collins,
2001, 2003), and it is expected that similar mechanisms may play
a role in shaping the quality of secure base support.
The theoretical model and perspective advanced here is consis-
tent with other theoretical models and perspectives in the social
support and relationships literatures. For example, Barbee (1990)
has proposed a model of interactive coping that emphasizes that
seeking and giving social support is a complex interactive process.
Sarason, Pierce, and Sarason (1990) have described the concept of
perceived social support as a sense of unconditional acceptance,
and they emphasize that social relationships are responsible for
creating and validating this perception over time. Cutronas (1990)
theory of optimal matching suggests that support behavior should
match the contingencies of the particular situation. Moreover,
social psychological research on helping strangers (e.g., Schroe-
der, Penner, Dovidio, & Piliavin, 1995) and on intimacy processes
(Reis & Shaver, 1988) has influenced this work by suggesting
factors that may shape social support dynamics. However, no other
theory has comprehensively considered the secure base type of
support and the ways that both safe haven and secure base support
function together to influence personal and relationship well-
being. Two theoretical perspectives that most closely resemble
secure base dynamics include the Michelangelo Phenomenon,
which states that close relationship partners are capable of sculpt-
ing one another into their ideal selves through a process of
behavioral affirmation (Drigotas et al., 1999), and self-
determination theory, which maintains that an understanding of
human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological
needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan,
2000; LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Attachment theory provides unique insight into the nature
and function of interpersonal dynamics involved in the support of
exploration (goal strivings) in adult partnerships because it offers
a lifespan perspective on support dynamics, provides an account of
the interworkings of three important behavioral systems involved
in goal support (attachment, exploration, and caregiving), suggests
how individual differences might influence support behaviors and
perceptions, and points to likely outcomes of particular support
dynamics.
This investigation was intended to lay a foundation for concep-
tualizing the processes involved in both safe haven and secure base
support and for developing methods of investigating secure base
support dynamics in adult relationships. Longitudinal work exam-
ining the ways in which these two general types of support are
developed, balanced, and maintained over the course of a relation-
ship, as well as work examining the long-term consequences of an
adequate versus inadequate balance of both forms of support, will
be important undertakings in future research. Also important will
be the identification of pathways by which these two types of
646
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
support promote the functioning of individuals and of significant
relationships in adulthood.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. J. (1974). Infantmother
attachment and social development: Socialization as a product of
reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In P. M. Richards (Ed.), The inte-
gration of a child into a social world (pp. 99135). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships
as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 60, 241253.
Barbee, A. P. (1990). Interactive coping: The cheering-up process in close
relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Social support in relationships (pp.
4765). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger.
New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1987). New perspectives on attachment relations: Security,
communication, and internal working models. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.),
Handbook of infant development (2nd ed., pp. 10611100). New York:
Wiley.
Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Personal
goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on relationship
mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 71, 10061019.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of
attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65, 971991.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory
perspective on support-seeking and caregiving in adult romantic rela-
tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 10531073.
Crowell, J., Treboux, D., Gao, Y., Fyffe, C., Pan, H., & Waters, E. (2002).
Assessing secure base behavior in adulthood: Development of a mea-
sure, links to adult attachment representations and relations to couples
communication and reports of relationships. Developmental Psychology,
38, 679693.
Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support: In search of optimal
matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 314.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social support as a determinant of marital quality:
The interplay of negative and supportive behaviors. In G. R. Pierce,
B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and
the family (pp. 173194). New York: Plenum Press.
Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims perceptions of social
support: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 8089.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227268.
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C., Wieselquist, J., & Whitton, S. W. (1999).
Close partner as sculptor of the ideal self: Behavioral affirmation and the
Michelangelo phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 77, 293323.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. (1984). Infantmother attachment: Factors re-
lated to its development and changes over time. Child Development, 55,
753771.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adult-
hood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317331.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult
intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972994.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2003). Motivations for caregiving in adult
intimate relationships: Influences on caregiving behavior and relation-
ship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 950
968.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1989). Internal working models of caregiving
and security of attachment at age six. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10,
222237.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999a). Attachment and caregiving: The
caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(pp. 649670). New York: Guilford Press.
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999b). The development of caregiving: A
comparison of attachment theory and psychoanalytic approaches to
mothering, Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 19, 618646.
Grossmann, K. E., Grossmann, K., & Zimmermann, P. (1999). A wider
view of attachment and exploration. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment theory and research: Theory, research, and
clinical applications (pp. 760786). New York: Guilford Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-
theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 270280.
Kobak, R., & Duemmler, S. (1994). Attachment and conversation: Toward
a discourse analysis of adolescent and adult security. In K. Bartholomew
& D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 121149).
Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach
to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 205
237). London: Jessica Kingsley.
LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination
theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367384.
Lehman, D. R., & Hemphill, K. J. (1990). Recipients perceptions of
support attempts and attributions for support attempts that fail. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 563574.
Main, M. (1983). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning related to
infantmother attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 167
174.
Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The circle of
security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-
preschool child dyads. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 107124.
Matas, L., Arend, R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in
the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and
later competence. Child Development, 49, 547556.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on
affective reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 43, 937946.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 3046.
Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith? Positive illusions
in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
23, 586604.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling
nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,
but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155
1180.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In
S. Duck & D. F. Hay (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships:
Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367389). Chichester, England:
Wiley.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ruehlman, L. S., & Wolchik, S. A. (1988). Personal goals and interper-
647
SECURE BASE: RESPONSIVE SUPPORT OF GOAL STRIVINGS
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.
sonal support and hindrance as factors in psychological distress and
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 293301.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the
facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.
American Psychologist, 55, 6878.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The
sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G.
Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view
(pp. 149). New York: Wiley.
Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995).
The psychology of helping and altruism. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B.,
& Rogers, R. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and valida-
tion. Psychological Reports, 51, 663671.
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, 434446.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working
models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful
situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598608.
Waters, E., & Cummings, E. (2000). A secure base from which to explore
close relationships. Child Development, 71, 164172.
Received June 4, 2003
Revision received May 2, 2004
Accepted June 12, 2004
Appendix A
Correlations Among Observed Support-Receiver Behaviors
Support-receiver behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Open, receptive, confident discussion
2. Modify/blend goals .16
3. Expressed affect .19* .05
4. Minimizing behaviors .10 .02 .05
5. Maximizing behaviors .06 .01 .22* .02
6. Proximity seeking .06 .11 .32*** .11 .15
7. Security .52*** .11 .52*** .02 .02 .15
Note. N 108.
p .10. * p .05. *** p .001.
Appendix B
Correlations Among Observed Support-Provider Behaviors
Support-provider behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Sensitive & responsive support
2. Communication of future availability .38***
3. Intrusiveness & controlling support .18 .11
4. Expressed affect .54*** .25* .52***
5. Minimizing behaviors .36*** .11 .47*** .48***
6. Maximizing behaviors .22* .02 .53*** .40*** .29**
7. Proximity seeking .08 .29** .09 .40*** .03 .08
Note. N 108.
p .10. * p .05. ** p .01. *** p .001.
648
FEENEY
T
h
i
s

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t

i
s

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

o
n
e

o
f

i
t
s

a
l
l
i
e
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
.


T
h
i
s

a
r
t
i
c
l
e

i
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

u
s
e
r

a
n
d

i
s

n
o
t

t
o

b
e

d
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
e
d

b
r
o
a
d
l
y
.