The Relationship Between Attachment and Depth of Experiencing During a Couple‐Based, Therapy‐Like Interaction

ABSTRACT

Depth of experiencing (EXP) refers to the depth at which individuals emotionally process and engage with their internal experiences. In this study, we observationally coded EXP during a therapy‐like interaction and coupled it with secondary data from 63 heterosexual couples to explore its relationship with adult attachment patterns (both self‐reported and narrative/discourse). Higher self‐reported attachment anxiety was associated with increased depth of experiencing when individuals discussed their own issues as well as their partner's concerns. Participants also demonstrated greater depth of experiencing when their partners reported higher levels of self‐reported attachment anxiety. Conversely, individuals with high self‐reported attachment avoidance exhibited lower EXP, particularly during conversations focused on their partner's issues. Narrative/discourse secure attachment was linked to higher EXP, with especially pronounced effects when male partners responded supportively during of their female partners’ issue. We discuss the implications of these findings and how attachment dynamics shape emotional engagement within couple interactions.

1.

Humans are inherently relational beings whose development and well‐being are deeply shaped by their connections with others. Relationships have a profound influence on individuals’ development and are intricately woven into the tapestry of human life from birth until death (Seedall and Wampler 2013), with high‐quality adult romantic relationships significantly influencing not only individual health outcomes but also the well‐being of children (Robles et al. 2014). Given this impact, fostering connection between partners is a crucial task within the therapeutic process.

Central to understanding human behavior and relational dynamics are the concepts of attachment theory and depth of experiencing. Attachment theory posits that early experiences with caregivers shape one's internal working models of relationships, influencing emotional responses and coping mechanisms (Bowlby 1969). Experiencing refers to an internal process of self‐examination, self‐awareness, emotional acceptance, and one's “involvement in the exploration of new feelings and meanings in relation to the self” (Pascual‐Leone and Yeryomenko 2017, p. 653). Despite the significance of these constructs, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the integration of attachment theory with depth of experiencing. This study aimed to bridge the gap by exploring the intricate interplay between attachment theory and depth of experiencing within the context of a therapy‐like couple interaction.

2. Experiencing, Emotions, and Relationships

Experiencing was first mentioned by Rogers (1951), who mentioned the importance of clients becoming “open to the affective meaning of experience,” with high levels of experiencing more likely to foster growth and change. Gendlin (1961) conceptualized the “therapeutic process…[as] a feeling process” (p. 233) that fosters self‐awareness and meaning, core indicators of experiencing. More recently, scholars have defined depth of experiencing as “the degree to which clients engage and explore their feelings moment‐by‐moment as part of the process of personal meaning‐making” (Pascual‐Leone and Yeryomenko 2017, p. 654). Thus, feelings and emotions are important mechanisms through which experiencing occurs.

In fact, emotions are a fundamental aspect of human existence, shaping how individuals perceive and interpret the world around them and make meaning of their experiences. In this manner, emotions play a pivotal role in signaling needs, shaping behaviors, and forming fundamental foundation for connections with others (Johnson and Greenberg 1995). Emotions often precede and influence thoughts, thereby affecting how individuals perceive and respond to their partners. Understanding emotions and the processes by which they are experienced and expressed can provide insights into how to navigate complex social and emotional contexts.

3. Experiencing in Systemic Therapy

As systemic family therapists, an in‐depth understanding of and ability to address client experiencing and the attendant emotions is essential for improving relationship dynamics and overall couple satisfaction. This process has potential to be particularly relevant in couples therapy, where partners’ experiencing likely impacts therapy process and outcomes (Johnson 2019). When couples struggle with aspects such as inner awareness and meaning‐making, communication can suffer, conflicts can escalate, and relationship repair becomes more difficult. Therefore, helping couples navigate to a deeper level of experiencing and thereby more adaptively experience and express their emotions during therapy is an essential goal.

As a result, it is crucial for therapists to be aware of clients’ experiencing in therapy (Carryer and Greenberg 2010). Achieving greater depth of experiencing helps individuals gain greater self‐awareness as they recognize, understand, and express emotions in a balanced and adaptive way. Thus, a clear goal for therapy is to help clients achieve the optimal depth of experiencing, allowing clients to more fully understand themselves, process their emotion, and make meaning in a way that fosters growth and healing. By further developing this capacity toward deeper levels of experiencing, individuals can enhance their self‐awareness and their overall ability to regulate their emotions, leading to improved mental health outcomes. Although experiencing has been relatively unexplored in the context of couple therapy, a deeper level of experiencing can help couples develop a more profound understanding of themselves and each other while also deepening the meaning they make of their experiences, thereby leading to better conflict management and enhanced communication, strengthened emotional bonds, and increased connection and relational growth.

4. Attachment Theory

Having outlined the valuable roles of experiencing and emotions in relationships and the therapeutic process, we will now highlight the primary conceptual lens for this study. Attachment theory (Bowlby 1969) provides a framework for understanding connection within close relationships. It posits that all humans are biologically predisposed to form emotional bonds with their caregivers at infancy. These early relationships contribute to the formation of a template for how relationships and behaviors are understood (Bowlby 1969), including ideas about themselves (Am I lovable?) and others (Will you be there for me when I need it most?). In addition, children manage their worries by seeking connection, comfort, and proximity from their caregivers (Seedall and Sandberg 2020).

Secure attachment is associated with caregiver responsiveness, availability, consistency, and dependability. Those who are securely attached to others experience happier lifestyles and less depressive moods than those manifesting more insecure attachment (Peterson and Park 2007) and have higher psychological well‐being (Salinas‐Quiroz et al. 2023). Secure attachment between infant and caregiver can be disrupted in a variety of ways, including through separation, neglect, and bereavement, all of which hinder development (Ainsworth et al. 1978). Insecure attachment leads to lower trust and confidence in an attachment figure's potential responsiveness and availability (Ainsworth et al. 1978).

Although attachment theory was founded upon child‐caregiver relationships, it has evolved over time to encompass adult romantic relationships (Taylor et al. 2018; Seedall and Sandberg 2020). Although secure attachment strategies foster greater relationship satisfaction, interdependence, commitment, and trust (Simpson 1990), attachment insecurity generally disrupts relationships, thereby contributing to greater relational distress (Taylor et al. 2018). Romantic relationships in adulthood cause fluctuations in attachment strategies, inviting at least partial revision of internal working models formed in infancy (Seedall and Sandberg 2020).

4.1. Attachment Measurement

When discussing attachment in adulthood, it is important to recognize two different measurement traditions, narrative/discourse and self‐report, both of which offer unique insights into individuals’ attachment representations. Stemming from developmental psychology, narrative/discourse attachment (typically with secure, dismissing, and preoccupied labels) is often studied through interviews and involves the analysis of the coherency by which individuals describe their attachment‐related experiences (Main and Goldwyn 1998). Within social psychology, self‐report measures of attachment (primarily focusing on the labels of anxiety and avoidance) involve individuals’ conscious appraisals (Shaver and Mikulincer 2004). Both measurement traditions have sought to align in some way to the attachment strategies Ainsworth identified in infants and children. Both also represent a continuum of attachment strategies (Kobak et al. 1993) ranging from deactivating (i.e., emotional distancing/shutting down) to hyperactivating (i.e., emotional hyperarousal/exaggerated attempts to have needs met).

Although both measurement types are valid and have strong empirical backing, there seems to be little empirical overlap between them. This led one prominent attachment researcher to conclude that they “seem to tap different aspects of security” (Fortuna and Roisman 2008, p. 12). Despite their differences, both narrative discourse and self‐report measures offer valuable and complementary information about individuals’ attachment strategies. In this study, we aimed to address this gap by utilizing both narrative discourse and self‐report measures to assess attachment strategies. By integrating these two methods, we hoped to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how individuals’ attachment representations are related to the depth of experiencing that occurs in the context of a couple‐based, therapy‐like interaction.

5. Attachment, Emotions, and Experiencing in Adult Romantic Relationships

Despite the challenges associated with the varying ways of measuring adult attachment, attachment bonds formed in infancy serve as the foundation for understanding and managing experiencing in later relationships (Bowlby 1969). Understanding each partner's attachment strategies and how they interact with one another can be helpful in navigating the complexities of romantic relationships. The varying attachment strategies provide insight into how people view themselves and others as well as how they regulate distress. In this manner, attachment theory represents a theory of bonding and relationships, but it also provides potential insight into experiencing, including a person's self‐awareness, meaning‐making, and emotional coping. Attachment bridges the gap between individual and shared experiencing that occur within close dyadic relationships, including how couples help one another regulate their emotions.

6. Purpose of the Study

All this points toward the importance of considering attachment dynamics in therapeutic settings to enhance clients’ experiencing and overall emotional well‐being. Within the therapeutic process, insecure attachment strategies can be evident in strong emotions shared within session, over‐functioning from one partner, or from being emotionally unavailable and shutdown. The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between attachment and depth of experiencing within the context of therapy‐like interactions. A substantial amount of scholarly work has examined attachment and emotions, but there is more to understand about the relationship between attachment and the construct of experiencing, especially within couple‐based, therapy‐like interactions. This gap indicates a need for greater examination of this nuanced aspect of experiencing. This highlights the need to delve deeper into experiencing and its accompanying emotions within attachment relationships.

To accomplish this aim, this study was guided by the following research questions.

Research Question 1

What is the relationship between self‐report attachment and depth of experiencing during a couple‐based, therapy‐like interaction?

Research Question 2

What is the relationship between narrative‐discourse attachment and depth of experiencing during a couple‐based, therapy‐like interaction?

Overall, integrating the concepts of attachment strategies and depth of experiencing is highly significant in the context of therapeutic interactions. Understanding these relationships further can help therapists tailor interventions that address the underlying attachment needs of each partner in facilitating an appropriate experience that will foster a more secure and fulfilling relationship dynamic. By understanding how individuals’ attachment strategies relate to their experiencing and ultimately to their emotional responses, therapists can effectively adjust their treatment strategies to promote healthier emotional regulation and relational patterns. Also, this study's findings can point towards how to adapt therapy process to varying attachment strategies to facilitate optimal levels of experiencing that invite the most therapeutic change.

7. Methods

7.1. Sample and Recruitment

Participants were recruited for the original study (Michigan State University IRB ID# i028733) using flyers and online methods. Those who wished to take part contacted the principal investigator and were provided with a comprehensive outline of the study. At the same time, a brief telephone screening verified that participants met the following inclusion criteria: (a) aged 18 or above; (b) in an engaged, cohabiting, or married relationship; (c) in the relationship for at least 1 year; and (d) experienced a relatively recent disagreement with their partner in which they felt hurt or angry. There were originally 122 couples who expressed interest in being involved in the study, with 65 couples participating. Of the 65 couples, data from two couples were set aside. One couple's research session was frequently disrupted by their infant. The other couple was the only same‐sex couple in the study. Because gender was examined as a distinguishable variable in our analyses, we decided to set aside this couple's data. Thus, this study used data from 63 couples (126 total participants).

7.2. Sample Characteristics

Of all 126 participants (see Supporting Information S1: Tables S1a and S1b), 57.1% (n = 72) of couples were married, and the rest (42.9%; n = 54) were in other forms of committed relationships. In addition, 74% (n = 93) of the participants had at least one child. This was a somewhat educated sample, with 59.5% of participants (n = 75) having college experience and 17.5% (n = 22) having received a college degree. There were some indicators of financial stress, with only 39.7% (n = 50) employed full‐time, 49.2% (n = 62) employed less than full‐time, and 16.0% (n = 20) full‐time students. In addition, 84% (n = 106) of participants reported making less than $50,000 per year. Considering race and ethnicity, 57.9% (n = 73) identified as Caucasian/White, 24.6% (n = 31) identified as African American/Black, 9.5% (n = 12) identified as multiracial, 4.8% (n = 6) identified as Latino/Hispanic, 2.4% (n = 3) identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.8% (n = 1) identified as an unlisted race/ethnicity. Participant age ranged from 18 to 69 years, with 73% (n = 92) of our sample having children. In terms of religious preference, 13.1% (n = 16) identified as non‐religious, 24.6% (n = 30) identified as non‐denominational, and the rest identifying as some form of Christian religion (n = 76; 62.3%).

7.3. Procedure

Couples spent 4–4.5 h participating in this study. While completing the informed consent paperwork, partners met separately with a research associate who explained the research session layout and informed consent process and then assessed for any safety concerns or other significant crisis (i.e., physical violence, being in a current individual or relationship crisis, or seriously considering ending their relationship) that would exclude them from the study. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) was a part of the study procedures and was counterbalanced, offered at this point in the research session or at the conclusion of all study activities.

At this point in the research session, study participants spent 30–45 min completing the assessment packet. The same research associate also met individually during this time with each partner to further establish rapport while also helping them decide on a moderately distressing topic to discuss with their partner during the interactional segments. Participants were asked to choose a recent time when they felt hurt, angry, or offended, and about which they still had feelings. Once an issue was identified, the research associate ensured that the participant was willing and able to discuss the topic with their partner during the research session.

Before beginning the core study phase consisting of various dyadic interactions, a measurement device for galvanic skin response (i.e., skin conductance) was attached to the index and middle fingers of each participant followed by a 5 min period designed to allow the electrode paste to establish an adequate connection. Participants were then asked to clear their minds and relax for 3 min to provide a psychophysiological baseline. The various dyadic interactions consisted of a 5 min interactional warm‐up where partners discussed how they met followed by a semi‐natural interaction where couples talked as they would at home about their issues. One partner was randomly chosen to address their issue first, and then the couple talked about that with the instructions to make steps towards a resolution. At the conclusion of 7–8 min, the research associate asked the couple to shift and discuss the other partner's issue.

Of particular relevance to this study (Utah State University IRB ID# 13220) was the therapy‐like interactions—developed as part of the research project—where partners discussed their chosen issue with a facilitator using methods akin to a therapist (Seedall and Wampler 2024). To do this, the facilitator talked with Partner A about their previously identified issue for 3–4 min. Then they shifted and talked with Partner B about Partner A's issue for 3–4 min. The primary goal was to help Partner A clearly signal their need and to help Partner B respond in a sensitive and loving way (Seedall and Wampler 2024). After this, they shifted and repeated the process regarding Partner B's issue.

Five graduate research associates (three women and two men) facilitated the therapeutically oriented micro‐intervention (see Seedall and Wampler 2024, for a detailed overview of the intervention). Each facilitator had at least 700 h of direct clinical experience and was enrolled in a doctoral training program for marriage and family therapy. Facilitators participated in various steps of training (10 h of training as well as ongoing consultation, as needed) to help them learn core study principles and how to use their clinical skills to facilitate and process the aforementioned micro‐intervention in a way that helped partners (a) explore (i.e., access and understand) their emotional experience; (b) process, expand, and potentially transform that experience, and (c) help partners begin to briefly enact new interaction patterns. Although emotionally focused, the micro‐intervention was designed to be transtheoretical, allowing facilitators to incorporate the intervention into their standard therapeutic approach. Overall, four of the facilitators worked with at least 12 couples during the research sessions, while the other facilitator only completed four research sessions due to scheduling constraints.

At the conclusion of the interactions and following a 5–10 min break, participants reviewed all five interactions (couple discussion of how they met, couple discussion of Partner A's, couple discussion of Partner B's issue, discussion with facilitator of Partner A's issue, and discussion with facilitator of Partner B's issue) using a television and a handheld dial that allowed them to report in every moment how they felt towards their partner.

7.4. Measures

7.4.1. Emotional Experiencing

The Experiencing Scale (EXP) by Klein et al. (1986) was used to measure and code the depth of experiencing. The EXP has been identified as the ‘gold standard’ measure for examining psychotherapy process (Pascual‐Leone and Yeryomenko 2017). Experiencing is crucial to therapeutic interactions and the scale is used to demonstrate the awareness and engagement of an individual in an interaction. The scale focuses on the verbal behavior of the participants as an indicator of how they navigate their feelings to identify modal and peak ratings of experiencing (Klein et al. 1986). Because this scale measures the depth and quality of an individual's inner experience, it can be measured by coding therapy session transcripts or recordings for emotional depth and engagement (Klein 1969). The scale contains seven levels of experiencing (Klein et al. 1961). Level one is when the individual simply talks about events, ideas, or other people, without referring to self. The second level occurs when the individual refers to the self but does not express emotion. Level three is coded when feelings/emotions are discussed but only in relation to external situations. Level four occurs when the individual directly expresses feelings/emotions and focuses on thoughts about self. The fifth level is coded when the individual starts to explore their inner experience more fully, followed by level six occurring when the client gains new awareness of previously implicit feelings or significance. Level seven, although somewhat uncommon, is coded when the individual begins to provide new perspectives and solutions to their problems and demonstrates a greater understanding of themselves.

Three undergraduate coders coded each participant's therapy‐like interaction. There were 252 possible interactions to code for depth of experiencing (126 partners × 2 therapy‐like interactions/participant—one for their own issue and one for their partner's). Since the EXP codes verbal expression, coders watched video footage of all interactions. A total of seven interactions were not available or complete (five participant interactions about their partner's issue and two participant interactions about their own issue), yielding 245 interactions (97.2%) that could be coded. Coders were trained using didactic and experiential methods provided in EXP training materials (Klein et al. 1986). Once coders demonstrated adequate coding and accuracy, they began to formally code study data. Weekly 1‐h meetings with the coding team were held to help with continued training and prevent coder drift. To help increase accuracy and reliability, 83 (33.9%) of the interactions were dual coded. Because coders determined a mode score (the most common type of experiencing during the interaction) and a peak (the highest type of experiencing that occurred), both coded on a 1–7 Likert scale, using intraclass correlation (ICC) was not possible for each individual case. As a result, if coder scores on the mode and peak differed by two or greater (e.g., coder 1: mode/peak = 2/3; coder 2: mode/peak = 3/4) then a consensus code where both coders met and coded the interaction together occurred. This led to 25 (31.6%) consensus codes. If no consensus code was needed, a primary coder was designated (typically the 1st author) and that person's codes were used.

As an indicator of interrater reliability across the entire sample, we calculated separate ICCs for each pair of coders. The ICC between the primary coder and the other two coders was 0.54 (n = 36) and 0.51 (n = 38) for the mode. For the peak, ICC was 0.70 (n = 36) and 0.71 (n = 38) between the primary coder and the two secondary coders. There were nine cases that were dual coded by both secondary coders. It should be noted that, for these nine cases, the ICC was much lower (< 0.30) for both the mode and the peak. However, we attribute much of that to a small ICC sample size and the fact that four of those nine cases were consensus coded. One final way we examined interrater reliability was to pool data across coders and simultaneously examine the ICC for mode for all 83 dual coded cases. This yielded an ICC of 0.51 for the mode and 0.67 for the peak. Taken altogether, there is evidence to suggest sufficiency in terms of interrater reliability at moderate levels.

7.4.2. Attachment Strategies

7.4.2.1. Narrative/Discourse

The AAI is an interview‐based measure of attachment in adults that is widely regarded as the premier method for assessing narrative/discourse attachment in adulthood. The AAI accounts for attachment coherence, which indicates how well the individual can integrate their memories and emotions related to attachment figures, resulting in a narrative that is clear, consistent, and makes sense in terms of their attachment experiences (Beijersbergen et al. 2006). During the semi‐structured interview, participants respond to 20 questions about their experiences with their attachment figures, typically between the ages of 5 and 12 (Hesse 2008, p. 554). These questions cover a variety of topics, such as the existence of a safe haven with parents (When you were upset as a child, what would you do?”), differences between parents (“… to which parent did you feel the closest, and why?”), loss (“Did you experience the loss of a parent or other close loved one?), rejection (“Did you ever feel rejected as a young child?) and trauma (“Have you had any other experiences which you should regard as potentially traumatic?”).

Two researchers who were trained and certified in standard coding of the AAI oversaw coding using the Kobak Attachment Interview Q‐Set (Kobak 1989), an alternative approach to scoring the AAI. This Q‐set comprises 100 items derived from the standard AAI classification system (Main and Goldwyn 1998). Coders assign each q‐item to one of nine categories, ranging from least characteristic (1) to most characteristic (9) of the interview. This Q‐sort method is forced‐choice and resembles an inverted normal distribution. Fewer q‐items (i.e., 5) are allowed in the more extreme categories, while more q‐items are permitted in the middle, more neutral categories (i.e., 18). Sample items include presenting an objective and well‐thought‐out picture of relationship influences (characteristic of the secure prototype), seeming detached or uninfluenced by childhood expectations (characteristic of the dismissing prototype), and losing the topic during the interview and failing to complete thoughts (characteristic of the preoccupied prototype). To calculate scores for each attachment strategy (secure, dismissing, and preoccupied), Pearson correlations were calculated between each participant's results and prototypes for each strategy. Overall, the coding team—in addition to the two main researchers—consisted of six undergraduate coders.

7.4.2.2. Self‐Reported Attachment

Attachment strategies (both avoidance and anxiety) were measured using the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan et al. 1998). The ECR uses a 7‐point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) and 18 items each to measure attachment avoidance and anxiety. The ECR has demonstrated strong internal consistency previously (Brennan et al. 1998), and that was confirmed in this study (0.92 for avoidance and 0.91 for anxiety). Scores for avoidance (M = 3.18; SD = 1.08; range: 1.06–6.25) and anxiety (M = 3.61; SD = 1.12; range: 1.56–6.89) represent good variability across all participants.

7.5. Analytic Strategy

We employed a linear mixed‐effects model in SPSS within the framework of multilevel modeling. To investigate the association between attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and depth of experiencing, we utilized a multilevel, fixed effects model with maximum likelihood estimation. Incorporating the Actor‐Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) into this multilevel modeling context, we aimed to deepen the understanding of how gender might moderate the relationship between attachment strategies and experiencing within a systemic, dyadic framework. Because MLM within SPSS utilizes listwise deletion, our analyses used data from 61 couples (122 interactions) to examine experiencing while interacting with the therapist about their own issue and 58 couples (116 interactions) when talking about their partner's issue.

In dyadic analysis, it is crucial to evaluate whether the complexity introduced from distinguishing by gender is justified. The decision process began by reviewing the initial analysis for any significant effects or interactions associated with gender. When a significant interaction or main effect involving gender was found, we determined that the additional complexity of distinguishing by gender was justified. If there was no significant main effect or interaction, gender was removed as a distinguishing variable. Our analysis also included examining two‐way interactions to further assess gender's role. To further explore significant interactions involving gender, we conducted post hoc simple slopes analyses within the APIM, replacing gender with two dummy‐coded variables (coded 0 and 1) and then examining their interactions with gender.

8. Results

8.1. Statistical Tests of Hypotheses

8.1.1. Research Question 1

This research question examined the relationship between self‐reported attachment styles (both avoidance and anxiety) and experiencing (mode and peak) during two couple‐based, therapy‐like interactions (discussion of their own issue and discussion of their partner's issue).

8.1.1.1. EXP Mode—Own Issue

When examining the relationship between self‐report attachment and the EXP mode during the participant's own issue, we did not find a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. As a result, we removed it from the analysis and treated the data as non‐distinguishable. After doing this, there was a significant main effect of actor anxiety, b = 0.21, t(108.6) = 3.41, p < 0.001 (see Table 1), with higher levels of reported anxiety associated with a significantly higher EXP mode. There were no other significant interactions or main effects.

Table 1.

Research Question 1—EXP Mode & Peak, Own & Partner Issue.

	Predictor variables	b	SE	df	t	p‐value
EXP Mode—Own Issue	Avd. (A)	−0.13	0.07	115.9	−1.85	0.07
	Avd. (P)	−0.07	0.06	116.0	−1.12	0.27
	Anx. (A)	0.21	0.06	108.6	3.41	< 0.001
	Anx. (P)	0.07	0.06	109.0	1.13	0.26
	Avd. (A) * Avd. (P)	0.05	0.08	64.4	0.71	0.48
	Anx. (A) * Anx. (P)	0.07	0.06	59.2	1.18	0.24
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (P)	0.01	0.05	110.8	0.15	0.89
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (A)	−0.06	0.06	115.2	−1.06	0.29
EXP Peak—Own Issue	Avd. (A)	−0.07	0.07	115.9	−1.00	0.32
	Avd. (P)	−0.08	0.07	115.7	−1.17	0.32
	Anx. (A)	0.22	0.06	105.3	3.52	< 0.001
	Anx. (P)	0.11	0.07	106.2	1.73	0.09
	Avd. (A) * Avd. (P)	−0.03	0.08	65.6	−0.39	0.70
	Anx. (A) * Anx. (P)	0.05	0.06	60.2	0.87	0.39
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (P)	< 0.01	0.05	108.4	0.08	0.94
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (A)	−0.11	0.06	113.8	−1.85	0.07
EXP Mode—Partner Issue	Avd. (A)	−0.23	0.07	109.6	−3.31	< 0.001
	Avd. (P)	−0.01	0.06	109.4	−0.11	0.91
	Anx. (A)	0.12	0.06	108.4	2.10	0.04
	Anx. (P)	0.22	0.06	108.2	3.65	< 0.001
	Avd. (A) * Avd. (P)	−0.08	0.07	63.3	−1.15	0.26
	Anx. (A) * Anx. (P)	0.05	0.05	55.2	0.97	0.34
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (P)	−0.02	0.05	108.8	−0.28	0.78
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (A)	−0.08	0.06	111.0	−1.44	0.15
EXP Peak—Partner Issue	Avd. (A)	−0.21	0.08	110.9	−2.56	0.01
	Avd. (P)	0.03	0.07	111.0	0.39	0.69
	Anx. (A)	0.15	0.07	103.2	2.06	0.04
	Anx. (P)	0.15	0.07	103.7	2.02	0.05
	Avd. (A) * Avd. (P)	−0.20	0.09	64.4	−2.11	0.04
	Anx. (A) * Anx. (P)	0.08	0.07	55.6	1.23	0.23
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (P)	−0.01	0.06	104.1	−0.17	0.86
	Avd. (A) * Anx. (A)	−0.03	0.07	109.5	−0.37	0.72

Note: A = actor, P = partner. Bold type is indicative of significant findings.

8.1.1.2. EXP Peak—Own Issue

When examining the relationship of self‐report attachment and the EXP peak during the participant's own issue, the data was again treated as non‐distinguishable because there was not a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. As seen in Table 1 and like the EXP Mode, only actor anxiety was significant, b = 0.22, t(105.3) = 3.52, p < 0.001, with higher reported attachment anxiety associated with a higher EXP peak.

8.1.1.3. EXP Mode—Partner Issue

When examining self‐report attachment and EXP mode during the partner's issue, we again treated the data as non‐distinguishable after not finding a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. As with their own issue, there was a significant main effect of actor anxiety, b = 0.12, t(108.4) = 2.10, p = 0.04, with higher levels of anxiety associated with a higher EXP mode. There was also a similar significant main effect of partner anxiety, b = 0.22, t(108.2) = 3.65, p < 0.001, with higher levels of partner attachment anxiety associated with a higher EXP mode (see Table 1). Lastly, there was a significant main effect of self‐reported attachment avoidance, b = −0.23, t(109.6) = −3.31, p = 0.001. with higher levels of self‐reported attachment avoidance associated with a lower EXP mode.

8.1.1.4. EXP Peak—Partner Issue

When examining self‐report attachment and EXP peak during the partner's issue, the data was again treated as non‐distinguishable because there was no significant interaction or main effect involving gender. There was a significant interaction between actor and partner avoidance, b = −0.20, t(64.4) = −2.11, p = 0.04. A subsequent post hoc analysis did not yield any significance for low or high attachment avoidance. As seen in Table 1, there was also a significant main effect for actor avoidance, b = −0.21, t(110.9) = −2.56, p = 0.01, indicating that higher levels of self‐reported avoidance were associated with a lower EXP peak. There was also a significant main effect for actor anxiety, b = 0.15, t(103.2) = 2.06, p = 0.04, with a similar effect for partner anxiety, b = 0.15, t(103.7) = 2.02, p = 0.05. It should be noted that the effect of partner anxiety yielded a slightly higher p‐value (p = 0.05) than “traditional” significance (p < 0.05). Nonetheless, these results suggest that higher levels of actor or partner attachment anxiety were associated with a greater EXP peak.

8.1.2. Research Question 2

This research question aimed to understand the relationship between narrative discourse attachment (secure, dismissing, preoccupied) and experiencing (mode and peak) during a therapy‐like interaction. To more closely align with the self‐report analyses that only include insecure attachment (avoidance and anxiety), we analyzed insecure (dismissing and preoccupied) and secure attachment separately.

8.1.2.1. EXP Mode—Own Issue—Secure Attachment

When examining narrative discourse secure attachment and EXP mode during the participant's own issue, we treated the data as non‐distinguishable because there was no significant interaction or main effect involving gender. There was also no significant interaction or main effect for attachment security (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Research Question 2—EXP Mode & Peak, Own & Partner Issue.

	Predictor variables	b	SE	df	t	p‐value
EXP Mode—Own Issue—Secure	Secure (A)	0.21	0.18	111.4	1.16	0.25
	Secure (P)	0.02	0.18	111.5	0.13	0.90
	Secure (A) * Secure (P)	−0.61	0.46	58.8	−1.33	0.19
EXP Peak—Own Issue—Secure	Secure (A)	0.45	0.18	116.3	2.52	0.01
	Secure (P)	−0.01	0.18	116.3	−0.08	0.94
	Secure (A) * Secure (P)	−0.10	0.49	59.7	−0.20	0.85
EXP Mode—Partner Issue—Secure	Secure (A)	0.22	0.18	108.7	1.20	0.23
	Secure (P)	−0.10	0.18	108.6	−0.56	0.58
	Secure (A) * Secure (P)	−0.62	0.48	62.4	−1.29	0.20
EXP Peak—Partner Issue—Secure	Gender (A)	0.09	0.07	55.8	1.29	0.20
	Secure (A)	0.56	0.21	106.7	2.74	0.01
	Secure (P)	−0.48	0.23	107.2	−1.14	0.26
	Gender (A) * Secure (P)	−0.48	0.23	84.4	−2.10	0.04
	Gender (A) * Secure (P)	0.31	0.22	80.0	1.41	0.16
	Secure (A) * Secure (P)	−0.61	0.58	58.9	−1.05	0.30
EXP Mode—Own Issue—Insecure	Dismissing (A)	−0.34	0.26	115.9	−1.31	0.19
	Dismissing (P)	−0.42	0.26	115.9	−1.61	0.11
	Preoccupied (A)	0.15	0.34	114.5	0.43	0.67
	Preoccupied (P)	0.61	0.34	114.5	1.81	0.07
	Dismissing (A) * Dismissing (P)	1.02	0.95	56.1	1.08	0.29
	Preoccupied (A) * Preoccupied (P)	0.80	1.56	56.0	0.51	0.61
	Dismissing (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−2.01	1.11	97.9	−1.82	0.07
	Dismissing (P) * Preoccupied (A)	−1.16	1.11	98.0	−1.05	0.30
EXP Peak—Own Issue—Insecure	Dismissing (A)	−0.55	0.27	114.7	−2.06	0.04
	Dismissing (P)	−0.43	0.27	114.8	−1.63	0.11
	Preoccupied (A)	−0.05	0.35	109.4	−0.14	0.89
	Preoccupied (P)	0.66	0.35	109.2	1.90	0.06
	Dismissing (A) * Dismissing (P)	0.52	1.03	56.9	0.51	0.61
	Preoccupied (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−0.48	1.71	56.8	−0.28	0.78
	Dismissing (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−1.42	1.16	90.2	−1.22	0.23
	Dismissing (P) * Preoccupied (A)	0.98	1.16	90.4	0.85	0.40
EXP Mode—Partner Issue—Insecure	Dismissing (A)	−0.48	0.26	110.9	−1.82	0.07
	Dismissing (P)	−0.38	0.26	110.9	−1.47	0.14
	Preoccupied (A)	0.38	0.33	109.5	1.15	0.25
	Preoccupied (P)	0.76	0.33	109.7	2.28	0.02
	Dismissing (A) * Dismissing (P)	1.36	0.99	64.5	1.37	0.18
	Preoccupied (A) * Preoccupied (P)	0.08	1.54	55.5	0.05	0.96
	Dismissing (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−2.31	1.12	97.1	−2.06	0.04
	Dismissing (P) * Preoccupied (A)	−0.89	1.09	94.2	−0.82	0.42
EXP Peak—Partner Issue—Insecure	Dismissing (A)	−0.78	0.31	110.0	−2.49	0.01
	Dismissing (P)	−0.03	0.31	109.8	−0.09	0.93
	Preoccupied (A)	0.12	0.40	103.7	0.31	0.76
	Preoccupied (P)	0.37	0.40	104.3	0.93	0.36
	Dismissing (A) * Dismissing (P)	1.30	1.26	61.8	1.03	0.31
	Preoccupied (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−0.73	1.98	53.5	−0.37	0.72
	Dismissing (A) * Preoccupied (P)	−1.00	1.38	88.9	−0.73	0.47
	Dismissing (P) * Preoccupied (A)	−1.14	1.34	84.9	−0.85	0.40

Note: A = actor, P = partner. Bold type is indicative of significant findings.

8.1.2.2. EXP Peak—Own Issue—Secure Attachment

When examining narrative discourse secure attachment and EXP peak during own issue, the data was again treated as non‐distinguishable because there was not a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. We found a significant main effect of actor security, b = 0.45, t(116.3) = 2.52, p = 0.01, with higher levels of attachment security associated with a higher EXP peak (see Table 2).

8.1.2.3. EXP Mode—Partner Issue—Secure Attachment

When narrative discourse secure attachment and EXP mode during the partner's issue, the data was again treated as non‐distinguishable due to not finding a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. As seen in Table 2 and like the EXP Mode during participant's own issue, there were no significant main effects or interactions involving attachment security.

8.1.2.4. EXP Peak—Partner Issue—Secure Attachment

As shown in Table 2, when examining narrative discourse secure attachment and EXP peak during the partner's issue, there was a significant interaction between gender and actor security, b = −0.48, t(84.4) = −2.10, p = 0.04, so gender was retained as a distinguishing variable. A post hoc simple slopes analysis was significant for men, b = 1.05, t(116.1) = 3.48, p = < 0.001, with men exhibiting a higher EXP peak when their female partners were higher in attachment security. This relationship was not significant for women. There was also a significant main effect for attachment security, b = 0.56, t(106.7) = 2.74, p < 0.01, with higher attachment security associated with a higher EXP peak.

8.1.2.5. EXP Mode—Own Issue—Insecure Attachment

When examining narrative discourse insecure attachment and EXP peak during the participant's own issue, the data was treated as non‐distinguishable due to not finding a significant interaction or main effect involving gender. There were no significant main effects or significant interactions found in the data for insecure attachment strategies (dismissing or preoccupied; see Table 2).

8.1.2.6. EXP Peak—Own Issue—Insecure Attachment

When examining narrative discourse insecure attachment and EXP peak during the participant's own issue, there was no significant interaction or main effect involving gender. We did find a significant main effect of actor dismissing attachment, b = −0.55, t(114.7) = −2.06, p = 0.04, with higher dismissing attachment associated with a lower EXP peak (see Table 2).

8.1.2.7. EXP Mode—Partner Issue—Insecure

When examining narrative discourse insecure attachment and EXP mode during the partner's issue, there again was no significant interaction or main effect involving gender, so it was removed from additional analysis. There was a significant interaction between actor dismissing and partner preoccupied attachment, b = −2.31 t(97.1) = −2.06, p = 0.04 (see Table 2). In a subsequent post hoc analysis, there was a significant relationship between low dismissing values, b = 1.53, t(109.1) = 2.79, p = 0.01. In other words, individuals with low dismissing attachment who had a partner with higher levels of preoccupied attachment were more likely to demonstrate higher EXP modes. There was no significant relationship between high levels of dismissing and partner attachment anxiety.

8.1.2.8. EXP Peak—Partner Issue—Insecure

When examining narrative discourse insecure attachment and EXP peak during the partner's issue (see Table 2), the data was treated as non‐distinguishable due to the lack of a significant main effect or interaction involving gender. We did find a significant main effect of actor dismissing attachment, b = −0.78, t(110.0) = −2.49, p = 0.01, with higher levels of dismissing attachment associated with a lower EXP peak.

8.2. Summary of Results

In terms of self‐report attachment, higher attachment anxiety was associated with higher experiencing for both peak and mode during both their own and their partner's issues. There were also partner effects, with participants demonstrating deeper levels of experiencing (for both peak and mode) when their partner was higher in attachment anxiety. Those with high self‐reported attachment avoidance also exhibited lower levels of experiencing (for both EXP mode and peak) when discussing their partner's issue. For narrative discourse attachment, those who were securely attached experienced a higher EXP peak during discussion of their own and their partner's issues. Also, men exhibited a higher EXP peak when their partner was more securely attached on the AAI. Those who demonstrated more dismissing attachment strategies during their own or their partner's issue also exhibited lower experiencing (peak). Conversely, those lower in dismissing attachment experienced a higher EXP mode when their partners were higher in attachment preoccupation.

9. Discussion

The subjective nature of experiencing allows individuals to not only feel emotions but also make sense of them as they arise, creating a framework for regulating and responding to emotions in meaningful ways. Within this landscape, attachment strategies intersect with experiencing, influencing how individuals perceive and engage with their emotional world. This study's findings reflect not only the expected patterns but also some nuances that challenge typical assumptions, offering a more layered perspective on emotional regulation and attachment. Below, we will outline some of the core implications of those results.

9.1. Attachment Anxiety as a Potential Catalyst for Experiencing

As previously noted, optimal levels of experiencing may exist (Carryer and Greenberg 2010), underscoring the importance of examining the role of attachment in achieving such levels. The association between attachment anxiety and experiencing highlights the intensity (in terms of self‐awareness, meaning‐making, and emotional dynamics)—at least initially as part of a brief, emotionally‐focused intervention—that individuals with attachment anxiety may experience when discussing their own issues and their partner's. Individuals with higher attachment anxiety experienced higher EXP peaks and modes, suggesting that their intra‐ and inter‐personal reactions were more intense and pervasive across different contexts. This may stem from the anxious individual's deep desire for relational stability. When discussing their own or their partner's issues, their attachment anxiety may have amplified the emotional stakes, leading to greater self‐awareness, meaning‐making, and emotional engagement.

On the surface, this finding diverges from what might be expected, where attachment anxiety might be assumed to create emotional overwhelm and dysregulation primarily during discussions of one's own distress (Edelstein and Shaver 2004; Seedall and Lachmar 2016). Yet this finding may actually align well with our scholarly attachment understanding, which suggests that attachment anxiety may yield some positive dynamics in some contexts, but that those positive effects may be temporary. An initial increase in experiencing may result from an attachment‐anchored intervention because it may be possible that those higher in attachment anxiety exhibit higher levels of experiencing, at least initially. Yet a challenge is whether the relationship‐related worries typically associated with attachment anxiety experience may eventually override these positive dynamics and lead to greater dysregulation, especially if their partner does not respond as expected (Seedall and Lachmar 2016; Shaver and Mikulincer 2013). In other ways, when discussing their partner's issues, an anxious individual's experiencing may facilitate positive initial self‐awareness, meaning making, and emotional connection. However, there may be a critical point at which the intensity of attachment anxiety could escalate because they begin to feel threatened by their partner's relationship concerns, resulting in emotional dysregulation that undermines the capacity to sustain healthy relational dynamics (Mikulincer and Shaver 2010).

Another intriguing finding is that experiencing (both the peak and mode) during discussion with a facilitator of a partner's issue appears to be positively associated with their partner's reported level of attachment anxiety. This may reflect a spillover effect (Bakker and Demerouti 2018), where a person's attachment anxiety prompts higher partner experiencing, perhaps out of empathy or out of concern for the relational impact of the person's distress. This potential interdependence between attachment and emotional reactions points towards the emotional resonance within couples, where one person's attachment anxiety heightens their partner's emotional involvement (Simpson and Rholes 2012) and perhaps their experiencing. This spillover may result in the anxious person's emotional needs driving the interaction, leading to increased partner support. Yet the intensity of the emotional demand may also risk eventually leading the partner towards emotional overwhelm, increasing the likelihood of withdrawal, depending on the partner's own attachment strategy (Seedall and Lachmar 2016; Shaver and Mikulincer 2013).

9.1.1. Specific Clinical Implications

Clinically speaking, therapists may wish to leverage client experiencing as an opportunity for deeper understanding and relational connection (Greenberg 2004). By encouraging clients to remain present, self‐aware, and explore underlying emotions and their meanings, therapists can facilitate personal growth and assist individuals in articulating their needs more effectively, thereby strengthening interpersonal bonds. This begins with guiding partners to accurately identify and articulate what they are experiencing. However, it is equally important to foster partner responsiveness, as higher levels of distress may place significant demands on the partner tasked with providing support.

To accomplish this, the therapist could facilitate an enactment where one partner expresses anxiety‐related concerns while the other practices responding with empathic communication, such as reflective listening or paraphrasing (“It sounds like you're feeling overwhelmed because…”). Therapists should promote open communication by encouraging partners to validate and empathize with each other's experiences and to recognize emotional bids for connection. By instructing couples how to express emotions in a manner that invites compassionate responses and equipping them with strategies to remain engaged during challenging conversations, therapists can transform potentially distressing experiences into catalysts for relational growth, trust, and secure relating (Seedall and Lachmar 2016).

9.2. Potential Barriers of Attachment Deactivation to Experiencing

As might be expected, findings suggest that those who are avoidantly attached (in terms of self‐report) seem to exhibit lower levels of experiencing when addressing their partner's problems, highlighting their tendency towards greater disengagement. A parallel finding also emerged when considering deactivation in narrative/discourse attachment measurement (i.e., dismissing; Edelstein and Shaver 2004; Mikulincer and Shaver 2003). Those with high dismissing attachment exhibited lower EXP peaks during discussion of their own issues and their partner's.

This deactivation of the attachment system, defined as the reduction of responsiveness and intimacy withdrawal, serves as a protective mechanism, preventing them from becoming overwhelmed by relational dynamics (Edelstein and Shaver 2004; Mikulincer and Shaver 2003). Individuals with deactivating strategies often value independence and emotional self‐sufficiency and tend to avoid intense emotional experiences and expression (Seedall and Sandberg 2020). They may also worry that deeper engagement could lead to uncomfortable vulnerability or a threat to their autonomy and sense of control (Anders and Tucker 2000). This emotional distancing may protect them from becoming further overwhelmed or overly entangled in the emotional dynamics of the relationship (Edelstein and Shaver 2004; Mikulincer and Shaver 2003).

Interestingly, a systemic dynamic emerges when individuals with low dismissing attachment engage in discussions about their partner's issues. When their partner exhibits higher levels of preoccupation, those with low dismissing attachment tend to demonstrate heightened experiencing (in terms of mode). This suggests that when one partner is less dismissing, they may become more emotionally engaged in their partner's issues, especially when their partner has a tendency towards attachment hyperactivation (i.e., preoccupation). This provides further evidence that one person's experiencing may be able to influence the emotional responses of their partner during discussions of personal and relational challenges (Simpson and Rholes 2012).

9.2.1. Specific Clinical Implications

From a clinical standpoint, this highlights that individuals prone to attachment deactivation may disengage in terms of their self‐awareness and meaning making to protect their autonomy, limit their expressed vulnerability, and cope with their emotional discomfort (Edelstein and Shaver 2004; Mikulincer and Shaver 2003). Therapists need to foster an environment that encourages safe emotional awareness and exploration of experience and its meaning (Silverman 2011) that goes at an appropriate pace. Therapists can challenge an avoidant individual's beliefs about emotional engagement, emphasizing that vulnerability does not equate to loss of control but can enhance intimacy and connection (Anderson 2014). In this manner, a therapist could say, “It's completely natural to feel vulnerable when discussing challenging topics. However, vulnerability can also lead to deeper connection with your partner;” or “It's understandable to worry about losing control when opening up but expressing your feelings can actually help you feel more in control of your relationship.” Therapists can also facilitate discussions to explore the underlying beliefs and fears driving interactions, fostering awareness of how responses are interconnected. By implementing interventions that promote empathy and understanding, therapists can help bridge the relational disconnect, ultimately fostering healthier dynamics and deeper engagement (Johnson and Greenberg 1995).

9.3. The Role of Secure Attachment in Enhancing Experiencing

Interestingly, while attachment security was not related to the EXP mode (the most common level of experiencing), it was significantly associated with the highest level of experiencing reached (i.e., EXP peak) during both interactions (own issue and partner's). This suggests that individuals who are more coherent in how they discuss early childhood attachment experiences may not exhibit higher levels of experiencing consistently throughout discussions with their romantic partner, but their attachment security may allow them to reach greater depths of experiencing (Waters et al. 2018). Individuals with secure attachment are more adept at managing their emotional experiences and expressing their needs constructively, which strengthens connections and empathy within relationships (Simpson 1990). This finding provides additional evidence that attachment security enhances intra‐ and inter‐personal well‐being by fostering better emotional regulation, increased emotional awareness and meaning making, and open communication (Mikulincer and Shaver 2019).

For men, there was also evidence that their experiencing was influenced by their partner's attachment security. Specifically, when a man's partner had higher attachment security, the men exhibited a higher EXP peak during discussions of their partner's issues. This finding again underscores the interdependent nature of couple experiencing, where one partner's secure attachment can create a safe emotional space that allows for greater self‐ and other‐awareness, the ability to explore and deepen individual and relational meaning, and an overall engagement that fosters a deeper connection with one's partner (Mikulincer and Shaver 2010).

9.3.1. Specific Clinical Implications

Clinically, therapists should select interventions that not only enhance experiencing but also promote secure attachment. This could be aided by introducing mindfulness techniques such as grounding exercises (Chevalier and Sinatra 2011) while also fostering an increased awareness of triggers by asking, “What specific situations tend to lead to heightened emotions for you, and how can we develop a plan to address these moments when they arise?” This question encourages clients to reflect on their experiences and collaboratively create adaptive strategies, such as preemptive communication with partners or the establishment of “time‐out” signals to manage escalating discussions. Secure attachment fosters an environment where individuals feel safe to express vulnerability, facilitating deeper connections and reducing the likelihood of conflict (Simpson 1990). By equipping clients with the tools to navigate their experiences, therapists help them build stronger, more secure relational dynamics, creating a positive feedback loop that reinforces both emotional well‐being and secure attachment (Johnson 2019).

9.4. Study Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Although this study exhibits important strengths, some limitations suggest a need for future research. The sample size was relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the results. A larger and more diverse sample would enhance the applicability of the findings to broader populations, particularly in terms of different couple constellations, including LGBTQ relationships and other couple constellations. Additionally, the sample consisted of non‐clinical participants. The average couple score (46.4) for couple satisfaction on the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (RDAS) was slightly below the cut‐off of 48. Thus, this was a somewhat distressed sample. However, it is true that not all participants were distressed, and we did not ask whether they were currently receiving therapeutic services. Future research should aim to include a broader spectrum of relationship health to understand how experiencing varies across different levels of distress during therapeutic interactions.

The nature of the interactions (i.e., 4‐min intervention segments and the artificial nature of the interaction) also represents a study limitation. While examining shorter segments of experiencing is informative, it would be beneficial to investigate how these dynamics evolve over longer therapeutic interactions, such as traditional 50‐min therapy sessions. This extended, more naturalistic observation could provide deeper insights into the progression and patterns of experiencing over time. A longitudinal focus could also provide crucial understanding to the relationship between therapeutic experiencing and other important couple dynamics. For example, longer therapeutic interaction and longitudinal methodology could provide valuable insight into the higher initial levels of experiencing for those higher in attachment anxiety (and their partners), making it possible to explore whether the positive outcomes continue over time or whether (and why) a shift occurs. Although this study establishes a critical link between experiencing and attachment dynamics, further research is needed to identify optimal levels of experiencing. Understanding this could inform therapeutic interventions and enhance relationship outcomes. Addressing these limitations and any others will be crucial for advancing the field and enhancing the applicability of findings across diverse couple constellations.

10. Conclusion

One of the important strengths of this study is the exploration of the relationship between experiencing and two forms of attachment (conscious appraisals regarding one's comfort with closeness and intimacy and unconscious narrative coherence when discussing one's attachment history). Overall, the findings from this study provide insight into the complex relationship between attachment and experiencing during discussions of both one's own issues and those of one's partner. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for unpacking how attachment strategies influence experiencing in relational contexts. The results reflect not only the expected patterns but also some nuances that challenge typical assumptions, offering a more layered perspective on experiencing and attachment. These insights underscore the complexity of relational dynamics and provide a foundation for further exploration into how attachment strategies shape experience within couple interactions. We are confident this study not only enhances our understanding but also serves as a meaningful step toward fostering deeper connections and healthier emotional exchanges within relationships.

Supporting information

Supporting File

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.