Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Psychol. 2015 Jul 13;29(6):938–944. doi: 10.1037/fam0000117

Dimensions of Attachment and Commitment Across the Transition to Parenthood

Megan Ferriby 1, Letitia Kotila 1, Claire Kamp Dush 1, Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan 1
PMCID: PMC4977157  NIHMSID: NIHMS804123  PMID: 26168264

Abstract

We used structural equation modeling (SEM) and Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIM) to test dyadic associations between adult attachment and changes in relationship commitment at the transition to parenthood in a sample of 182 dual-earner couples. Overall, more avoidant individuals experienced significant changes in commitment at the transition to parenthood; specifically higher avoidance was associated with decreases in personal confidence and dedication. More anxious fathers experienced increases in personal felt constraint while anxious mothers’ commitment remained stable. Partners of more anxious individuals experienced changes in commitment at the transition to parenthood. Higher anxiety was associated with decreases in partners’ confidence and dedication and increases in partners’ felt constraint. These results suggest that interventions focused on couple relationships at the transition to parenthood should address commitment as well as relationship skills and explore how adult attachment may influence the parents’ reactions to stress during this disruptive transition. Future research should examine whether commitment levels recover once the initial stress of the transition to parenthood decreases and family roles and routines renegotiated.

Keywords: attachment, commitment, dedication, constraint, confidence, transition to parenthood, APIM

The transition to parenthood is an anomaly in terms of couple relationship functioning; relationship quality decreases (Lawrence, Rothman, Cobb, Rothman, & Bradbury, 2008) but couples are less likely to divorce after becoming parents (Waite & Lillard, 1991). Overall, the literature is mixed on how commitment changes across this transition. Aspects of commitment associated with a desire to maintain and improve one’s relationship have been found to decline across the transition to parenthood for married couples (Doss, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2009), yet for first-time, dual-earner parents, various aspects of commitment decline, though the pattern varied by relationship status (Kamp Dush, Rhoades, Sandberg-Thoma, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2013). Prior research has yet to consider the association between one's own and their partner's adult attachment, an individual’s preference of closeness with intimate partners, and the change in commitment across the transition to parenthood. During times of stress, like the transition to parenthood, attachment-related behaviors, which keep individuals close to or distant from others, may influence both the individual and their partner (Rholes Simpson, Campbell, Grich, 2001). Using Stanley and Markman's (1992) commitment framework, we extend previous literature by examining associations between new parents’ own, and their partner’s, adult attachment and commitment across the transition to parenthood. We examined structural equation modeling (SEM) and Actor-Partner Interdependence Models (APIM; Cook & Kenny, 2005) using data from a community sample of 182 couples expecting their first child.

Attachment

Internal working models of relationships, i.e. attachment bonds, are formed in infancy through caregiving relationships (Bowlby, 1988) and remain relatively consistent from childhood to adulthood (Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000). Attachment-related behaviors are increased during times of stress through activation of the attachment system and function to provide a sense of security to individuals. Most infants receive responsive care and are securely attached, meaning they are comfortable with closeness in relationships but also have a sense of independence. However, some infants receive care that is incongruent with their needs and develop insecure, avoidant or anxious, attachment. Avoidant attachment develops from little to no parental emotional support, such as consistently ignoring a crying child. Avoidant adults exhibit distancing behaviors such as withdrawal, mistrust (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz, & Fleming, 1993) and hostility during times of stress (Feeney & Noller, 1990). Anxious attachment develops from inconsistent parental support, such as responsive care in some situations and unresponsive in others. Anxious adults exhibit proximity-seeking behaviors in response to stress, such as increased intimacy and a desire for partner approval (Feeney & Noller).

Commitment

Stanley and Markman’s (1992) commitment framework identifies two aspects of commitment: personal dedication and constraint. Personal dedication is the desire to maintain and sustain one’s relationships and is demonstrated through behaviors that benefit the relationship as a whole. Rhoades, Stanley, and Markman (2010) expanded the conceptualization of constraint from the original conceptualization to include felt constraint. Felt constraint is the psychological perception of being trapped in a relationship. A less well studied yet related concept is relationship confidence. Confidence is the belief that the relationship will continue into the future and leads individuals to make personal short-term sacrifices for the long-term benefit of the relationship. Doss et al. (2009) found that both husbands and wives became less dedicated or willing to make efforts to maintain the relationship over the transition to parenthood, but only husbands became less confident in the future of the relationship. In contrast, Kamp Dush et al. (2013) examined within person changes in commitment across the transition to parenthood and found dedication and confidence dropped among cohabiting fathers and married mothers who cohabited prior to marriage, and felt constraint increased among cohabiting fathers. Neither study examined how one's own and their partner's individual characteristics, such as attachment-related behaviors, were associated with change in commitment at the transition to parenthood. Because both commitment and attachment encompass aspects of security within relationships, one’s attachment style, an indicator of one’s preferred level of security, almost certainly interacts with changes in commitment, an indicator of the current state of security, particularly at the chaotic transition to parenthood.

Justification and Hypotheses

Intraparental Characteristics

The transition to parenthood is a stressful time (Rossi, 1968) in which couples must renegotiate their roles as partners and new parents. As a result of this stress, the attachment system activates (Rholes et al., 2001), and parents begin to display attachment-related behaviors that likely impact their own and their partner's relationship commitment. The activation of the attachment system induces comfort-seeking feelings and behaviors. Avoidant individuals seek comfort in solitude and withdraw from their relationship during times of stress (Feeney & Noller, 1990). Thus they may experience a) decreases in their confidence, due to their reliance on themselves for comfort and their diminished need for partner support, leading to the devaluing of the relationship’s future, b) decreases in their dedication, due to their preoccupation with comforting themselves rather than fostering their relationship, and c) increases in their felt constraint, due to a conflict between their desire to withdraw from the relationship and their new parenting responsibilities. Avoidant mothers’ may be more susceptible to increases in felt constraint because women shoulder a greater share of the childcare and housework burden after the child’s birth (Yavorsky, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Kamp Dush, in press).

Anxious individuals find comfort in others and make attempts to be closer to their partners when stressed (Feeney & Noller). They may experience a) increases in confidence, due to the addition of shared parenting responsibilities between partners, ensuring a relationship until the child is grown, b) increases in dedication, due to their need for their partner to be close during times of stress, compelling them to improve their relationship as a means of keeping their partners close, and c) no changes in felt constraint, because their constant desire for a relationship will combat feelings of entrapment.

Interparental Characteristics

As avoidant individuals withdraw, their partners are left to cope with stress alone. Avoidant fathers’ withdrawal of support may lead their partners to spend more time with the baby in order to meet her attachment security needs (as well as the baby’s), leaving her confidence and dedication intact. However, a dependent infant paired with low partner support may increase mothers’ felt constraint, as mothers are generally the primary care providers (Kotila, Schoppe-Sullivan, & Kamp Dush, 2013). In contrast, avoidant mothers’ withdrawal may isolate fathers from the developing family unit because she will likely continue caring for the infant, even as she withdraws from him. This withdrawal may lower his postbirth confidence and jeopardize the future of the relationship, due to the perception that the mother has chosen the child over him. His dedication may also decrease due to his partner shutting him out during this stressful time. Because these fathers may not get the opportunity to form strong bonds with their child and participate in the routine care of their newborn, partners of avoidant mothers may have reduced felt constraint and feel less critical to the functioning of the family.

Anxious fathers may consider the mother-child relationship a threat to the couple relationship (Wilson, Rholes, Simpson, & Tran, 2007), and desire more couple time. Yet, with mothers’ primary caregiver role (Kotila et al, 2013), she may have less time to fulfill fathers’ security needs with couple-only activities. When mothers are unable to meet their needs, anxious fathers may heighten hostility toward mothers (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), thus lowering the mothers’ dedication. Her confidence may also decrease due to a lack of support from their partner, which becomes imperative when raising a child, particularly among dual-earner couples. In contrast, mothers' felt constraint may increase, as she must now be a source of security for both her partner and child. Anxious mothers may feel an increased need to spend time with the infant to meet their own attachment-related security needs (Snell, Overbey, & Brewer, 2005) and satisfy high standards for infant care (Feeney & Collins, 2001). At the same time, anxious mothers also desire closeness from their romantic partner (Collins, Guichard, Ford, & Feeney, 2004); thus, these mothers may prefer family time over couple time. Increased family time may signal to fathers that mothers are invested in the longevity of the relationship, thus increasing fathers’ confidence. However, the pressure to maintain family time at the cost of couple time may result in fathers’ higher postbirth felt constraint and lower dedication, as the couple relationship quality may suffer even while coparenting activities may increase (Schoppe-Sullivan, Mangelsdorf, Frosch, & McHale, 2004).

Controls

Rusbult's (1980) investment model suggests that relationship length is an important predictor of commitment, as commitment increases as investments to the relationship increase. We included relationship duration as a covariate in all models.

The Present Study

We examined associations between expectant parents’ own and their partner’s adult attachment and changes in commitment across the transition to parenthood in a sample of 182 dual-earner, first-time parents. Specifically, we used APIM's to examine how parents’ adult attachment insecurity was associated with their own and their partner's changes in personal dedication, confidence, and felt constraint at 3 months postbirth. We extend previous literature by 1) testing the association between adult attachment and three indicators of commitment, 2) examining these associations within a dyadic, family systems framework, and 3) investigating these associations at the critical life-course event of the transition to parenthood.

Method

Expectant couples (N = 182) from a Midwestern city participated in a study designed to examine parenting experiences and behaviors across the transition to parenthood. Participants were married or cohabiting, expecting their first biological child, and mothers were planning to return to work. Parents were primarily White (85%), married (86%), college educated (70%), and families earned $81,000/year. This study used surveys completed by parents during the third trimester of pregnancy (Wave 1) and when children were 3 months old (Wave 2).

Measures

Insecure attachment

The 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) questionnaire measured adult attachment at Wave 1. The scale contains avoidant and anxious subscales rated from 1 = disagree strongly to 7 = agree strongly. The 18-item avoidance subscale measured discomfort with closeness and dependence on others. Parents answered questions like, "I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close". Reliability was high; α = .92 and .87 for mothers and fathers, respectively. The 18-item anxiety subscale assessed fear, rejection, and/or abandonment. Questions like, "When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself" were included. Scale reliability was high; α = .90 and .91 for mothers and fathers, respectively.

Relationship commitment

Subscales of The Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992) measured relationship commitment at each wave. Parents rated agreement from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The 4-item dedication subscale measured parent’s interest in maintaining their relationship with questions like, “I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we may encounter”. Reliability at Wave 1 was α = .35 and .53 for mothers and fathers, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha can be unreliable for scales with a small number of items (Sijtsma, 2009) and dedication showed little variability at Wave 1. To ensure adequate reliability, we constructed a latent variable of dedication at Wave 1. The measurement model fit the data well; χ2 (2) = 3.78, p = .15; RMSEA = .00; CFI = 1.00 and all factor loadings were significant and in the expected directions. Wave 2 scale reliabilities were acceptable; α = .67 and .73 for mothers and fathers, respectively. The 4-item Relationship Confidence Scale (Stanley, Hoyer, & Trathen, 1994) assessed confidence in the future of the relationship using items like, “We have the skills a couple needs to make a marriage (or relationship) last”. Wave 1 reliability was α =.92 and .81 for mothers and fathers respectively, and α = .93 for both parents at Wave 2. The 4-item Felt Constraint Scale (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2010) measured felt constraint, or feelings of being trapped or unwillingly stuck in the relationship with questions like, “If I didn’t have so much to lose by leaving this relationship, I would leave”. Reliability was α = .69 and .82 at Wave 1, and α =.92 and .90 at Wave 2, for mothers and fathers, respectively.

Relationship duration

Parents' relationship length was calculated in years using mothers' reports of the date the couple first began living together and the Wave 1 interview date.

Analysis Plan

We used SEM to test associations between each parent's own (actor effects) and their partner's (partner effects) attachment and commitment changes across the transition to parenthood following the recommendations of Cook and Kenny (2005). Our conceptual model is located in Figure 1. We tested six separate models corresponding to each adult attachment style (anxiety and avoidance) and commitment dimension (dedication, confidence, and felt constraint) and included relationship duration as a covariate in all models. All analyses were performed using Stata12 and missing data were estimated using Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML; Johnson & Young, 2011). In addition to the χ2 fit statistic, we also present the comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). For acceptable model fit, the χ2 fit statistic should be nonsignificant, CFI values should be above .93 (Byrne, 1994), and RMSEA values should be below .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993).

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Associations between Adult Attachment and Commitment across the Transition to Parenthood.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Letters refer to equality constraints that were applied in alphabetical order. Relationship duration is abbreviated to R.D.

Results

Sample Characteristics

At Wave 1, the full sample of 182 mothers and fathers were interviewed. At Wave 2, 178 mothers and 176 fathers responded. Missing data was low; 1.1% of mothers and 2.23% of fathers were missing data at Wave 1, and 2.25% of mothers and 2.85% of fathers were missing data at Wave 2. Mothers were significantly less avoidant than fathers; the mean (with standard deviations in parentheses) was 1.88 (0.80) and 2.13 (0.71) for mothers and fathers respectively. Mothers were also significantly more anxiously attached than fathers; means were 3.09 (1.06) and 2.65 (1.01) for mothers and fathers respectively. Average dedication was high for mothers and fathers; respectively 6.70 (0.40) and 6.58 (0.60) at Wave 1 and 6.54 (0.65) and 6.52 (0.66) at Wave 2. Confidence was also high; 6.72 (0.53) and 6.66 (0.58) at Wave 1 and 6.57 (0.77) and 6.58 (0.71) at Wave 2 for mothers and fathers respectively. Felt constraint was relatively low; means were 1.01 (0.30) and 1.20 (0.59) at Wave 1, and 1.20 (0.71) and 1.20 (0.13) at Wave 2 for mothers and fathers respectively. Mothers were significantly more dedicated than fathers, and fathers experienced significantly greater felt constraint than mothers at Wave 1; no other commitment differences were found. Married couples had significantly longer relationship durations; mean in years was 4.30 (2.58) for married couples and 1.68 (1.52) for cohabitors.

Attachment Avoidance and Commitment

All results from the APIMs are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

SEM Results for Associations between Insecure Attachment and Commitment at the Transition to Parenthood (N = 182)

Confidence1 Dedication2 Felt Constraint3
B(SE) b(SE) B(SE) b(SE) B(se) b(SE)
Avoidant
Mothers
Commitment Wave 2
 Mother Attachment −0.13**(0.05) −0.13**(0.05) −0.15**(0.05) −0.13**(0.04) 0.11+(0.06) 0.10+(0.05)
  Father Attachment −0.04(0.04) −0.05(0.05) −0.08+(0.04) −0.07+(0.04) 0.06(0.05) 0.06(0.05)
 Commitment Wave 1 0.51***(0.06) 0.73***(0.09) 0.47***(0.07) 0.73***(0.12) 0.26***(0.09) 0.44***(0.17)
Relationship Duration −0.04(0.06) −0.00(0.00) −0.04(0.06) −0.00(0.00) 0.04(0.07) 0.00(0.00)
Fathers
Commitment Wave 2
 Mother Attachment −0.05(0.05) −0.05(0.05) −0.09+(0.05) −0.07+(0.04) 0.07(0.06) 0.06(0.05)
  Father Attachment −0.13**(0.05) −0.13**(0.05) −0.14**(0.05) −0.13**(0.04) 0.10+(0.05) 0.10+(0.05)
 Commitment Wave 1 0.32***(0.07) 0.40***(0.09) 0.28***(0.07) 0.31***(0.08) 0.27***(0.07) 0.33***(0.09)
Relationship Duration 0.05(0.07) 0.00(0.00) 0.04(0.07) 0.00(0.00) 0.04(0.07) 0.00(0.00)
Anxious
Mothers
Commitment Wave 2
 Mother Attachment −0.08+(0.05) −0.06+(0.03) −0.06(0.05) −0.04(0.03) −0.10(0.07) −0.06(0.05)
  Father Attachment −0.16***(0.04) −0.13***(0.03) −0.14**(0.05) −0.09**(0.03) 0.18***(0.05) 0.13***(0.03)
 Commitment Wave 1 0.53***(0.05) 0.76***(0.09) 0.54***(0.06) 0.83***(0.11) 0.34***(0.09) 0.57***(0.16)
Relationship Duration −0.04(0.06) −0.00(0.00) −0.05(0.06) −0.00(0.00) 0.03(0.07) 0.00(0.00)
Fathers
Commitment Wave 2
 Mother Attachment −0.19***(0.05) −0.13***(0.03) −0.05**(0.05) −0.09**(0.03) 0.18***(0.05) 0.13***(0.03)
  Father Attachment −0.08+(0.05) −0.06+(0.03) −0.06(0.05) −0.04(0.03) 0.15*(0.07) 0.11*(0.05)
 Commitment Wave 1 0.36***(0.06) 0.44***(0.08) 0.33***(0.07) 0.35***(0.07) 0.28***(0.07) 0.33***(0.09)
Relationship Duration 0.03(0.07) 0.00(0.00) 0.03(0.07) 0.00(0.00) 0.06(0.07) 0.00(0.00)
Open in a new tab

Note.

+

p<0.10;

*

p<0.05;

**

p<0.01;

***

p<0.001.

Fit indices were as follows: Avoidant-Confidence Model χ2(df) 2.05(4) p = 0.73, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00; Avoidant-Dedication Model: χ2(df) 1.91(4) p = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00; Avoidant-Constraint Model: χ2(df) 4.50(4) p = 0.34, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.99. Anxious-Confidence Model: χ2(df) 3.70(4) p = 0.45, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00; Anxious-Dedication Model: χ2(df) 4.93(4) p = 0.29, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99; Anxious-Constraint Model: χ2(df) 1.93(3) p = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00.

Confidence

The unconstrained model fit the data well; χ2(df) 1.15 (2) p = 0.56, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. APIM constraints were applied in the order listed in Figure 1, and each applied constraint was valid. Final model fit was excellent; χ2(df) 2.05(4) p = 0.73, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Higher personal avoidance was associated with a decrease in each parents’ confidence across the transition to parenthood. No significant partner effects were found.

Dedication

The unconstrained model fit well; χ2(df) 0.89(2) p = 0.64, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. All applied constraints were valid. Final model fit was excellent; χ2(df)1.91(4) p = 0.75, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Higher personal avoidance was associated with a decrease in each parent's dedication across the transition to parenthood. No significant partner effects were found.

Felt constraint

The initial model was acceptable; χ2(df) 0.54(2) p = 0.76, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Each applied constraint was valid and final model fit was excellent; χ2(df) 4.50(4) p = 0.34, RMSEA = 0.03, CFI = 0.99. No significant actor or partner effects were found.

Attachment Anxiety and Commitment

Confidence

The unconstrained model fit well; χ2(df) 0.71(2) p = 0.71, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Applied constraints were valid and final model fit was acceptable; χ2(df) 3.70 (4) p = 0.45, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. No actor effects were found. Higher partner attachment anxiety was associated with lower parental confidence.

Dedication

The unconstrained model provided good fit to the data; χ2(df) 2.81(2) p = 0.25, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.99. All applied constraints were valid. Final model fit was acceptable; χ2(df) 4.93 (4) p = 0.29, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99. No actor effects were found. Higher partner anxiety was associated with a decrease in parental dedication.

Felt constraint

The unconstrained model fit well; χ2(df) 0.22 (2) p = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Applied constraints between parents' own attachment anxiety and felt constraint were not valid. The final model, with only partner effects constrained, fit the data well; χ2(df) 1.93 (3) p = 0.59, RMSEA = 0.00, CFI = 1.00. Higher father anxiety was associated with increases in father felt constraint. Greater partner anxiety was associated with an increase in both parent's felt constraint.

Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine whether variable transformations to reduce skewness in the commitment variables would change the pattern of results. Confidence and dedication were negatively skewed; a squared transformation was used. Constraint was positively skewed; a natural log transformation was used. The models were reexamined using the transformed variables (results not shown). The overall pattern of results in the transformed models were similar to the raw models, but overall, the models lost fit. Due to minor differences in associations, the pattern of reduced model fit, and a greater ease of interpretation with the raw variables, the raw variables were retained in the final analyses.

Discussion

We extended previous research by testing dyadic associations between adult attachment and changes in relationship commitment in a sample of 182 dual-earner couples. We tested this association at the transition to parenthood, a stressful life course event that activates the attachment system. We conducted APIMs to examine both parent’s contributions to their own and their partner's change in commitment across the transition to parenthood. Overall, more avoidant parents’ commitment was more susceptible to the stress of the transition of parenthood. More anxious parents’ commitment was largely robust to the transition to parenthood, but their partner’s commitment suffered after becoming parents.

Attachment Avoidance and Commitment

Intrapersonal Characteristics

Avoidant individuals frequently respond to stress by psychologically and emotionally withdrawing from their partner (Campbell, Simpson, Kashy, & Rholes, 2001); consequently, we found that more avoidant parents experienced a significant decline in confidence and dedication following the birth. Lower confidence and dedication may function as "distance regulators" for more avoidant individuals, allowing them to withdraw from partners and cope with the stress autonomously, as is their preference (Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). This sense of autonomy may lessen feelings of entrapment, thus felt constraint remains unchanged among these individuals.

Interpersonal Characteristics

Across the transition to parenthood, more avoidant parents’ partners experienced decreases in dedication. Parents who see their avoidant partners withdrawing may interpret this as a signal of their partners’ lower dedication, causing them to focus on the child rather than the maintenance of their intimate relationship and thus lowering their own dedication. However, due to the presence of the child, they may remain confident that they will continue to have a relationship and raise their child with their avoidant partner (Mosher, Jones, & Abma, 2012), leaving their confidence unchanged. Additionally, the presence of a child may comfort the parent as their partner withdraws, helping to mitigate felt constraint.

Attachment Anxiety and Commitment

Intrapersonal Characteristics

More anxious fathers also experienced increases in felt constraint. Anxious individuals tend to become preoccupied with their own needs (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) and are sensitive to rejection (Collins & Read, 1990). Anxious fathers’ partners will be busy with childrearing as mothers are the primary caregivers (Kotila et al., 2013), thus lowering their time available to spend with him, which may makes the relationship less desirable. However, anxious fathers also highly desire intimate relationships, leading him to experience increases in felt constraint.

Interpersonal Characteristics

More anxious parents’ partners experienced decreases in confidence and dedication across the transition to parenthood and increases in felt constraint. If a partner is caring for a baby, an anxious individual may feel ignored, or that their needs are not being met. In reaction, they may act hostile towards their partner (Main et al., 1985). This hostility may lower the partner’s dedication. Additionally, partners may worry about the anxious parents’ hostility becoming focused on the child, lowering their confidence in the relationship continuing. With a newborn and a hypersensitive partner vying for attention and comfort, the other parent may feel strained, leading elevated feelings of entrapment.

Limitations/Future Directions

Though our study was the first to examine the association between attachment and commitment at the transition to parenthood with dyadic data, there were limitations. Our sample was primarily White, middle-class, married and entirely different-sex couples. Additionally, this study only looked at a four month interval. Future research should examine these associations in a more diverse sample and over longer periods.

We could only assess change in commitment across the transition from the third trimester to 3 months postpartum. Becoming pregnant may be associated with a change in commitment, and this change could also be associated with attachment. Future research should examine the transition to first pregnancy to understand whether the heightened levels of stress at the transition to parenthood are present at the transition to pregnancy, and whether these activate the attachment system at that time as well. Further, the effect sizes in this study were small overall. More extensive and sensitive measures of commitment could yield stronger associations.

This study provided valuable information for educators and counselors who work with pregnant couples and new parents. Interventions and educational programs designed to help couples across the transition to parenthood could better protect couples against declines in commitment if tailored to an individual’s attachment style. Educators and counselors who work with pregnant couples and new parents could incorporate attachment-based emotion focused therapy techniques (Diamond, Reis, Diamond, Siqueland, & Isaacs, 2002) to improve outcomes of their current interventions and education programs. Further, most programs are focused on relationship satisfaction, conflict, and coparenting, and these results suggest commitment should be considered as a targeted outcome in these interventions as well (Feinberg & Kan, 2008).Interventions should also emphasize the bidirectional influences partners have on each other, as the results indicate partner effects do exist at this life event. If individuals and couples understand how they and their partner respond to stress and learn skills to buffer the negative effects of stress at the transition to parenthood, they may be able to better maintain positive relationship functioning, greater relationship stability, and improved child outcomes as a result.

Contributor Information

Megan Ferriby, Email: Ferriby.2@osu.edu.

Letitia Kotila, Email: Kotila.2@osu.edu.

Claire Kamp Dush, Email: kamp-dush.1@osu.edu.

Sarah Schoppe-Sullivan, Email: schoppe-sullivan.1@osu.edu.

References

  1. Bowlby J. A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Tavistock Press; London: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  2. Byrne BM. Testing for the factorial validity, replication, and invariance of a measuring instrument: A paradigmatic application based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1994;29(3):289–311. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Sage; Newbury Park, CA: 1993. pp. 136–162. [Google Scholar]
  4. Campbell L, Simpson JA, Kashy DA, Rholes WS. Attachment orientations, dependence, and behavior in a stressful situation: An application of the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2001;18(6):821–843. doi: 10.1177/0265407501186005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cook WL, Kenny DA. The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2005;29(2):101–109. doi:0.1080/01650250444000405. [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins NL, Guichard AC, Ford MB, Feeney BC. Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In: Rholes WS, Simpson JA, editors. Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications. Guilford; New York: 2004. pp. 196–239. [Google Scholar]
  7. Diamond GS, Reis BF, Diamond GM, Siqueland L, Isaacs L. Attachment-based family therapy for depressed adolescents: A treatment development study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2002;41(10):1190–1196. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200210000-00008. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200210000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Doss BD, Rhoades CK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. The effect of the transition to parenthood on relationship quality: An 8-year prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009;96(3):601–619. doi: 10.1037/a0013969. doi:10.1037/a0013969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Feeney BC, Collins NL. Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;80(6):972–994. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Feeney J, Noller P. Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990;58(2):281–291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.281. [Google Scholar]
  11. Feinberg ME, Kan ML. Establishing family foundations: intervention effects on coparenting, parent/infant well-being, and parent-child relations. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22(2):253–263. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.2.253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraley R, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;78(2):350–365. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.350. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kamp Dush CM, Rhoades GK, Sandberg-Thoma SE, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ. Commitment across the transition to parenthood among married and cohabiting couples. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2014;3(2):126–136. doi: 10.1037/cfp0000006. doi: 10.1037/cfp0000006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kotila LE, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Kamp Dush CM. Time in parenting activities in dual-earner families at the transition to parenthood. Family Relations. 2013;62(5):795–807. doi: 10.1111/fare.12037. doi: 10.1111/fare.12037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Johnson DR, Young R. Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2011;73(5):926–945. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00861.x. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kobak RR, Cole HE, Ferenz-Gillies R, Fleming WS, Gamble W. Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development. 1993;64(1):231–245. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02906.x. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Lawrence E, Rothman AD, Cobb RJ, Rothman MT, Bradbury TN. Marital satisfaction across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22(1):41–51. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.41. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lopez F, Gormley B. Stability and change in adult attachment style over the first-year college transition. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2002;49(3):355–364. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.355. [Google Scholar]
  19. Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1985;50(1/2):66–104. doi: 10.2307/3333827. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mikulincer M, Florian V. The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford; New York: 1998. pp. 143–165. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mosher WD, Jones J, Abma JC. Intended and unintended births in the United States: 1982-2010. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. 2012 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Rhoades GK, Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Should I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from four aspects of commitment. Journal of Family Psychology. 2010;24(5):543–550. doi: 10.1037/a0021008. doi:10.1037/a0021008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Rholes W, Simpson JA, Campbell L, Grich J. Adult attachment and the transition to parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001;81(3):421–435. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.421. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.3.421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rusbult CE. Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1980;16(2):172–186. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rossi AS. Transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1968;30(1):26–39. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Mangelsdorf SC, Frosch CA, McHale JL. Associations between coparenting and marital behavior from infancy to the preschool years. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004;18(1):194–207. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0. doi:10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Simpson JA, Rholes WS, Nelligan JS. Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1992;62(3):434–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.3.434. [Google Scholar]
  29. Snell WE, Overbey GA, Brewer AL. Parenting perfectionism and the parenting role. Personality and Individual Differences. 2005;39(3):613–624. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Stanely SM, Hoyer L, Trathen DW. The confidence scale. University of Denver; Denver, CO: 1994. [Google Scholar]
  31. Stanley SM, Markman HJ. Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1992;54(3):595–608. doi: 10.2307/353245. [Google Scholar]
  32. Waite LJ, Lillard LA. Children and marital disruption. American Journal of Sociology. 1991;96(4):930–953. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2780736. [Google Scholar]
  33. Waters E, Merrick S, Treboux D, Crowell J, Albersheim L. Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child development. 2000;71(3):684–689. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00176. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wilson CL, Rholes WS, Simpson JA, Tran S. Labor, delivery, and early parenthood: An attachment theory perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2007;33(4):505–518. doi: 10.1177/0146167206296952. doi:10.1177/0146167206296952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Yavorsky J, Kamp Dush CM, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ. Production of inequality: Gender division of labor across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Marriage and Family. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12189. (In Press) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES