Skip to main content
Download PDF

The ill fortune of attachment insecurity and dyadic distrust in marital satisfaction: a dyadic perspective in Turkish couples

BMC Psychology volume 13, Article number: 417 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The objective of the current study is to explore the actor, partner and mediating effects of dyadic trust in the relationship between insecure romantic attachment and marital satisfaction in a Turkish sample of heterosexual married couples.

Background

Although the vital role of dyadic trust in a romantic relationship has been recognized for many years, the mediating role of dyadic trust in the relationship between insecure attachment and marital satisfaction has not been explored much in previous research.

Method

The sample comprised 174 married couples living in suburban areas in the central Anatolian region of Türkiye. Couples were recruited through personal networks and online mailing lists of local governmental institutions. Two Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model analyses were carried out to estimate mediation with dyadic data using MEDYAD.

Results

The actor effects between insecure romantic attachment and marital satisfaction were found to be mediated by dyadic distrust. Moreover, two partner mediating effects were found significant. Husbands’ anxious attachment predicted wives’ dyadic distrust, which in turn predicted wives’ marital dissatisfaction. Likewise, husbands’ anxious attachment also predicted their own dyadic distrust, which in turn predicted their wives’ marital dissatisfaction.

Conclusion

The findings show that for insecurely attached individuals, dyadic trust has an important role in marital satisfaction and thus should be the central topic in couple counseling.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

A rewarding marriage relationship is one of the commonly shared life pursuits, and satisfaction in a marital relationship predicts relationship stability and survival [1] and thus diminishes the likelihood of marital discord. The ebb and flow of everyday life occurs naturally, and marriages get their share of ups and downs from those tides as well. Even so, some couples have more satisfying marriage experiences than others as a result of a variety of interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental factors. Among these, delineating the source of individual differences in intimate relationships, attachment in adulthood [2, 3, see also 4 for a comprehensive review of adult attachment research]—an extension of Bowlby’s attachment theory [5]—holds a special place in understanding the complex dynamics of intimate romantic relationships. Studies have yielded robust empirical evidence supporting secure and insecure romantic attachment as an explanatory framework for relationship satisfaction [see a review by 6 and a meta-analysis by 7]. Expectations, attitudes, beliefs about and perceptions of romantic relationship interactions are strongly affected by attachment (in)security [8].

Attachment (In)security

The activation and operation of the adult attachment model were proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver [8, 9]. Based on the extent of the availability and responsiveness of the attachment figure in times of need and distress, an individual may either experience a sense of security, call for attention, make strong attempts to maintain emotional and physical proximity to the attachment figure, or inhibit proximity seeking and deny feelings of intimacy towards the attachment figure. According to the adult attachment theory, two dimensions determine individual differences in attachment orientations: anxiety and avoidance [see 10]. People who have lower scores on both dimensions are presumed to have secure attachment, characterized by feelings of comfort, closeness, and intimacy in relationships. Those who have high scores on the avoidance dimension tend to strive for psychological and emotional detachment from their partners. On the other hand, those with higher scores on the anxiety dimension are generally preoccupied with worries about being rejected or abandoned by their partners [11]. Anxious individuals are believed to be highly sensitive to perceiving and interpreting daily interactions with their partners as threatening to proximity maintenance due to their high rejection sensitivity [for example, 12]. In contrast, avoidant individuals are less likely to perceive negativity because they do not want to activate attachment-related feelings and prefer to withdraw from emotional investment in their partners. Moreover, avoidant individuals do not want to depend on their partners for emotional support and are also likely to be reluctant to provide emotional support to their partners in general. This reluctance helps them maintain their sense of autonomy and independence [4].

Actor/Partner effects of attachment In(security)

The high dependence needs of anxious partners, combined with doubts about their partners’ trustworthiness and intrusiveness, can interfere with enjoying a satisfying marriage [9]. Moreover, anxiously attached partners tend to interpret events in their relationships more negatively, view their partners’ behaviors more critically, and report higher levels of emotional distress [13]. Collins and Read’s [14] finding on dating partners showed that men with more anxious partners and women with more avoidant partners reported less relationship satisfaction and more conflict. A recent meta-analysis by Candel and Nicoleta-Turliuc [7] of 132 studies on attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and relationship satisfaction, reported that actor effects were stronger than partner effects, yet both were significant and equally strong for both sexes. However, in married couples, the association between attachment anxiety and relationship satisfaction was stronger for Western samples, and weaker for Asian samples. Another two meta-analyses [15, 16] with 57 and 73 studies respectively showed that compared to attachment anxiety, avoidance was more negatively associated with general relationship satisfaction, whereas attachment anxiety was more positively associated with general relationship conflict.

Actor and partner effects of attachment insecurity on marital satisfaction have yielded mixed results. For example, avoidant attachment has been found to be associated with low relationship satisfaction for both women and men, but anxious attachment was only associated with women’s satisfaction [for example, 17]. Kane et al. [18] reported that husbands were less satisfied in their marriage when their wives were anxiously attached, but wives were less satisfied when their husbands were avoidant. In contrast, Banse [19] reported that men (but not women) were less satisfied when their partners were more avoidant. Butzer and Campbell [20] found both actor and partner effects for attachment anxiety and for both women and men, but attachment avoidance was significant for partners’ own marital dissatisfaction. Harma and Sümer [21], using a large sample of married Turkish couples, found that attachment avoidance was a primary risk factor for marital dissatisfaction in both men and women. However, neither actor nor partner effects of anxious attachment were significant in relation to marital satisfaction. A more recent study by Thibodeau and Bouchard [22] with married heterosexual couples in the empty-nest stage of the family cycle found that attachment anxiety was negatively associated with both partners’ marital satisfaction, as well as with the individual’s own marital satisfaction. In contrast, attachment avoidance only had an effect on the individual’s own marital satisfaction. Therefore, mixed findings are evident regarding the impact of attachment dimensions on relationship satisfaction.

Cultural context

Regarding cultural variations in relationship satisfaction outcomes as a function of attachment (in)security, Western and Eastern samples have shown differential patterns. Western populations have shown a stronger association between attachment anxiety and relationship dissatisfaction. However, Harma and Sümer [21] expected women’s attachment anxiety to be the strongest predictor of relationship functioning, based on the conclusion that extreme closeness in relationships may not be detrimental and could even be a highly valued asset in collectivistic cultures. Moreover, due to cultural incongruence, men’s attachment anxiety was considered a risk factor for marital functioning. Overall, their findings provided support for their anticipations that attachment avoidance (particularly women’s avoidance), rather than attachment anxiety, along with men’s attachment anxiety, would be the predominant risk factors for relationship functioning.

Meanwhile, Ataca [23] argued that rather than the attachment anxiety of women, men’s attachment anxiety would be riskier for marital satisfaction in Turkish families because the clingy behaviors and extreme closeness needs of men are culturally incongruent. Men in Turkish families are expected to act avoidant to some extent by force of the gender roles, but also they are motivated to exhibit at least some attachment anxiety to sustain a marriage [21]. On the other hand, women’s attachment anxiety in marriage is culturally congruent, but the attachment avoidance of women in relationships is deemed highly unacceptable, at odds with gender role conformity. The Anatolian city where the data for the current study were collected is quite conservative, known for its extreme emphasis on traditional gender roles, and where marriages are mostly arranged. The city is also known with radical nationalism as well as hometown bias. For example, one of the most important criteria for a couple to be married is the condition that both woman and man should be born and live in this city. Especially, groom candidates who are not from the city are generally not welcomed to marry women from this hometown. The culture is quite insular and has unique rules and regulations regarding marriages. Women are expected to serve their husbands, husbands’ family members (especially mother and father in laws), and their children. Most of the families in this city are large families, and nuclear families are very rare. Daughter-in-laws are watched closely for their behaviors in the family by their mother-in-laws and husband’s-sister-in laws. Therefore, being a married woman in this region brings about so many challenges.

Educational level is another cultural factor that might influence marital satisfaction through different mechanisms, including attachment and dyadic trust. To our knowledge, it is so rare to come across illiterate and/or undereducated Western samples in marriage literature. Even a meta-analysis with 226 independent studies on marital satisfaction [24] coded the educational level of the participants as no high school diploma, high school diploma, and higher education, which might imply that most of the people completed at least primary or middle school. In Anatolian suburban areas of Turkey, although the school enrollment rates have been increasing in recent years, the literacy rates among previous generations are quite low. On the other hand, invariance of adult attachment across socioeconomic status (SES) has been rejected many times [e.g., 25, 26], and the findings showed that low SES is related to attachment insecurity through various factors.

Dyadic trust

Over and above these considerations, the potential underlying mechanisms linking the romantic attachment styles and marital satisfaction of couples remain rather vague [27, 28]. Some studies have suggested that the link between anxious and avoidant attachment and marital functioning is mediated or moderated by other variables, such as negative emotions, cognitions, and attitudes [e.g., 29, 30]. This link is commonly understood as a two-way process between parties. Among these, dyadic trust is considered the most important factor for the development and maintenance of satisfying intimate relationships in adulthood [31, p. 264]. Trust is based on the belief and expectation that partners put the relationship first with good intentions and motivations [32]. Four basic principles of interpersonal trust emerged out of a review of the interpersonal trust literature, and one of them pertains to the attachment orientation of the individual [31]. The review concluded that people with secure attachments were more likely to trust and be trusted in their relationships. Attachment theory conceptualizes interpersonal trust as not something that develops through experience in relationships, but rather an individual difference shaped with one’s attachment pattern. In this sense, dyadic trust is not an independent construct, but a component of attachment representations [33].

The significant role of dyadic trust in satisfying romantic relationships has been consistently shown in various studies [for example, 34,35,36,37]. The experience of trust in a relationship is considered an important relational process, a definitional element of the intimacy component of love [38] and its association with attachment styles is evidentiary [For example, 28, 39, 40]. Mikulincer’s [40] findings showed that securely attached partners felt more trust towards their partners, had higher accessibility of positive trust-related memories, used more constructive strategies to restore trust when damaged, and mentioned more positive trust episodes over three weeks in their relationships than insecurely attached partners. Only two studies [33, 39] were found to have examined the link between the attachment orientations and relationship satisfaction of heterosexual couples as mediated by dyadic and interpersonal trust respectively. The participants in the first study were required to have been involved in a romantic relationship for at least twelve months. They showed significant partner effects of husbands’ anxious and avoidant attachment on wives’ relationship satisfaction via the low dyadic trust of husbands, but no partner effect was found for women in the same mediational model. In other words, husbands’ higher scores on anxious and avoidant attachment decreased the relationship satisfaction scores of their wives via the mediating effect of the husbands’ own low dyadic trust. Actor effects were significant for attachment avoidance and anxiety in husbands, as men with higher scores on attachment avoidance or anxiety reported more dyadic distrust and, in turn, lower relationship satisfaction. For women, this mediational association was significant only for attachment avoidance. That is to say, women with higher scores on attachment avoidance reported lower relationship satisfaction, as mediated by less dyadic trust. The second study with married individuals found that anxious or avoidant attachment in both men and women was associated with low relationship quality (measured as the sum of marital satisfaction, personal commitment and dedication commitment) via their own low interpersonal trust, on both actor and partner levels [33]. The current study aimed to merely retest the mediational model of Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine [39] in a different context.

Current study

Understanding the dyadic pathways to marital satisfaction could offer a rich perspective by looking at the roles of partners’ attachment security and dyadic trust. The aim of the current study is to explore the actor and partner direct and indirect effects (by dyadic trust) in the relationship between insecure romantic attachment and marital satisfaction with a Turkish sample of heterosexual married couples living in suburban areas, mostly undereducated women compared to men, and of more than half made arranged marriages. In line with this aim, we hypothesized that both anxious and avoidant attachment styles will significantly be related to marital satisfaction directly and indirectly via dyadic trust for both genders on both actor and partner levels.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and fifty married individuals were identified as appropriate for the study. Fifty-seven couples did not want to take part in the survey and 19 participants did not complete the measures. The participants in the study were therefore 174 married couples (n = 348) who were living in suburban areas in the central Anatolian region of Türkiye and had been married for at least one year. Of them, 46.3% were aged between 19 and 35, 44.5% between 36 and 50, and 9.2% were over 51. The mean age of the husbands was 39.3 (SD = 9.7) and the mean age of the wives was 35.5 (SD = 9.2). The mean length of marriage was 13.5 years (SD = 10.2), as reported by wives and husbands. A total of 15.5% of the participants had no children, 19% had one child, 43.1% had two children and 22.4% had three or more children. More than half of the participants (57.5%) stated that their marriage had been arranged and 42.5% stated that it was a love marriage. In all, 35.6% of the participants stated that their economic status was good, 62.1% stated that it was medium and 2.3% stated that it was bad. An analysis of the educational levels among the couples revealed that 28.2% of the women completed primary education, 17.2% completed middle school, 19.5% attained a high school diploma, and 35.1% held a university degree. In contrast, 12.6% of the men completed primary education, 5.7% completed middle school, 29.9% attained a high school diploma, and 51.7% held a university degree.

Procedure

Before the data collection process, we completed all the ethical requirements. We reached married individuals through personal networks and the online mailing lists of some local governmental institutions. We informed the married individuals about the study process and asked for their consent to be involved in the study as a couple. We asked them to inform their spouses about the research and to complete the informed consent forms. Finally, we sent two separate envelopes or e-mails containing the matched set of measures to couples. We asked them to complete the measures independently in a quiet place. The participants filled out the measures and returned them via e-mail or regular mail.

Measures

Anxious and avoidant attachment

The Turkish adaptation [41] of the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) scale which was developed by Fraley et al. [42] was used in the study to measure anxious and avoidant attachment. The ECR-R consists of two scales, one measuring anxious attachment (18 items) and the other measuring avoidant attachment (18 items). The avoidance subscale assesses individuals’ discomfort with closeness, dependence and self-disclosure (for example, ‘I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down’). The anxiety subscale reflects individuals’ strong need for closeness, fear of rejection and abandonment (for example, ‘I worry a lot about my relationships’). The ECR-R has a seven-point Likert-style response format (1: Strongly disagree to 7: Strongly agree). A higher mean score on each scale is suggestive of either higher anxious attachment or avoidant attachment. In the Turkish adaptation study [40], the relationship between avoidance and anxiety dimensions and other related variables (self-esteem, relationship satisfaction, separation anxiety, and approval anxiety) supported the validity of ECR-R. The internal consistency of both scales is satisfactory, with Cronbach’s alpha scores varying between 0.83 and 0.88.

Dyadic trust

The Turkish adaptation [43] of the Dyadic Trust Scale (DTS) developed by Larzelere and Huston [44] was used in the study to measure married couples’ dyadic trust. The Turkish adaptation of the DTS consists of seven items (the original DTS has eight items) (for example, ‘My partner is perfectly honest and truthful with me’). The DTS also has a seven-point Likert-style response format (1: Very strongly disagree to 7: Very strongly agree). Higher scores are indicative of the participant having higher trust in their spouse. In the adaptation, item 6 of the original scale was excluded due to its low item loading. In the Turkish adaptation study [39], the relationship between dyadic trust and related variables (marital satisfaction and emotional dependency) supported the validity of DTS. The DTS had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89. The split-half test reliability was reported as 0.86.

Marital satisfaction

The Marital Life Scale (MLS) developed by Tezer [45] was used in the study to measure the overall satisfaction of married individuals. The scale consists of ten items (for example, ‘Most of what I expected from marriage came true’). The MLS has a five-point Likert-style response format (1: Completely disagree to 5: Completely agree). Higher scores suggested higher relationship satisfaction. In the scale development study [45], the significant differences between the scores obtained from married and divorced individuals from the scale and the low correlation coefficient obtained between the scale and the scores of the social desirability measure were stated as evidence for the validity of the scale. The scale had satisfactory internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91 and 0.89 for two consecutive studies [45]. Test-retest reliability over three-month intervals was reported as 0.85.

Data analysis

We started with correlation analyses to reveal the associations among variables and decide if demographics such as age, marriage length, and the number of children would be the control variables. To assess the normality of the data before correlation analysis, we utilized graphical methods such as histogram and the Q-Q plot as in the larger samples tests of normality such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics are not recommended to judge normality [46]. The visual inspection of the histogram and Q-Q plot suggested normal distribution, supporting the normality assumption. None of the variables, age, marriage length, and number of children, were related to the main variables in the model, so we excluded them from the subsequent analyses.

Following, we carried out two Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM; 47) analyses to estimate mediation with dyadic data via MEDYAD (Beta V1.1). MEDYAD, an add-on macro for SPSS, is an easy-to-use regression-based computational tool that conducts mediation analysis with distinguishable dyadic data [48]. MEDYAD assesses the direct and indirect effects of each actor’s X (independent variable) on their own and their partner’s Y (independent variable) through their own and their partner’s mediator M [48]. MEDYAD does not offer an omnibus measure of model fit like structural equation modeling programs do. “However, this is not as large of a disadvantage as it may seem, as all of the models that MEDYAD can estimate are saturated, meaning that fit is perfect (fully saturated, χ² (0) = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.00, and CFI = 1.00) by many measures used in SEM” [48, p. 27]. In our study, anxious attachment or avoidance attachment was the independent variable, dyadic trust was the mediator, and marital satisfaction was the dependent variable. We tested the proposed model using 10,000 bootstrap samples both for direct and indirect effects.

As recommended by Kenny and Cook [49], we adhered to sample size guidelines for multiple regression analyses since our study utilized APIMeM without latent variables. A power analysis via G*Power 3.1 [50] revealed that, with two independent variables, two mediators, two dependent variables, and a significance level of α = 0.05 (two-tailed), a minimum of 68 couples was required to achieve sufficient power (0.80) for detecting a medium effect size.

Results

Correlation analysis

As Table 1 shows, all the correlations among the major study variables for actor, partner, and cross-partner were significant. To name a few, the anxious attachment, [r =.43, p <.01)], dyadic trust, [r =.43, p <.01)] and marital satisfaction, [r =.44, p <.01)] of husbands and wives associated with each other. Husbands’ anxious attachment was negatively related to their dyadic trust, [r = −.54, p <.01)] and marital satisfaction, [r = −.48, p <.01)]. The same pattern was observed for the wives Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1 Cronbach alphas, means, standard deviations, and correlations (Women above, men below, and between women and men Along the Diagonal) for study variables
Full size table
Table 2 Indirect effects of Actor-Partner interdependence mediation model for anxious attachment as the independent variable
Full size table
Table 3 Summary for the indirect effects of Actor-Partner interdependence mediation model for avoidant attachment as independent
Full size table

Actor-Partner interdependence mediation model

Anxious attachment as the independent variable

As presented in Fig. 1, the model, in which husband dyadic trust was the outcome was significant, R2 = 0.274, F(2, 171) = 32.240, p <.001. Only husband anxious attachment was a significant predictor of husband dyadic trust, [β = − 0.660, t(171) = -7.213, 95% CI (-0.840, − 0.479)]. When the wife dyadic trust was the outcome, the model was also significant, R2 = 0.144, F(2, 171) = 11.039 p <.001. Both wife anxious attachment, [β = − 0.389, t(171) = -2.775, 95% CI (-0.666, − 0.112)] and husband anxious attachment, [β = − 0.273, t(171) = -2.254, 95% CI (-0.511, − 0.2034)] were significant predictors of wife dyadic trust.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Proposed actor-partner interdependence mediation model for anxious attachment as the independent variable

Full size image

When the husband marital satisfaction was analyzed as the outcome variable, the model was significant, as well, R2 = 0.347, F (4, 169) = 22.419, p <.001. Husband anxious attachment [β = − 0.209, t(169) = -3.362, 95% CI (-0.331, − 0.086)], and husband dyadic trust, [β = 0.215, t(169) = 4.328, 95% CI (0.117, − 0.314)] significantly predicted husband marital satisfaction. The model, in which wife marital satisfaction was the outcome, was significant, as well, R2 =.464, F (4, 169) = 36.557, p <.001.Wife anxious attachment, [β = − 0.294, t(169) = -4.220, 95% CI (-0.431, − 0.157)], and wife dyadic trust, β = 0.280, t(169) = 7.185, 95% CI (0.213, 0.374)] significantly predicted wife marital satisfaction.

Regarding the indirect effects, for the wives, only the actor indirect effect from the wife’s anxious attachment to the wife’s marital satisfaction via wife’s dyadic trust was significant, β = − 0.109, 95% CI (-0.225, − 0.006)]. For the husbands, the indirect effects were more than one and salient. As with the wives, the actor indirect effect from the husband’s anxious attachment to his own marital satisfaction via his own dyadic trust was significant, β = − 0.142, 95% CI (-0.222, − 0.079)]. Furthermore, there were two significant indirect partner effects. The indirect effect of husbands’ anxious attachment to their wives’ marital satisfaction via their own dyadic trust was significant, β = − 0.065, 95% CI (-0.141, − 0.013)]. The indirect effect of husbands’ anxious attachment to their wives’ marital satisfaction via their wives’ dyadic trust was significant, β = − 0.076, 95% CI (-0.163, − 0.010), as well.

Avoidant attachment as the independent variable

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the model, in which husbands’ dyadic trust was the outcome was significant, R2 = 0.359, F(2, 171) = 47.950, p <.001. Husbands’ avoidant attachment significantly predicted their own dyadic trust, [β = − 0.645, t(171) = -7.616, 95% CI (-0.813, − 0.478)]. The model, in which wife dyadic trust was the outcome, was also significant, R2 = 0.380, F(2, 171) = 52.292, p <.001. Wife avoidant attachment significantly predicted wife dyadic trust, [β = − 0.877, t(171) = -7.627, 95% CI (-1.102, − 0.652)].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Actor-partner interdependence mediation model for avoidant attachment as the independent variables

Full size image

The model, in which husband marital satisfaction was the outcome, was significant, as well, R2 =.399, F(4, 169) = 28.018, p <.001. Husband avoidant attachment, [β = − 0.326, t(169) = -5.458, 95% CI (-0.444, − 0.208)] and husband dyadic trust, [β = 0.160, t(169) = 3.251, 95% CI (0.063, 0.257)] emerged as significant predictors of husband marital satisfaction. The model, in which wife marital satisfaction was the outcome, was significant, as well, R2 =.458, F(4, 169) = 35.717, p <.001. Wife avoidant attachment, [β = − 0.297, t(169) = -3.851, 95% CI (-0.450, − 0.145)] and wife dyadic trust, [β = 0.212, t(169) = 4.503, 95% CI (0.119, 0.304)] emerged as significant predictors of wife marital satisfaction.

Considering the indirect effects, for the husbands, we found that the association between husbands’ avoidant attachment and marital satisfaction was mediated by their own dyadic trust, β = − 0.103, 95% CI (-0.182, − 0.030)]. For the wives, only the actor indirect effect from the wife’s avoidant attachment to the wife’s marital satisfaction via their own dyadic trust was significant, β = − 0.185, 95% CI (-0.297, − 0.098)].

Discussion

Although the importance of dyadic trust in close relationships has long been emphasized theoretically [5, 44], it has not often been included in empirical studies [28]. Current study investigated the actor, partner and mediating effects of dyadic trust in the relationship between anxious and avoidant attachment and marital satisfaction with a Turkish sample of heterosexual married couples. Attachment and relationship satisfaction have been amply studied so far, but the underlying mechanisms connecting the two have not been thoroughly investigated [28], and most of the previous studies were conducted at the individual level of analysis [51]. In particular, we tested two models to examine whether and how husbands’ and wives’ insecure attachment (Model 1: Anxious attachment, and Model 2: Avoidant attachment) were related to their own and their spouse’s marital satisfaction, directly and indirectly, mediated by their own and their spouse’s dyadic trust.

We found significant correlations between husbands’ and wives’ anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, dyadic trust and marital satisfaction. Husbands’ and wives’ anxious attachment was negatively correlated with their own dyadic trust and marital satisfaction. Additionally, dyadic trust was positively related to marital satisfaction. These findings demonstrated similar trends to those of previous studies [for example, 3, 35], which stated that anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals have difficulty in trusting significant others and developing and maintaining satisfying romantic relationships. All the partner effects in the correlation matrix were also found to be significant although they seemed to be less robust than the actor effects. As Simpson [35] indicated, a person’s perceived relationship variables (dyadic trust and relationship satisfaction) were more strongly and directly related to their own attachment style and dyadic trust rather than the partner’s.

Anxious attachment, dyadic trust, and marital satisfaction

Direct effects

Regarding the direct effects, the findings showed that husbands and wives who were higher in anxious attachments had lower dyadic trust in their relationships. In addition to these actor effects, there was a partner effect stating that husbands’ anxious attachment was a significant predictor of wives’ dyadic distrust. The actor effects which we found supported the findings of previous research on married or dating couples [for example, 52,53,54,55]. Fitzpatrick and Lafontaine [39], however, observed this actor effect only in men, not in women.

Other findings concerning the direct effects on marital satisfaction showed that all the actor effects were significant, which means that both husbands’ and wives’ anxious attachment and dyadic distrust were significant predictors of their own marital satisfaction. Results of the study was in line with the literature which stated that individuals who were higher in anxious attachment had lower marital satisfaction than securely attached ones [for example, 3, 27, 34, 56, 57]. However, studies conducted in Türkiye reported that anxious attachment was not a significant predictor of marital satisfaction [21, 58]. This difference may have been due to the demographic structure of the samples in which the studies were conducted.

The partner effect, stating that husbands’ anxious attachment was a significant predictor of wives’ marital satisfaction, differed from the findings of previous studies conducted in Western samples. For instance, Simpson [35] found that women’s anxious attachment was negatively correlated with men’s relationship satisfaction. Likewise, Davis and Oathout [59] reported that female possessiveness tended to be negatively associated with men’s relationship satisfaction, but male possessiveness did not tend to be associated with women’s relationship satisfaction.

Our finding that individuals with higher dyadic trust had more relationship satisfaction in heterosexual romantic relationships paralleled the findings of previous studies (for example, 60, 61). Furthermore, a significant partner effect was found, suggesting that wives whose husband were more trusting were more satisfied with their marriages. Considering the limited literature on the partner effects of dyadic trust on relationship satisfaction, no similar findings were found in previous studies. For instance, Campbell et al. [62] reported a partner effect opposite to that found in the current study, which stated that men who had more trusting wives had greater relationship satisfaction.

Indirect effects

The results regarding mediation in the anxious attachment model revealed that two mediational actor and two mediational partner effects were significant. Mediational actor effects showed that anxiously attached husbands and wives tended to have lower dyadic trust, leading to greater marital dissatisfaction. These findings aligned with existing literature on anxious attachment, dyadic trust, and marital satisfaction [14, 63]. The findings were in line with Givertz et al.’s [34] comparable study, in which the dependent variable was relationship quality. Some other studies have reported this actor mediational effect for one partner but not for both partners [39, 53].

We also found two mediational partner effects showing that not only wives’ anxious attachment and dyadic trust but also husbands’ anxious attachment and dyadic trust could contribute to wives’ marital satisfaction. The first was that wives’ dyadic trust mediated the relationship between husbands’ anxious attachment and wives’ marital satisfaction. In other words, wives whose husbands were anxiously attached had lower dyadic trust, which in turn made them more dissatisfied with their marriages. To the authors’ knowledge, this finding had not been reported in previous studies. Friedman et al. [64] stated that the predictive power of attachment dimensions varied in collectivist cultures. The second was that husbands’ dyadic trust mediated the relationship between husbands’ anxious attachment and wives’ marital satisfaction. That is to say, husbands who were anxiously attached also had lower dyadic trust, and this in turn made their wives more dissatisfied with the marriage. Similar mediational partner effects were found by other researchers [34, 39, 53].

Partner effects obtained from this study showed that wives’ marital satisfaction and dyadic trust were affected by their husbands’ anxious attachment and dyadic trust. An explanation for this finding might be related to gender roles. This gender difference might have occurred because women tend to be more relationship-oriented and interdependent, while men are more task-oriented and independent. Maddux and Brewer [65] argued that women seek more interdependent relationships that involve greater trust. Since approximately 60% of our sample had arranged marriages, we assume that they held traditional values. In Türkiye, husbands are traditionally expected to behave in accordance with masculinity expectations [66]. They should keep their distance both emotionally and physically and avoid open sharing to maintain their authority [66]. They are also regarded as responsible for maintaining their wives’ monogamy and monitoring their behavior with other men. Harma and Sümer [21] acknowledged that husbands being anxiously attached and wives being avoidantly attached are particularly in contrast to their gender roles in Türkiye. Husbands’ anxiety-related behaviors might, therefore, be related to wives’ dyadic distrust and marital dissatisfaction because they are asymmetrical to the expected male gender roles, especially in traditional parts of Türkiye. When it comes to male attachment in romantic relationships, Harma and Sümer [21] pointed out that there is a two-way situation in Türkiye. On the one hand, some anxiety is required to establish intimacy; on the other hand, they are expected to be avoidant due to their gender roles. Thus, husbands being anxious, needy, and distrusting might be the factors that are affecting wives’ dyadic trust and also their marital satisfaction. Sümer and Kağıtçıbaşı [68] underlined the effect of culturally incongruent gender-based attachment patterns on relationships and stated that women with anxious partners and men with avoidant partners can perceive more conflict in their relationships.

Another possible explanation for this dyadic level finding might be related to the ‘culture of honor’ or ‘honor-based collectivism’ in Türkiye. The attachment literature has shown that collectivism is positively related to anxious attachment [69, 70] and that people in collectivist societies are more fearful of rejection or the loss of loved ones. Sorensen and Oyserman [71] explained that honor-based collectivism is present in many Mediterranean, Latin American, and Middle-Eastern countries, including Türkiye. In an Argentinian honor-based collectivist sample, Hanono [72] reported higher rates of anxiety and lower rates of avoidance. Agishtein and Brumbaugh [69] also found that honor-based collectivism only either promotes higher anxiety or promotes higher anxiety and lower avoidance. Considering this, it is plausible that honor-based collectivism is putting extra pressure on men in Türkiye, which affects husbands’ anxiety-related thoughts and feelings. This pressure could also guide husbands’ behaviors (such as constantly controlling their wives’ activities and mobile phone use), which in turn could have an impact on wives’ dyadic trust and marital satisfaction. The district where the data of the current study were collected is also known for its conservative and patriarchal culture.

Finally, traditionally in Türkiye, husbands are seen as ‘breadwinners’. According to the results of the 2023 household labor force survey [73] conducted by the Turkish Statistical Institute, the employment rate is 30.4% for women and 65.0% for men. In our sample, women are mostly undereducated compared to men and 65% of the participants stated that their economic situation was at medium or low level. Although the number of working women in Türkiye is increasing, especially among the educated population, and the responsibility of taking care of the family’s economic situation is now shared more than in the past, in the more traditional sample of the research, the task of providing for the household may mostly belong to men and men may be living their lives under this pressure. Economic hardship may also cause stress and anxiety. Schmitt et al. [74] also stated that individuals from regions with lower levels of HDI (Human Development Index) and GDP (Gross Domestic Product) were more likely to have greater attachment related anxiety and avoidance in adulthood. Literature also states that financial difficulties increase stress and tension within family units, potentially impairing communication, support and trust between partners [75]. As a result, this economic stress may also have an impact on husbands trust in their relationship and marital satisfaction.

Avoidant attachment, dyadic trust, and marital satisfaction

Direct effects

Regarding the direct effects on dyadic trust, the findings showed that avoidantly attached husbands and wives had lower dyadic trust toward their own relationships. These findings were consistent with those of many previous studies that revealed avoidant attachment guides romantic partners toward perceptions of untrustworthiness [39, 52, 55]. Bartholomew and Horowitz [76] also showed that avoidant (fearful and dismissing) individuals displayed problems in becoming close to and relying on others. In our model, we did not find any significant partner effect. Theoretically, high attachment avoidance is expected to affect partners’ sense of dyadic trust. Simpson [31] stated that deactivating strategies (distancing emotionally, physically, and cognitively) used by avoidantly attached individuals may also imply a lack of dyadic trust.

However, some other studies have also found one-sided partner effect between avoidant attachment and dyadic trust rather than reciprocal [39, 53].

Other findings concerning direct effects on marital satisfaction show that only actor effects were significant, which means that husbands’ avoidant attachment and dyadic trust were significant predictors of their marital satisfaction. Likewise, wives’ avoidant attachment and dyadic trust were significant predictors of their marital satisfaction. These results align with some of the previous research that found actor effects in the relationship between avoidant attachment, dyadic trust and marital satisfaction [39]. Some others have reported this actor mediational effect for one partner but not for both partners [34, 53].

Indirect effects

The results regarding mediation in the avoidant attachment model show that only mediational actor effects were significant. That is to say, the relationship between husbands’ and wives’ avoidant attachment and husbands’ and wives’ marital satisfaction are mediated by their own dyadic distrust but not by their spouses’ dyadic distrust. Other research, which tested very similar models to our model, reported similar findings [34, 39, 53] about these actor effects. Yet some of them also reported mediational partner effects. For instance, Givertz et al. [34] reported two partner effects stating that wives’ and husbands’ dyadic trust were found to mediate the relationship between their own avoidant attachment and their spouses’ relationship quality. Likewise, Karantzas et al. [53] found that women’s attachment avoidance was negatively associated with men’s trust, which in turn was positively associated with men’s destructive conflict management and women’s relationship satisfaction respectively. However, our study’s findings demonstrated that avoidantly attached individuals do not necessarily have lower levels of marital satisfaction when their partners have low levels of trust in them, or they have low levels of trust in their partners.

This result is unexpected for this sample because especially avoidant attachment of wives were culturally incongruent in marital relationships in Turkish families. The low mean score of avoidance attachment for both women and men in the study sample might clarify this finding. Compared to anxious attachment, participants reported lower attachment avoidance. Hence, the study sample appears to exhibit more attachment anxiety than avoidance.

Limitations and further directions

As is the case with many studies, this study has several limitations to consider while interpreting the results. To begin with, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not allow us to interpret the mediational results causally. Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the direction of these causal links. Second, the data from couples’ self-report questionnaires was the sole data we used in this study. According to theoretical arguments, subjective data may actually have more weight than objective evaluations [77] nonetheless, behavioral observations may have provided additional data. In this study, as a strength, we gathered dyadic data to measure each couple’s perceptions and identify actor and partner effects. Third, there may be limitations in the generalizability of the findings due to certain peculiarities of the sample in the district.

Despite these limitations, the findings of this study indicate that dyadic trust plays a significant role in marital satisfaction, particularly for individuals with insecure attachment styles. Regarding research, while this study’s correlational nature provides valuable insights, a more detailed understanding could be gained through longitudinal research design. Similarly, Campbell and Stanton [33] suggested that the relationship between insecure attachment and dyadic trust might be a cyclic one and, hence, deserves a closer look at complex longitudinal research designs. Moreover, future studies could consider including gender roles in the hypothesized model to clarify the results in the relationships between insecure attachment, dyadic trust, and marital satisfaction.

Regarding counseling practice, the results of the current study highlight working with attachment insecurities and strengthening dyadic trust to increase marital satisfaction. Keelan et al. [78] demonstrated that insecurely attached individuals exhibited a decrease in commitment, satisfaction, and trust over four months. Campbell et al. [62] similarly reported that people who more distrusted their romantic partners reported greater variability in the perceptions of relationship quality, greater self-reported distress, and more negative behavior. Canary et al. [79] found that couples who trust each other tend to resolve conflicts constructively. Thus, attachment-based therapies [80] might be beneficial in helping married couples’ insecure attachment and trust-related issues. Another suggestion might be to teach couples to be responsive to their spouses, as research has shown that people indicated reduced attachment insecurity when they were together with responsive partners [81]. Hence emotion-focused couple therapy [82] might help to increase couples’ secure attachment by improving their responsiveness to each other’s weaknesses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study highlights how attachment insecurity, in the form of anxious and avoidant attachment, may undermine marital satisfaction in Turkish couples through the pivotal role of dyadic trust, revealing significant actor, partner, and mediating effects. The results of the study, which examined a sample of Turkish heterosexual married couples from Central Anatolia, were mostly in line with the Western literature and highlighted the fundamental role of dyadic trust in the relationship between insecure attachment and marital satisfaction. In addition, the partner effect, which differs from the literature and states that men’s anxious attachment negatively affects women’s dyadic trust and marital satisfaction, was discussed from the perspectives of gender roles, ‘culture of honor’, and men’s being the “bread winners’ of the family in the Turkish cultural context.

Data availability

The datasets are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request for research purposes.

Abbreviations

APIMeM:

Actor-Partner Interdependence Mediation Model

HDI:

Human Development Index

GDP:

Gross Domestic Product

References

  1. Bradbury TN, Karney BR. Understanding and altering the longitudinal course of marriage. J Marriage Fam. 2004;66:862–79. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00059.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ainsworth MS. Attachments beyond infancy. Am Psychol. 1989;44(4):709–16. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hazan C, Shaver PR. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(3):511–24. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1969;1982.

  6. Feeney J. Adult romantic attachment: developments in the study of couple relationships. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 456–81.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Candel OS, Nicoleta-Turliuc M. Insecure attachment and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis of actor and partner associations. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;147:190–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In: Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. Volume 35. San Diego, CA: Academic; 2003. pp. 53–152.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brennan KA, Clark CL, Shaver PR. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In: Simpson JA, Rholes WS, editors. Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford Press; 1998. pp. 46–76.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hazan C, Shaver PR. Attachment theory as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychol Inq. 1994;5:1–22. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell L, Boldry J, Simpson JA, Kashy DA. Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: the role of attachment anxiety. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005;88:510–31. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Collins NL. Working models of attachment: implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71:810–32. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810.

  14. Collins N, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58:644–63. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hadden BW, Smith CW, Webster GD. Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the Temporal adult romantic attachment model. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2014;18(1):42–58. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/1088868313501885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Li T, Chan DK-S, Kay T, Ma J. Relationships among marital satisfaction, family support, and positive coping behaviors: A personal growth initiative perspective. Fam Relat. 2011;60(1):34–48. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2010.00634.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mondor J, McDuff P, Lussier Y, Wright J. Couples in therapy: Actor-partner analyses of the relationships between adult romantic attachment and marital satisfaction. Am J Fam Ther. 2011;39(2):112–23. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/01926187.2010.532156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kane HS, Jaremka LM, Guichard AC, Ford MB, Collins NL, Feeney BC. Feeling supported and feeling satisfied: how one partner’s attachment style predicts the other partner’s relationship experiences. J Soc Pers Relat. 2007;24(4):535–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0265407507079246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Banse R. Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: evidence for dyadic configuration effects. J Soc Pers Relat. 2004;21(2):273–82. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0265407504041388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Butzer L, Campbell B. Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Pers Relat. 2008;15:141–54. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.00189.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harma M, Sümer N. Are avoidant wives and anxious husbands unhappy in a collectivist context? Dyadic associations in established marriages. J Fam Stud. 2016;22(1):63–79. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/13229400.2015.1024711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thibodeau J, Bouchard G. Attachment and satisfaction at the empty-nest stage: an actor–partner interdependence model. J Adult Dev. 2020;27(3):212–23. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10804-020-09352-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ataca B. Turkish family structure and functioning. In: Bekman S, Aksu Koç A, editors. Perspectives on human development, family, and culture. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009. pp. 108–26. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/CBO9780511576476.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson JB, Miller RB, Oka M, Henry RG. Gender differences in marital satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J Marriage Fam. 2014;76(1):105–29. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/jomf.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jones-Mason K, Allen IE, Bush N, Hamilton S. Epigenetic marks as the link between environment and development: examination of the associations between attachment, socioeconomic status, and methylation of the SLC6A4 gene. Brain Behav. 2016;6(7). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1002/brb3.480.

  26. Van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Invariance of adult attachment across gender, age, culture, and socioeconomic status? J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2010;27(2):200–8. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0265407509360908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brassard A, Lussier Y, Shaver PR. Attachment, perceived conflict, and couple satisfaction: test of mediational dyadic model. Fam Relat. 2009;58:634–46. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2009.00580.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment theory expanded: A behavioral systems approach. In: Deaux K, Snyder M, editors. Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 467–92. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398991.013.0019.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Davila J, Bradbury TN, Fincham FD. Negative affectivity as a mediator of the association between attachment and marital satisfaction. Pers Relat. 1998;5:467–84. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00183.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sumer N, Cozzarelli C. The impact of adult attachment on partner and self-attributions and relationship quality. Pers Relat. 2004;11:355–71. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00087.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Simpson JA. Psychological foundations of trust. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(5):264–8. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Murray SL, Holmes JG. The architecture of interdependent Minds: A motivation-management theory of mutual responsiveness. Psychol Rev. 2009;116(4):908–28. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/a0017015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell L, Stanton SCE. Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;25:148–51. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Givertz M, Woszidlo A, Segrin C, Knutson K. Direct and indirect effects of attachment orientation on relationship quality and loneliness in married couples. J Soc Pers Relat. 2013;30(8):1096–120. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0265407513482445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simpson JA. Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;59(5):971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kemer G, Bulgan G, Çetinkaya Yildiz E. Gender differences, infidelity, dyadic trust, and jealousy among married Turkish individuals. Curr Psychol. 2016;35:335–43. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s12144-014-9298-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim JS, Weisberg YJ, Simpson JA, Oriña MM, Farrell AK, Johnson WF. Ruining it for both of Us: the disruptive role of low-trust partners on conflict resolution in romantic relationships. Soc Cogn. 2015;33(5):520–42. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1521/soco.2015.33.5.520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sternberg RJ. A triangular theory of love. Psychol Rev. 1986;93(2):119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fitzpatrick J, Lafontaine MR. Attachment, trust, and satisfaction in relationships: investigating actor, partner, and mediating effects. Pers Relat. 2017;24:640–62. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/pere.12203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mikulincer M. Attachment working models and the sense of trust: an exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(5):1209–24. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Selçuk E, Günaydın G, Sümer N, et al. A new scale developed to measure adult attachment dimensions: experiences in close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) – Psychometric evaluation in a Turkish sample. Turk Psychol Artic. 2005;8:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78(2):350–65. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Çetinkaya E, Kemer G, Bulgan G, Tezer E. İkili Ilişkiler Güven ölçeği’nin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları [The reliability and validity studies of the Dyadic Trust Scale]. Türk Psikol Dan Rehber Derg. 2008;29:65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Larzelere RE, Huston TL. The dyadic trust scale: toward Understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J Marriage Fam. 1980;42(3):595–604. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.2307/351903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tezer E. (1996). Evlilik ilişkisinden sağlanan doyum: Evlilik yaşamı ölçeği. [Satisfaction in Marital Relationships: Marital Life Scale]. Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 1996;2(7), 1–7.

  46. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ledermann T, Macho S, Kenny DA. Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model. Struct Equ Modeling. 2011;18(4):595–612. https://www

  48. Coutts JJ, Hayes AF, Jiang T. Easy statistical mediation analysis with distinguishable dyadic data. J Commun. 2019;69(6):612–49. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/joc/jqz034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Kenny DA, Cook W. Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Pers Relatsh. 1999;6. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00202.x.:433– 48.

  50. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175–91. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3758/BF03193146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Simpson JA, Howland M. Bringing the partner into attachment theory and research. J Fam Theory Rev. 2012;4:282–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00134.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Feeney BC, Collins NL. Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80(6):972–94. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Karantzas GC, Feeney JA, Goncalves CV, McCabe MP. Towards an integrative attachment-based model of relationship functioning. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):413–34. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/bjop.12047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Marshall TC, Bejanyan K, Di Castro G, Lee RA. Attachment styles as predictors of Facebook-related jealousy and surveillance in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships. 2013;20:1–22. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01393.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Simpson JA, Rholes WS, Campbell L, Tran S, Wilson CL. Adult attachment, the transition to parenthood, and depressive symptoms. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84(6):1172–87. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Feeney JA, Noller P, Callan VJ. Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In: Bartholomew K, Perlman D, editors. Attachment processes in adulthood. Jessica Kingsley; 1994. pp. 269–308.

  57. Klohnen EC, Bera S. Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly and securely attached women across adulthood: a 31-year longitudinal perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(1):211. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Özmen O, Atik G. Attachment styles and marital adjustment of Turkish married individuals. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2010;5:367–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Davis MH, Oathout HA. Maintenance of satisfaction in romantic relationships: empathy and relational competence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;53(2):397–410. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Patrick S, Beckenbach J, Sells J, Reardon RF. An empirical investigation into justice, Grace, and forgiveness: paths to relationship satisfaction. Fam J. 2013;21(2):146–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wieselquist J. Interpersonal forgiveness, trust, and the investment model of commitment. J Soc Pers Relat. 2009;26(4):531–48. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0265407509347931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Campbell L, Simpson JA, Boldry JG, Rubin H. Trust, variability in relationship evaluations, and relationship processes. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99(1):14–31. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/a0019714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shaver PR, Brennan KA. Attachment styles and the ‘big five’ personality traits: their connections with each other and with romantic relationships outcomes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1992;18:536–45. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0146167292185003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Friedman M, Rholes WS, Simpson J, et al. Attachment avoidance and the cultural fit hypothesis: A cross-cultural investigation. Pers Relat. 2010;17(1):107–26. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01256.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Maddux WW, Brewer MB. Gender differences in the relational and collective bases for trust. Group Processes Intergroup Relat. 2005;8(2):159–71. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/1368430205051065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sunar D, Fişek GO. Contemporary Turkish families. In: Roopnarine JL, Gielen U, editors. Families in global perspective. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon; 2005. pp. 169–83.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bolak-Boratav H, Okman-Fişek G, Eslen-Ziya H. Unpacking masculinities in the context of social change: internal complexities of the identities of married men in Turkey. J Men Masculinities. 2014;17(3):299–324. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/1097184X14539511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sümer N, Kağitçibaşi Ç. Culturally relevant parenting predictors of attachment security: perspectives from Turkey. J Fam Psychol. 2010;24(3):246–55. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/a0019805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Agishtein P, Brumbaugh C. Cultural variation in adult attachment: the impact of ethnicity, collectivism, and country of origin. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol. 2013;7(4):384–405. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/h0099181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Cheng ST, Kwan KWK. Attachment dimensions and contingencies of self-worth: the moderating role of culture. Pers Individ Dif. 2008;45:509–14. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sorensen N, Oyserman D. Collectivism, effects on relationships. In: Reis HT, Sprecher SK, editors. Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2010. pp. 233–6.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hanono JD. Cross-cultural differences in adult attachment styles [doctoral dissertation]. UMI No. AAT 9840154; 1998.

  73. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Hanehalkı İşgücü Araştırması: İşgücü İstatistikleri [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Aug 30]. Available from: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/bulten/index?p=isgucu-istatistikleri-2022-49390

  74. Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allensworth M, Allik J, Ault L, Austers I, et al. Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: are models of self and of other Pancultural constructs? J Cross Cult Psychol. 2004;35(4):367–402. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0022022104266105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Lucas A, Halliday Hardie J, Sage Yim S. Pushed together or pulled apart? Economic stressors and romantic relationship quality. Sociol Perspect. 2021;64(4):563–86. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0731121420978442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(2):226–44. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Kelley DL, Burgoon JK. Understanding marital satisfaction and couple type as functions of relational expectations. Hum Commun Res. 1991;18:40–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Keelan JPR, Dion KL, Dion KK. Attachment style and heterosexual relationships among young adults: A short-term panel study. J Soc Pers Relat. 1994;11(2):201–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Canary DJ, Cupach WR, Serpe RT. A competence-based approach to examining interpersonal conflict: test of a longitudinal model. Commun Res. 2001;28(1):79–104. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/009365001028001003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Kilmann PR, Laughlin JE, Carranza LV, Downer JT, Major S, Parnell MM. Effects of an attachment-focused group preventive intervention on insecure women. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract. 1999;3(2):138–47. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/1089-2699.3.2.138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Whiffen VE. Mediators of the link between childhood sexual abuse and adult depressive symptoms. J Interpers Violence. 2005;20(10):1244–63. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/0886260505277792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Johnson SM. The practice of emotionally focused marital therapy: creating connection. New York: Brunner/Mazel; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shaver PR, Hazan C. Adult romantic attachment: theory and evidence. Adv Pers Relat. 1993;4:29–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Akdeniz University, Konyaaltı-Antalya, Türkiye

    Evrim Çetinkaya-Yıldız

  2. Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, TED University, Çankaya-Ankara, Türkiye

    Ayşegül Aracı-İyiaydın

  3. Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, MEF University, Maslak-İstanbul, Türkiye

    Ezgi Toplu-Demirtaş

Authors
  1. Evrim Çetinkaya-Yıldız
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayşegül Aracı-İyiaydın
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ezgi Toplu-Demirtaş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.Ç.Y. designed and collected the data. A.A.İ and E.Ç.Y wrote the introduction and discussion. E.T.D. did the analyses. E.Ç.Y. and E.T.D. wrote the method. E.T.D wrote the results. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evrim Çetinkaya-Yıldız.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Permission was obtained from the Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee of the Akdeniz University (2021G148/156). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çetinkaya-Yıldız, E., Aracı-İyiaydın, A. & Toplu-Demirtaş, E. The ill fortune of attachment insecurity and dyadic distrust in marital satisfaction: a dyadic perspective in Turkish couples. BMC Psychol 13, 417 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02719-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s40359-025-02719-8

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us