Article

Exploring the Association between Attachment Style,

Psychological Well-Being, and Relationship Status in Young
Adults and Adults—A Cross-Sectional Study
Elisabetta Sagone , Elena Commodari , Maria Luisa Indiana and Valentina Lucia La Rosa *

Department of Educational Sciences, University of Catania, Via Biblioteca 4, 95124 Catania, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Background: This study aimed to analyze the associations of adult attachment styles with
psychological well-being in relation to age groups (young adults vs adults) and relationship status
(singleness vs close relationships). Method: The study sample consisted of 393 Italian young adults
and adults, aged 18 to 62 years, with stable close relationships (n = 219) or identified in this study as
singles (n = 174). The Psychological Well-being Scale was used to analyze psychological well-being,
and the Attachment Style Questionnaire was chosen to evaluate adult attachment dimensions. Results:
Individuals with stable close relationships reported higher levels of psychological well-being than
singles. Furthermore, compared to people with stable close relationships, singles had an attachment
style associated with discomfort with closeness, relationships as secondary, and avoidance. Finally, in
single people, psychological well-being was moderately and positively predicted by attachment style
characterized by confidence but strongly and negatively by attachment characterized by the need for
approval. Regarding individuals with stable relationships, psychological well-being was strongly
and negatively predicted by attachment style characterized by the need for approval. Conclusions:
Citation: Sagone, E.; Commodari, E.;
Indiana, M.L.; La Rosa, V.L.
In adult attachment styles, close relationships can be viewed as a protective factor for long-term
Exploring the Association between emotional stability and psychological well-being.
Attachment Style, Psychological
Well-Being, and Relationship Status Keywords: attachment; well-being; close relationships; singleness
in Young Adults and Adults—A
Cross-Sectional Study. Eur. J. Investig.
Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13,
525–539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ 1. Introduction
ejihpe13030040 1.1. Attachment Theory and Romantic Relationships
Academic Editors: Samuel Notably, affective experiences in childhood have a relevant impact on the type and
Fernández-Salinero, María del quality of relationships that individuals develop as adults. Therefore, a corpus of at-
Carmen Pérez-Fuentes and África tachment theories provides significant frameworks for examining the quality of close
Martos Martínez relationships across one’s lifespan [1]. Generally, according to a categorical approach,
Received: 19 November 2022
widely developed starting from Bowlby’s model, attachment based on security is defined as
Revised: 21 February 2023
the confidence in the emotional availability and accessibility of primary figures perceived
Accepted: 22 February 2023
as a secure base for restoring emotional balance during distressed and needed situations [2];
Published: 24 February 2023 attachment characterized by anxiety is defined as the perceived inability to face challenges
on one’s own, which increases the desire for interpersonal closeness, love, and growth
support, despite the inconsistent behavior of the attachment figures [3]; lastly, attachment
linked to avoidance is characterized by the difficulty with interpersonal relationship and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. worry of trusting people, and a significant emphasis on autonomy and independence,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. useful to prevent the emotions evoked by rejection by the others [4]. According to Bowlby’s
This article is an open access article developmental attachment theory [5], early caregiving experiences become generally stable
distributed under the terms and internal working attachment models over time. They frequently guide people as they look
conditions of the Creative Commons to form relationships, particularly intimate ones, later in life [6,7]. People can develop a sta-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
ble attachment with a sufficient amount of self-esteem, emotional stability, and a favorable
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
perception of both themselves and others if attachment-related mental representations are
4.0/).

Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13, 525–539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13030040 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ejihpe
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 526

positive. These positively impact people’s cognition, emotion control, and behavior, which
in turn positively impact their well-being [7,8].
In contrast, people might adopt attachments defined by two types of insecure strate-
gies if attachment experiences with primary figures are insufficient to create secure inter-
nal working models [7]. Typically present in people with an anxious attachment [7,9,10],
hyperactivation strategies include a high need for care, persistent search for proximity
and protection, rumination, and an intense worry about abandonment. On the contrary,
frequently present in people with avoidant attachment, deactivation strategies are char-
acterized by high self-reliance, aloofness, emotional distance, alienation from others,
and inhibition of the desire for attachment and attachment-related thoughts [8–10]. The
debate has questioned this type of categorical analysis of attachment about whether
differences among individuals are best captured using categorical or continuous models,
and more recent studies indicate that individual differences in styles of attachment
appear more consistent with the multidimensional and continuous models rather than
with the categorical ones [11]. To cite one of the most relevant contributions to this de-
bate [12–14], Fraley and colleagues [11] revisited the taxonomy of adult attachment not
only at the level of global attachment representations but also in the context of specific
relationships (e.g., attachment with parents and romantic partner) and demonstrated
that dimensional models of attachment style that take into consideration continuous
dimensions rather than categorical ones may be better adequate for conceptualizing
and measuring the differences among individuals across multiple levels of analysis of
attachment in relationship-specific domains.
The models of adult attachment used in this study as a framework for conceptual-
izing the differences in romantic attachment are represented by Hazan and Shaver’s
adult attachment prototypes [14] chosen for the content of the attachment styles with
a partner, and by Feeney et al.’s model of attachment [6] selected for the dimensional
measurement. According to Hazan and Shaver, romantic love is an attachment process
experienced differently by people due to variations in their attachment histories. They
described why both functional and dysfunctional expressions of love develop as jus-
tifiable adjustments to particular social circumstances [15]. In line with the previous
attachment classification suggested by Bowlby and successively by Ainsworth et al. [16],
Hazan and Shaver analyzed the relationships between the perception of love and attach-
ment. They wrote that “secure types should believe in enduring love, generally find
others trustworthy, and have confidence that the self is likeable. Avoidant types should
be more doubtful of romantic love’s existence or durability and believe they do not need
a love partner to be happy. Anxious/ambivalent types should fall in love frequently and
easily but have difficulty finding true love. They should also have more doubts than the
other two types because, unlike avoidant respondents, they do not repress or attempt
to hide feelings of insecurity” [15]. To understand the relationship-specific attachment
and analyze its dimensions according to Feeney’s model, we used the Attachment Style
Questionnaire (ASQ) because it developed a more precise measure of attachment that
extended beyond category-based measures and attempted to resolve the limitations
observed in categorical measures. The five dimensions are called “discomfort with
closeness” (referring to difficulty trusting others), “relationships as secondary” (related
to the belief that achievement is more important than relationships with others), “need
for approval” (focused on validation from others and fear of rejection and avoiding do-
ing things that other people will not like), “preoccupation with relationships” (referring
to the worry of being abandoned and not making it on your own), and confidence about
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 527

themselves and others. People with high confidence find it easy to trust others and to
get along with others, and they don’t mind depending on others or having other people
who rely on them; this last dimension is strictly related to secure-romantic attachment,
while the other four dimensions are linked to the romantic-insecure attachment.

1.2. Romantic Attachment, Relationship Status, and Psychological Well-Being

According to the literature on the topic, adult attachment orientation may vary
over one’s lifespan [17]. Several authors have suggested that attachment styles differ
with age, particularly between young and old individuals [18–20]. Specifically, adoles-
cents and young adults would experience more attachment anxiety, while older and
middle-aged adults would experience less (after the development of enduring intimate
relationships) [17,18,21]. Furthermore, a higher level of attachment avoidance may accom-
pany changes in young adulthood [17].
In general, it is well established that attachment style differs with age, particularly
in early adulthood, such that anxiety tends to be higher in younger adults compared
to older adults and avoidance tends to be higher in middle-aged adults compared
to younger adults [17,18]. However, several variables can be associated with adult
attachment styles in one’s lifespan. In particular, people in romantic relationships feel
more secure than those who are single [22]. In fact, individuals with a secure attachment
may be more likely to have romantic relationships because they exhibit many of the
characteristics that make a long-term partner desirable (e.g., attentiveness, warmth, and
sensitivity) [23]. From this perspective, attachment style appears to be significantly
correlated with relationship status. For example, Brauer et al. [24,25] showed that
attachment predicts current relationship status and prior relationship status over one’s
lifetime.
Several studies also demonstrated a positive relationship between secure attachment
and psychological adjustment of individuals, positive emotions, greater search for social
support, and higher satisfaction in romantic relationships [26–29]. In contrast, individuals
characterized by an anxious attachment perceived more conflict in their relationships [30].
Recently, according to Nourialeagha et al. [31], anxiety-avoidance attachment is negatively
related to a sense of gratitude and lower levels of psychological well-being; secure attach-
ment is positively associated with both outcomes. Additionally, individuals who exhibited
avoidant attachment had a positive model of themselves but a negative model of others;
the first allows individuals to feel confident facing the obstacles of their environment,
while the second is linked to doubt, low levels of sociability, and lower warmth in inter-
personal relationships [7,32]. Concerning the differences in personality traits, people with
anxious and avoidant attachment displayed high neuroticism, low extraversion, and a
lower level of friendliness than those with secure attachment [33,34]. During childhood,
Fransson et al. [35] found a direct association between secure attachment, extraversion,
and openness to experience. Furthermore, Both and Best [36] observed that people with
secure attachment were characterized by low neuroticism (depression, anxiety, or self-
consciousness) and high activity. In contrast, low depression and low agreeability were the
typical characteristics of people with anxious attachment.
Furthermore, the literature widely supported the positive connection between secure
attachment and individual well-being, and researchers have often focused their investiga-
tions on the subjective component of well-being (e.g., satisfaction with life, positive and
negative affect) [37,38] rather than on the psychological components [39–42]. Specifically,
Karreman and Vingerhoets [41] found that preoccupied attachment was linked to lower lev-
els of well-being, whereas secure and dismissing attachment were related to higher levels
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 528

of well-being. According to Diehl et al. [40], people with a secure attachment positively per-
ceived their family of origin and their current family and showed high levels of personality
traits such as dominance, sociality, social presence, self-acceptance, and empathy (measured
by the California Personality Inventory-CPI [43]): so, these individuals reported a greater
level of self-confidence, psychological well-being, and functioning in the social world than
individuals with insecure attachment. In a recent study by Marrero-Quevedo et al. [42],
correlations between secure attachment and dimensions of psychological well-being were
positive. In contrast, correlations between avoidant/anxious attachment and psychological
well-being were negative.
Regarding the bond between psychological well-being and type of attachment, some
studies have discovered that the attachment styles of individuals play a significant role
in influencing well-being [20,31,41,44]. According to these findings, insecure attachment
styles (such as anxious and avoidant attachment) are inversely associated with overall
well-being, whereas attachment security is positively correlated [7,41,42,44,45]. Specifically,
people who had secure attachment experiences displayed good interpersonal relationships,
high degrees of autonomy, adequate environmental mastery, a sense of purpose in life,
and high levels of self-acceptance [46]; in addition, high levels of autonomy, personal
growth (in terms of competence), and positive relationships with others are related to the
secure attachment of an individual [47,48]. On the contrary, those who expressed avoidant
attachment had trouble managing their interactions with others and their surroundings,
and they also indicated less self-acceptance than the other groups. The mediational roles
of dispositional mindfulness, psychological inflexibility, and resilience in the relationship
between attachment styles and psychological well-being were examined in the Italian
context by Calvo et al. [45]. The data suggested that lower levels of psychological well-being
were correlated with higher levels of attachment anxiety and avoidance. Attachment anxiety
and avoidance can severely decrease people’s well-being by raising psychological rigidity,
lowering resilience, and lowering expressed awareness. At the same time, individuals with
anxious attachment showed low levels of autonomy and self-acceptance [42,49]. Specifically,
Kawamoto [50] underlined the effect of attachment on the development of self-concept and
self-esteem in a large sample of Japanese adolescents and young adults, indicating that
individuals characterized by anxious attachment reported low levels of self-esteem.
Psychological well-being is also significantly influenced by the quality of the indi-
vidual’s relationships. In particular, stable and positive romantic relationships, which
in turn are promoted by a secure attachment style, are associated with higher levels of
psychological well-being and lower levels of distress and psychological discomfort [49,51].
These findings highlighted the need to deepen the association of attachment styles
with psychological well-being based on differences related to age and relationship status.
Therefore, the rationale of this research is to analyze the associations of adult attachment
styles with psychological well-being in young adults and adults, and in single people and
those with a stable close relationship.
Specifically, we hypothesized that:
H1 : Individuals with stable close relationships score higher in psychological well-being than singles;

H2 : Individuals with stable close relationships report an attachment linked to confidence more
than singles;

H3 : Individuals with an attachment style characterized by confidence have a higher likelihood of

having a stable relationship than those characterized by discomfort with closeness, need for approval,
preoccupation with relationships, and relationships as secondary;
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 529

H4 : Adults with stable relationships score higher in psychological well-being than single young adults;

H5 : Adults with stable relationships report an attachment linked to confidence more than single
young adults;

H6 Primary aim: The more individuals display an attachment style linked to confidence, the higher
they score in psychological well-being, compared to people with attachment styles characterized by
discomfort with closeness, need for approval, preoccupation with relationships, and relationships
as secondary.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample
The sample consisted of 237 young adults (157 female students and 80 male students)
and 156 adults (68 men and 88 women) recruited to participate in this study voluntarily,
including individuals with stable close relationships (n = 219) and single individuals
(n = 174). The participants ranged from 18 to 62 years, and two age groups were created:
young adults (18–30 years old; M = 22.4, SD = 2.8) and adults (32–62 years old; M = 43.5,
SD = 3.7).
The young adults were randomly enrolled in bachelor’s and master’s degree courses
in Psychology and Pedagogy at the Department of Educational Sciences of the University
of Catania (Italy). Specifically, researchers reached out to students in different areas of
the Department, such as the library, cafeteria, and classrooms. First, they were informed
about the study’s objectives and then asked to complete the questionnaires. Respondents
who agreed to participate were given a questionnaire to complete and return.
In the same period, adults were randomly chosen from three association centers (sports
centers, entertainment centers, and bookshops, respectively) and invited to complete the
same questionnaire as the university students.
The selection criteria for including participants in this study were those who had
experienced stable and lasting close relationships (for more than three years that are still
present) or were single. The distribution of the sample for gender and age groups within
the variable of “close relationships” was as follows: 79 single men and 69 men with close
relationships, 95 single women and 150 women with intimate relationships (X2 = 7.974,
p = 0.005); 118 single young adults and 119 young adults with close relationships, 56 single
adults and 100 adults with close relationships (X2 = 7.358, p = 0.007).

2.2. Measures and Procedures

The present study was a component of larger research looking at things that affect
young adults’ and adults’ psychological health. It was carried out according to the Dec-
laration of Helsinki guidelines and was approved by the Board of Psychology Research
of the Department of Educational Sciences of the University of Catania (date of approval:
13 January 2021). Furthermore, the researchers respected the Ethics Code for Italian
psychologists (L. 18.02.1989, n.56), the Legislative Decree for the privacy of provided
data (DLGS 196/2003), and the Ethics Code for Psychological Research (27 March 2015)
established by the Italian Psychologists Association.
An anonymous questionnaire was used to collect data from university students (young
adults) attending bachelor’s and master’s degree courses in Psychology and Pedagogy
before the COVID-19 outbreak. In addition, the same questionnaire was administered to
adults during recreational activities in some associations in the Sicilian social context. At
the end of the structured questionnaire, participants were asked to point out the following
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 530

independent variables: gender, age, and close relationships. The investigation was
started after receiving informed consent. The questionnaire comprised the following
validated scales: the Psychological Well-being Scales [52] and the Attachment Style
Questionnaire [6].

2.2.1. Psychological Well-Being Scales (PWB)

The Italian short form of the PWB [53] was used to measure the main dimensions in
the eudaimonic perspective of psychological well-being (autonomy, environmental mas-
tery, positive relationships, personal growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance). These
18-item self-report questionnaires required respondents to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement with each statement on a six-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “strong
disagreement” and 6 indicating “strong agreement”. Six subscales were created from the
18 items: (1) autonomy: e.g., I tend to be influenced by people who have a strong personality;
(2) environmental mastery: e.g., I am very good at managing the responsibilities of daily life;
(3) purpose in life: e.g., I’m one of those people with so many projects in life; (4) positive relations
with others: e.g., Maintaining stable friendships over time has been difficult and frustrating for me;
(5) personal growth: e.g., For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, change and growth;
(6) self-acceptance: e.g., I don’t feel satisfied with the results in my life. The responses were
computed for each of the six subscales (approximately 50% of the responses were reverse-
scored), and high scores for each scale indicated high levels of psychological well-being. By
summing each item from the six dimensions, a total PWB score was determined [54–56].
The PWB score in the current study displayed strong internal consistency (α = 0.82).
Furthermore, the one-factor model of the Italian PWB has an adequate to good statistical
fit, according to a prior validation study [53].

2.2.2. Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ)

The ASQ [6] was used to explore adult attachment using continuous measures (confi-
dence, discomfort with closeness, need for approval, preoccupation with relationships, and
relationships as secondary). A six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree)
to 6 (totally agree), was used by participants to score the degree to which each item accu-
rately characterized their emotions and actions in close relationships. The five-factor model
was validated for the Italian version of the ASQ [57]: (1) confidence (e.g., I am confident that
other people will like and respect me); (2) discomfort with closeness (e.g., I prefer to depend
on myself rather than other people; (3) need for approval and confirmation by others (e.g., It’s
important to me that others like me); (4) preoccupation with relationships (e.g., I find that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like; (5) relationships as secondary (e.g., Doing
your best is more important than getting on with others). All subscales showed good inter-
nal consistency in our sample (confidence: α = 0.79; discomfort with closeness: α = 0.69;
need for approval: α = 0.72; preoccupation with relationships: α = 0.78; relationships as
secondary: α = 0.86).

2.3. Data Analysis

The sample size was calculated using G*Power 3.1 [58]. Taking into account a power
of 0.90, 7 predictors (i.e., the maximum number of predictors included in multiple linear
regression), and α = 0.05, a sample of 73 subjects for each group is adequate to detect a
minimum effect size of f2 = 0.15, which is considered a medium effect [59].
All the analyses were performed using The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 25.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Mean (M) ± standard deviation
(SD) was used for continuous variables, while categorical variables were expressed as
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 531

frequencies and percentages. Independent-samples t-tests and one-way ANOVA were

run to test study hypotheses. The magnitude of the differences between the means was
assessed by calculating the effect size through Hedge’s formula for t-tests [60] and eta
squared (η2 ) for ANOVA. Direct logistic regression was performed to assess the impact
of attachment dimensions on the likelihood that respondents would have or not have a
close relationship. Finally, multiple regression models were run to investigate the impact of
adult attachment style on psychological well-being in single people and people in close
relationships. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

3. Results
Regarding hypothesis H1 , differences were observed for the type of relationships in
the overall PWB score (t = −2.179, p = 0.030); individuals with stable close relationships
scored higher (M = 79.41, SD = 7.9) in psychological well-being than singles (M = 77.40,
SD = 10.3). However, the effect size was small (g = 0.221).
Concerning hypothesis H2 , significant differences were observed in adult attach-
ment for the type of relationships: singles scored higher than those with stable and
close relationships with discomfort with closeness (t = 3.535, p < 0.001, g = 0.358) and
secondary relationships (t = 2.180, p = 0.030, g = 0.221) (Table 1). However, the effect
sizes were small.

Table 1. Differences for the type of relationships according to ASQ scores.

Type of Re-
Variable N M SD t p Hedges’ g
lationship

I 174 30.30 5.32

Confidence
II 219 30.72 4.58 −0.81 0.418 −0.084
I 174 35.95 7.06
Discomfort with Closeness
II 219 33.58 6.23 3.535 < 0.001 0.358
I 174 15.41 4.90
Relationships as Secondary
II 219 14.34 4.78 2.180 0.030 0.221
I 174 19.85 6.62
Need for approval
II 219 19.10 6.43 1.140 0.255 0.116
I 174 28.39 6.94
Preoccupation with relationships
II 219 27.80 7.06 0.823 0.411 0.083
Note. I = group of singles; II = group of stable and close relationships.

Regarding the impact of attachment dimensions on the likelihood of having or not

having a close relationship, the logistic regression model partially confirmed hypothesis
H3 . As shown in Table 2, an attachment style characterized by discomfort with closeness
reduces the odds of having a close relationship by 0.953. In more detail, the odds of having
an intimate relationship are 0.949 times lower for individuals with an attachment style
characterized by discomfort with closeness (OR = 0.953, 95% CI = [0.919, 0.989], p = 0.012).
Furthermore, the odds of having a close relationship are 1.677 times higher for females
than males (OR = 1.677, 95% CI = [1.084, 2.593], p = 0.020).
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 532

Table 2. Logistic regression predicting the likelihood of having a close relationship.

B SE Wald df p Odds Ratio 95% CI for Odds Ratio

Lower Upper

Gender 0.517 0.222 5.398 1 0.020 1.677 1.084 2.593

Age 0.012 0.008 2.148 1 0.143 1.013 0.996 1.030
Confidence −0.011 0.023 0.213 1 0.644 0.989 0.946 1.035
Discomfort with Closeness −0.048 0.019 6.368 1 0.012 0.953 0.919 0.989
Relationships as Secondary −0.020 0.024 0.692 1 0.406 0.980 0.935 1.028
Need for approval 0.004 0.022 0.041 1 0.839 1.004 0.963 1.048
Preoccupation with
0.003 0.019 0.034 1 0.854 1.003 0.967 1.041
relationships
Constant 1.614 1.166 1.918 1 0.166 5.024

Cross-referencing the two independent variables (age groups and close relationships),
results showed that:
H4 : Adults with stable relationships scored higher (M = 79.74, SD = 8.01) in psychological well-
being than single young adults (M = 76.86, SD = 10.1) (F = 2.790, p = 0.030). The effect size was
small (η 2 = 0.016);

H5 : The single young adults reported higher scores of discomfort with closeness (M = 37.12,
SD = 6.80) than the adults with close relationships (M = 32.68, SD = 5.03, F = 9.40, p < 0.001).
The effect size was medium (η 2 = 0.068). The single young adults scored higher in need for approval
(F = 5.05, p = 0.002) and preoccupation with relationships (F = 5.71, p = 0.001) than the single
adults. The effect sizes were small. Finally, single adults reported higher scores of confidence
(M = 31.86, SD = 4.80) than single young adults (M = 29.57, SD = 5.4; F = 3.58, p= 0.014) with a
small effect size (η 2 = 0.027).
Concerning H6 , as reported in Table 3, PWB (total score) was positively correlated with
confidence (r = 0.45, p < 0.001) and negatively with discomfort with closeness (r = −0.38,
p < 0.001), relationships as secondary (r = −0.32, p < 0.001), need for approval (r = −0.68,
p < 0.001), and preoccupation with relationships (r = −0.41, p < 0.001) in the group of singles.
Similarly, PWB (total score) was positively correlated with confidence (r = 0.25, p < 0.001)
and negatively with discomfort with closeness (r = −0.37, p < 0.001), relationships as
secondary (r = −0.31, p < 0.001), need for approval (r = −0.54, p < 0.001), and preoccupation
with relationships (r = −0.32, p < 0.001) in the group of close relationships.

Table 3. Correlations table for the two groups (single vs close relationship).

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Age - 0.11 −0.15 * −0.04 −0.22 ** −0.15 * −0.13 *

2. Confidence 0.25 *** - −0.33 *** −0.12 −0.24 *** −0.26 *** 0.25 ***
3. Discomfort with Closeness −0.22 ** −0.30 *** - 0.29 *** 0.44 *** 0.40 *** −0.37 ***
4. Relationships as Secondary 0.02 −0.31 *** 0.34 *** - 0.33 *** 0.13 −0.31 ***
5. Need for approval −0.20 ** −0.32 *** 0.37 *** 0.29 *** - 0.55 *** −0.54 ***
6. Preoccupation with relationships −0.21 ** −0.02 0.35 *** 0.09 0.61 *** - −0.32 ***
7. PWB total 0.06 0.45 *** −0.38 *** −0.32 *** −0.68 *** −0.41 *** -
Note. Correlations for single people (n = 174) are reported below the diagonal. Correlations for people with
close relationships (n = 219) are reported above the diagonal. PWB = Psychological Well-Being Scales. * p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 533

As shown in Table 4, the analysis of multiple regressions partially confirms the validity
of the hypothesized model for the group of singles, according to which psychological
well-being was positively associated with attachment styles characterized by confidence
and negatively with attachment styles characterized by the need for approval.

Table 4. Multiple regressions for psychological well-being (PWB)—singles group.

Variable B SE β t R2 ∆R2

0.55 0.54 ***

Constant 90.57 *** 5.65 16.03
Gender 0.18 1.14 0.009 0.16
Age −0.12 ** 0.04 −0.15 ** −2.74
Confidence 0.53 *** 0.12 0.27 *** 4.52
Discomfort with Closeness −0.13 0.09 −0.09 −1.52
Relationships as Secondary −0.08 0.12 −0.04 −0.67
Need for approval −0.83 *** 0.12 −0.54 *** −7.16
Preoccupation with relationships −0.10 0.10 −0.07 −0.98
** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

As shown in Table 5, the analysis of multiple regressions partially confirms the validity
of the hypothesized model for the group of participants with stable and close relationships,
according to which psychological well-being is negatively associated with attachment
styles characterized by need for approval, discomfort with closeness, and relationships
considered as secondary.

Table 5. Multiple regressions for psychological well-being (PWB)—group of close relationships.

Variable B SE β t R2 ∆R2

0.43 0.41 ***

Constant 100.92 *** 4.83 20.88
Gender −2.69 ** 0.95 −0.16 ** −2.83
Age −0.17 *** 0.03 −0.27 *** −5.14
Confidence 0.20 * 0.09 0.12 * 2.09
Discomfort with Closeness −0.20 * 0.08 −0.15 * −2.48
Relationships as Secondary −0.24 * 0.09 −0.15 * −2.53
Need for approval −0.59 *** 0.08 −0.48 *** −7.02
Preoccupation with relationships −0.04 0.07 −0.03 −0.50
* p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

4. Discussion
This study analyzed the association between adult attachment styles and psychological
well-being. Specifically, we investigated these variables in both singles and people with
stable and close relationships, as well as in young and adult people.
First, our results showed the association between romantic relationships and an
individual’s psychological well-being, although the effect size was not large in our
sample. Individuals with stable close relationships in our sample reported higher scores
in psychological well-being than singles. In this regard, the data from the literature have
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 534

clearly shown the association between stable romantic relationships and mental health
in young adults and adults. Attachment theory considers the “capacity to make intimate
emotional bonds with other individuals . . . as a principal feature of effective person-
ality functioning and mental health” [2]. Confirming this, several studies underlined
that successful romantic relationships could support well-being and happiness among
university students.
Furthermore, stable and positive romantic relationships are associated with lower
levels of psychopathology, a good view of oneself, effective emotional regulation, and
higher self-esteem [7]. This finding can also be explained by referring to the literature
pointing out that relationships are essential in regulating stress [61]. More specifically,
it seems that the quality of affective relationships exerts an essential impact on the
physiological systems of emotion regulation (e.g., the endocrine system, the autonomic
nervous system, and the immune system), allowing a better stress response and, thus,
greater psychological well-being.
Interestingly, according to our findings, individuals with an attachment style charac-
terized by discomfort with closeness are more likely to be single and not establish stable
romantic relationships. At the same time, singles reported higher scores of discomfort
with closeness and relationships as secondary than participants with stable and close
relationships. The data in the literature on attachment characteristics in single people
compared to those in a relationship are quite conflicting. In a long-term study including
144 dating couples, Simpson [62] investigated the effects of secure, anxious, and
avoidant attachment styles on romantic relationships. Compared to the anxious or avoidant
attachment styles, the secure attachment style was related to higher levels of relationship in-
terdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction in both men and women. Less frequent
positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions in the relationship were linked to
anxious and avoidant styles, whereas the opposite was true of the secure attachment. In
6-month follow-up interviews, it was discovered that avoidant men considerably suffered
less post-dissolution emotional suffering than others.
Regarding singles, according to some authors, single people tend to be more
avoidant than people in relationships, favoring more independence and self-reliance [63].
Another hypothesis is that singles report higher levels of anxiety attachment with fre-
quent rejection by partners precisely because of their anxiety and intrusiveness. Finally,
according to other authors such as De Paulo [64], single people are as likely as people
in a stable relationship to exhibit a secure attachment. Still, their attachment figures
are people other than a romantic partner (friends, siblings, etc.). The results of this
study seem to be in line with the first hypothesis of the literature, namely that singles
report to a greater extent than people in stable relationships an avoidant attachment
characterized mainly by discomfort with closeness and relationships seen as secondary.
In addition, according to Sousa-Gomes et al. [65], less ability of self-regulation predicts
less security of bonds and high insecurity in terms of dependence, ambivalence, and
avoidance. However, additional research is required to better understand the connection
between these variables.
In line with our results, a recent study by Calvo et al. [55] in a sample of Italian adults
showed a link between lower levels of psychological well-being and avoidant and anxious
attachment [7,8]. In this regard, several studies confirmed that attachment patterns are
closely associated with psychological well-being. In general, the psychological well-being
of individuals with secure attachment is often higher than those with insecure attach-
ment [42]. On the other hand, those with insecure attachment usually report worse well-
being, lower self-esteem, and more significant psychological distress [50]. As mentioned
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 535

earlier, attachment style can serve as a means of emotion regulation, thus contributing
to psychological well-being. In this sense, anxious and avoidant individuals have been
reported to have higher cortisol levels in the context of relational stress [66]. Individuals
with high insecurity in attachment and low intimacy perceived low satisfaction levels
in their relationships with partners and increased depressive symptoms [67]. Further-
more, avoidant individuals showed higher autonomic nervous system activity and poor
immune function [68].
According to our hypotheses, in singles, psychological well-being was positively
associated with attachment styles characterized by confidence and negatively with at-
tachment styles characterized by the need for approval. Regarding individuals with
stable relationships, psychological well-being was positively associated with attachment
styles characterized by confidence and negatively with attachment styles characterized
by need for approval, discomfort with closeness, and relationships considered as sec-
ondary. Moreover, age was significantly associated with psychological well-being in
both groups. In particular, older individuals reported a lower psychological well-being
than younger participants, as in other similar studies [42]. Finally, gender was found
to be significantly associated with psychological well-being in individuals in stable
relationships. Specifically, females tend to report lower psychological well-being scores.
However, this finding should be considered cautiously due to the clear prevalence of
women in the study sample.
Need for approval appears to be the dimension of attachment most significantly related
to psychological well-being in our sample, as we found a negative association in both
singles and people in stable relationships. This finding perfectly aligns with the literature
on the topic, which shows that individuals with high adult attachment anxiety show an
excessive need for approval with a significant negative impact on general psychological
well-being [69].

Study Limitations
The current study has some limitations to take into account. First, we could not add
other participants to the sample due to the lockdown by COVID-19. However, the sample
size calculation showed our sample’s suitability to detect a medium effect. Second, the
sample was unbalanced with respect to gender with a clear predominance of females
over males. Furthermore, the study’s cross-sectional nature does not allow us to test
the exact causal relationship between variables; longitudinal studies with large samples
would be needed for this purpose. Another limitation is the use of quantitative data and
non-qualitative responses regarding the perception or level of satisfaction with the close
relationships of the participants.
Furthermore, we collected only information on the presence or absence of close re-
lationships for more than three years that are currently still present. Probably, the length
and stability of relationships among the young adults today are considered highly variable
conditions if compared to those of the adults, and this explanation is proper in relation
to lifestyles in Italy [70,71]. Another limitation of this study is that it did not investigate
specific variables such as reasons behind being single or the duration of relationship status.
Differences between heterosexual and homosexual or polyamorous couples could also
not be assessed because of the few cases detected. Therefore, future studies will need to
consider these factors to close the gap in the results of this study.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 536

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the primary goal of this study was to explore the association between
attachment styles and psychological well-being in young adults and adults with or without
stable relationships. These findings underline the primary role of attachment styles and
relational patterns in affecting an individual’s psychological well-being, as widely reported
in the literature. At the same time, they address future research to clarify better these
dimensions’ role in psychological well-being and emotional strength during one’s lifespan.
Therefore, this study fits into the field of research on attachment from a eudaimonic
perspective that focuses on the individual’s self-realization and factors that contribute
to psychological well-being. From this perspective, attachment styles and relationships
are analyzed from the perspective of well-being and not psychopathology, unlike the
traditional literature on the topic.
In conclusion, the findings of this study encourage further studies with large samples
drawn from various socio-cultural situations in order to analyze the perceived quality of
the close relationships in terms of high versus low levels of satisfaction with a partner, and
to estimate the influence of other variables (e.g., quality of intimate relationships together
with personality traits and search of support) in psychological well-being.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.S.; methodology, E.S.; formal analysis, M.L.I. and
V.L.L.R.; investigation, M.L.I.; data curation, M.L.I. and V.L.L.R.; writing—original draft preparation,
E.S. and M.L.I.; writing—review and editing, E.C. and V.L.L.R.; visualization, V.L.L.R.; supervision,
E.S. and E.C.; project administration, E.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki, and approved by the Internal Ethic Review Board of Psychology Research of the
Department of Educational Sciences, University of Catania (date of approval: 13 January 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to Department policy.
Acknowledgments: We thank the participants in this study for their willingness and cooperation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cassidy, J.; Shaver, P.R. Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2008; 1020p.
2. Bowlby, J. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1988;
p. xii 205.
3. Griffin, D.W.; Bartholomew, K. Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 430–445. [CrossRef]
4. Bartholomew, K. Avoidance of Intimacy: An Attachment Perspective. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1990, 7, 147–178. [CrossRef]
5. Bowlby, J. By ethology out of psycho-analysis: An experiment in interbreeding. Anim. Behav. 1980, 28, 649–656. [CrossRef]
6. Feeney, J.; Noller, P.; Hanrahan, M. Assessing adult attachment. In Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives;
Sperling, M.B., Berman, W.H., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 128–152.
7. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. The role of attachment security in adolescent and adult close relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of
Close Relationships; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 66–89.
8. Cassidy, J.; Kobak, R.R. Avoidance and its relation to other defensive processes. In Clinical Implications of Attachment; Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988; pp. 300–323.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 537

9. Fraley, R.C.; Brumbaugh, C.C. Adult Attachment and Preemptive Defenses: Converging Evidence on the Role of Defensive
Exclusion at the Level of Encoding. J. Personal. 2007, 75, 1033–1050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Fraley, R.C.; Marks, M.J. Pushing mom away: Embodied cognition and avoidant attachment. J. Res. Personal. 2011, 45, 243–246.
[CrossRef]
11. Fraley, R.C.; Hudson, N.W.; Heffernan, M.E.; Segal, N. Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric
analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 109, 354–368. [CrossRef]
12. Heffernan, M.E.; Chris Fraley, R. Do early caregiving experiences shape what people find attractive in adulthood? Evidence from
a study on parental age. J. Res. Personal. 2013, 47, 364–368. [CrossRef]
13. Overall, N.C.; Fletcher, G.J.O.; Friesen, M.D. Mapping the Intimate Relationship Mind: Comparisons between Three Models of
Attachment Representations. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 29, 1479–1493. [CrossRef]
14. Sibley, C.G.; Overall, N.C. Modeling the hierarchical structure of attachment representations: A test of domain differentiation.
Personal. Individ. Differ. 2008, 44, 238–249. [CrossRef]
15. Hazan, C.; Shaver, P. Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process. In Interpersonal Development; Routledge: Oxford,
UK, 2017; pp. 283–296.
16. Ainsworth, M.D.S.; Blehar, M.C.; Waters, E.; Wall, S. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation; Lawrence
Erlbaum: Oxford, UK, 1978; p. xviii 391.
17. Chopik, W.J.; Edelstein, R.S.; Fraley, R.C. From the Cradle to the Grave: Age Differences in Attachment From Early Adulthood to
Old Age. J. Personal. 2013, 81, 171–183. [CrossRef]
18. Chopik, W.J.; Edelstein, R.S. Age Differences in Romantic Attachment Around the World. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci.
2014, 5, 892–900. [CrossRef]
19. Segal, D.L.; Needham, T.N.; Coolidge, F.L. Age Differences in Attachment Orientations among Younger and Older Adults:
Evidence from Two Self-Report Measures of Attachment. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev. 2009, 69, 119–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Magai, C. Attachment in middle and later life. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 2nd ed.; The
Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 532–551.
21. Hudson, N.W.; Fraley, R.C.; Chopik, W.J.; Heffernan, M.E. Not all attachment relationships develop alike: Normative cross-
sectional age trajectories in attachment to romantic partners, best friends, and parents. J. Res. Personal. 2015, 59, 44–55. [CrossRef]
22. Edelstein, R.S.; Gillath, O. Avoiding Interference: Adult Attachment and Emotional Processing Biases. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
2007, 34, 171–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Zeifman, D.; Hazan, C. Attachment: The bond in pair-bonds. In Evolutionary Social Psychology; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.:
Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1997; pp. 237–263.
24. Brauer, K.; Proyer, R.T. Gelotophobia in romantic life: Replicating associations with attachment styles and their mediating role for
relationship status. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2020, 37, 2890–2897. [CrossRef]
25. Brauer, K.; Proyer, R.T.; Ruch, W. Extending the Study of Gelotophobia, Gelotophilia, and Katagelasticism in Romantic Life
Toward Romantic Attachment. J. Individ. Differ. 2020, 41, 86–100. [CrossRef]
26. Collins, N.L.; Feeney, B.C. Working Models of Attachment Shape Perceptions of Social Support: Evidence From Experimental and
Observational Studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 363–383. [CrossRef]
27. Gleeson, G.; Fitzgerald, A. Exploring the Association between Adult Attachment Styles in Romantic Relationships, Perceptions of
Parents from Childhood and Relationship Satisfaction. Health 2014, 06, 1643–1661. [CrossRef]
28. Leak, G.K.; Cooney, R.R. Self-determination, attachment styles, and well-being in adult romantic relationships. Represent. Res. Soc.
Psychol. 2001, 25, 55–62.
29. Öztürk, A.; Mutlu, T. The relationship between attachment style, subjective well-being, happiness and social anxiety among
university students. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2010, 9, 1772–1776. [CrossRef]
30. Campbell, L.; Simpson, J.A.; Boldry, J.; Kashy, D.A. Perceptions of Conflict and Support in Romantic Relationships: The Role of
Attachment Anxiety. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 88, 510–531. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Nourialeagha, B.; Ajilchi, B.; Kisely, S. The mediating role of gratitude in the relationship between attachment styles and
psychological well-being. Australas. Psychiatry 2020, 28, 426–430. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Domingue, R.; Mollen, D. Attachment and conflict communication in adult romantic relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh.
2009, 26, 678–696. [CrossRef]
33. Noftle, E.E.; Shaver, P.R. Attachment dimensions and the big five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to
predict relationship quality. J. Res. Personal. 2006, 40, 179–208. [CrossRef]
34. Shaver, P.R.; Brennan, K.A. Attachment Styles and the “Big Five” Personality Traits: Their Connections with Each Other and with
Romantic Relationship Outcomes. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2016, 18, 536–545. [CrossRef]
35. Fransson, M.; Granqvist, P.; Bohlin, G.; Hagekull, B. Interlinkages between attachment and the Five-Factor Model of personality
in middle childhood and young adulthood: A longitudinal approach. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2013, 15, 219–239. [CrossRef]
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 538

36. Both, L.E.; Best, L.A. A comparison of two attachment measures in relation to personality factors and facets. Personal. Individ.
Differ. 2017, 112, 1–5. [CrossRef]
37. Chen, W.; Zhang, D.; Pan, Y.; Hu, T.; Liu, G.; Luo, S. Perceived social support and self-esteem as mediators of the relationship
between parental attachment and life satisfaction among Chinese adolescents. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2017, 108, 98–102.
[CrossRef]
38. Molero, F.; Shaver, P.R.; Fernández, I.; Recio, P. Attachment insecurities, life satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction from a
dyadic perspective: The role of positive and negative affect. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 337–347. [CrossRef]
39. Carr, S.; Colthurst, K.; Coyle, M.; Elliott, D. Attachment dimensions as predictors of mental health and psychosocial well-being in
the transition to university. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2012, 28, 157–172. [CrossRef]
40. Diehl, M.; Elnick, A.B.; Bourbeau, L.S.; Labouvie-Vief, G. Adult attachment styles: Their relations to family context and personality.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1656–1669. [CrossRef]
41. Karreman, A.; Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M. Attachment and well-being: The mediating role of emotion regulation and resilience. Personal.
Individ. Differ. 2012, 53, 821–826. [CrossRef]
42. Marrero-Quevedo, R.J.; Blanco-Hernández, P.J.; Hernández-Cabrera, J.A. Adult Attachment and Psychological Well-Being: The
Mediating Role of Personality. J. Adult Dev. 2018, 26, 41–56. [CrossRef]
43. Gough, H.G. California Psychological Inventory: Administrator’s Guide; Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1987.
44. Kafetsios, K.; Sideridis, G.D. Attachment, Social Support and Well-being in Young and Older Adults. J. Health Psychol.
2016, 11, 863–875. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Moradi Siahafshadi, M.; Amiri, S.; Molavi, H.; Ghasemi, N. The Relationship between Attachment and Subjective Well-being: The
Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation Skill. Int. J. Psychol. 2018, 12, 118–135. [CrossRef]
46. Wicherts, J.M.; López, A.; Sanderman, R.; Smink, A.; Zhang, Y.; van Sonderen, E.; Ranchor, A.; Schroevers, M.J. A Reconsideration
of the Self-Compassion Scale’s Total Score: Self-Compassion versus Self-Criticism. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132940.
47. Homan, K.J. Secure attachment and eudaimonic well-being in late adulthood: The mediating role of self-compassion. Aging Ment.
Health 2016, 22, 363–370. [CrossRef]
48. La Guardia, J.G.; Ryan, R.M.; Couchman, C.E.; Deci, E.L. Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination
theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 79, 367–384. [CrossRef]
49. Debrot, A.; Stellar, J.E.; MacDonald, G.; Keltner, D.; Impett, E.A. Is Touch in Romantic Relationships Universally Beneficial for
Psychological Well-Being? The Role of Attachment Avoidance. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2020, 47, 1495–1509. [CrossRef]
50. Kawamoto, T. The moderating role of attachment style on the relationship between self-concept clarity and self-esteem. Personal.
Individ. Differ. 2020, 152, 109604. [CrossRef]
51. Oravecz, Z.; Dirsmith, J.; Heshmati, S.; Vandekerckhove, J.; Brick, T.R. Psychological well-being and personality traits are
associated with experiencing love in everyday life. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 153, 109620. [CrossRef]
52. Ryff, C.D.; Keyes, C.L.M. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 69, 719–727. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
53. Zani, B.; Cicognani, E. Le vie del Benessere; Carocci: Rome, Italy, 1999.
54. Baer, R.A.; Smith, G.T.; Lykins, E.; Button, D.; Krietemeyer, J.; Sauer, S.; Walsh, E.; Duggan, D.; Williams, J.M.G. Construct Validity
of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment 2008, 15, 329–342. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
55. Calvo, V.; D’Aquila, C.; Rocco, D.; Carraro, E. Attachment and well-being: Mediatory roles of mindfulness, psychological
inflexibility, and resilience. Curr. Psychol. 2020, 41, 2966–2979. [CrossRef]
56. Josefsson, T.; Larsman, P.; Broberg, A.G.; Lundh, L.-G. Self-Reported Mindfulness Mediates the Relation Between Meditation
Experience and Psychological Well-Being. Mindfulness 2011, 2, 49–58. [CrossRef]
57. Fossati, A.; Feeney, J.A.; Donati, D.; Donini, M.; Novella, L.; Bagnato, M.; Acquarini, E.; Maffei, C. On the Dimensionality of the
Attachment Style Questionnaire in Italian Clinical and Nonclinical Participants. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2016, 20, 55–79. [CrossRef]
58. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.G.; Buchner, A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [CrossRef]
59. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
60. Hedges, L.V. Distribution Theory for Glass’s Estimator of Effect size and Related Estimators. J. Educ. Stat. 1981, 6, 107–128.
[CrossRef]
61. Pietromonaco, P.R.; Powers, S.I. Attachment and health-related physiological stress processes. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 1, 34–39.
[CrossRef]
62. Simpson, J.A. Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 59, 971–980. [CrossRef]
63. Schachner, D.A.; Shaver, P.R.; Gillath, O. Attachment style and long-term singlehood. Pers. Relatsh. 2008, 15, 479–491. [CrossRef]
64. DePaulo, B.M.; Morris, W.L. The Unrecognized Stereotyping and Discrimination Against Singles. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.
2016, 15, 251–254. [CrossRef]
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13 539

65. Sousa-Gomes, V.; Lemos, L.; Moreira, D.; Ribeiro, F.N.; Fávero, M. Predictive Effect of Romantic Attachment and Difficulties in
Emotional Regulation on the Dyadic Adjustment. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2022, 1–16. [CrossRef]
66. Powers, S.I.; Pietromonaco, P.R.; Gunlicks, M.; Sayer, A. Dating Couples’ Attachment Styles and Patterns of Cortisol Reactivity and
Recovery in Response to a Relationship Conflict; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 613–628.
67. Poucher, J.; Prager, K.J.; Shirvani, F.; Parsons, J.; Patel, J. Intimacy, attachment to the partner, and daily well-being in romantic
relationships. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2022, 39, 1574–1601. [CrossRef]
68. Gouin, J.-P.; Glaser, R.; Loving, T.J.; Malarkey, W.B.; Stowell, J.; Houts, C.; Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K. Attachment avoidance predicts
inflammatory responses to marital conflict. Brain Behav. Immun. 2009, 23, 898–904. [CrossRef]
69. Zamudio, G.; Wang, C.D.C.; Jin, L. Adult Attachment, Social Self-Efficacy, Familismo, and Psychological Wellbeing: A Cross-
Cultural Comparison. Couns. Psychol. 2020, 48, 922–952. [CrossRef]
70. Corijn, M.; Klijzing, E. Transitions to Adulthood in Europe; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston, MA,
USA, 2001; 340p.
71. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT) Rapporto Annuale 2014. La Situazione del Paese. Available online: https://www.istat.it/
it/files/2014/05/Rapporto-annuale-2014.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2022).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.