behavioral

sciences
Article
The Impact of Insecure Attachment on Emotional Dependence on
a Partner: The Mediating Role of Negative Emotional Rejection
Janire Momeñe 1, *, Ana Estévez 1 , Mark D. Griffiths 2 , Patricia Macía 3 , Marta Herrero 1 , Leticia Olave 4
and Itziar Iruarrizaga 5

1 Psychology Department, School of Health Sciences, University of Deusto, 48080 Bilbao, Spain;
aestevez@[Link] (A.E.); [Link]@[Link] (M.H.)
2 International Gaming Research Unit, Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University,
Nottingham NG1 4FQ, UK; [Link]@[Link]
3 Department of Basic Psychological Processes and Their Development, University of the Basque
Country (UPV/EHU), 20018 Donostia-San Sebastián, Spain; [Link]@[Link]
4 Faculty of Health Sciences, International University of Valencia, 46002 Valencia, Spain; leticiaolave@[Link]
5 Department of Experimental Psychology, Cognitive Processes and Speech Therapy, Faculty of Social Work,
Complutense University of Madrid, Municipality of Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28223 Madrid, Spain;
iciariru@[Link]
* Correspondence: janiremomene@[Link]

Abstract: Previous evidence has demonstrated a relationship between insecure attachment and the
development of emotional dependence towards an individual’s partner. However, the possibility that
this relationship may be indirect and mediated by individual factors such as difficulties in emotional
regulation has not previously been explored. Consequently, the objectives of the present study were
to analyze the (i) differences in emotional dependence on an individual’s partner and difficulties in
emotional regulation capacity according to secure, preoccupied or dismissing attachment style and
(ii) mediating role of difficulties in emotional regulation in the relationship between both insecure
attachment styles and emotional dependence on an individual’s partner. The sample comprised
Citation: Momeñe, J.; Estévez, A.;
741 participants ranging in age from 18 to 30 years (M = 21.32, SD = 2.93). The mediations were
Griffiths, M.D.; Macía, P.; Herrero, M.; tested with linear regressions with the macro PROCESS v4.0. The results showed that emotional
Olave, L.; Iruarrizaga, I. The Impact of dependence on a partner and difficulties in emotional regulation were greater among individuals
Insecure Attachment on Emotional who had developed a dismissing attachment compared those with secure or preoccupied attach-
Dependence on a Partner: The ment. Likewise, the mediation model confirmed the mediating role of difficulties in the capacity for
Mediating Role of Negative emotional regulation in the relationship between dismissing attachment and emotional dependence,
Emotional Rejection. Behav. Sci. 2024, with rejection of negative or discomfort-generating emotions predominating. The findings provide
14, 909. [Link] preliminary evidence that rejection of negative emotional experiences may play an important role
bs14100909
in the relationship between insecure dismissing attachment style and emotional dependence on
Academic Editor: Marialaura an individual’s partner. Consequently, it is recommended that emotional dependence intervention
Di Tella programs include of the management of intolerance to negative emotions.

Received: 28 May 2024

Keywords: attachment; emotional dependence; emotional regulation; emotional rejection; family relations
Revised: 20 September 2024
Accepted: 30 September 2024
Published: 8 October 2024

1. Introduction
Bowlby [1], a pioneer in attachment theory, argued that from birth, individuals build
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
attachment bonds with their parents or primary caregivers that influences their social and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
emotional development and builds the foundations on which an individual’s personality
This article is an open access article
will be formed. However, although attachment theory focuses primarily on early relation-
distributed under the terms and
ships, Hazan and Shaver [2] have applied attachment principles to couple’s relationships.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Although attachment style is acquired in childhood, it remains relatively stable throughout
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
[Link]/licenses/by/
life and attachment figures shift from parents to friends and partners in adolescence and
4.0/).
adulthood [3]. Consequently, the choice of partner and the way individuals’ behave is

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909. [Link] [Link]

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 2 of 15

influenced by the experiences or quality of the bond established with parents during child-
hood [4]. This is how attachment theory provides understanding of individual differences
reflected in the way individuals act and relate to each other throughout life [5,6]. It has
also been demonstrated that the perception of the quality of an individual’s relationship
established with their parents and the parents’ relationship with each other, are the best
predictors of adult attachment type. This is because the experiences of living with parents
during childhood are internalized and transmitted to adult couple relationships [7].
Previous studies have found that individuals who established a secure attachment
during childhood and who use functional and adaptive emotional regulation strategies,
have a greater capacity to regulate discomfort and emotional self-control. These individuals
establish more satisfactory and less conflictive relationships than individuals who estab-
lished an insecure attachment [2,8]. In contrast, individuals who established an insecure
attachment during childhood have been found to have greater difficulties for emotional
regulation, and difficulties in recognizing and managing their own negative emotional
states [9]. They also show high levels of negative emotional experience, and dissatisfaction
and conflicts within established couple relationships [10]. Insecure attachment has been
distinguished into two main types: dismissing and preoccupied attachment. Individuals
with a dismissing attachment are characterized by remaining involved in past attachment
experiences, when the individual was a child and their signals of negative affect were
probably rejected by their caregiver and their thought that expressions of negative emotion
will drive others away. Therefore, the child develops an avoidant strategy of minimizing
emotional distress, avoiding displaying symptoms in order to maintain proximity to the
caregiver or attachment figure [11,12]. Conversely, individuals with a preoccupied attach-
ment usually adopt a strategy of intensification of affective expressions in order to provoke
a more positive and reliable response from the attachment figure. Individuals characterized
by a preoccupied attachment tend to exaggerate and maximize their negative emotionality
as they feel that if they relax, they run the risk of losing contact with the inconsistently
available attachment figure [11].
The concept of emotional regulation refers to the ability by individuals to recognize,
understand and regulate or influence their own emotions or those of others. This ability
is acquired through the experiences lived with attachment figures during childhood [13]
and adolescence, which is the most important period for its development [14]. Moreover,
attachment style has important implications for the emotional development of individuals.
In each attachment style, emotional expression and the capacity for emotional regulation
varies [15]. Attachment theory provides a useful framework for understanding emotional
reactions to separation and breakup in couple relationships and the process of adaptation
to such painful events [16]. Consequently, establishing adequate emotional regulation is
important for healthy psychological development and emotional well-being [17].
The concept of attachment is also linked to emotional dependence towards the partner
since previous literature has used terms such as ‘pathological attachment’ to define it. In
addition, its relationship with insecure attachment originates from early affective deficien-
cies [18] and difficulties in the capacity for emotional regulation have been evidenced [19].
Through the partner, individuals try to recover such unmet emotional needs that originated
from childhood such as lack of support, lack of self-acceptance, and low self-esteem [20].
Moreover, the partner is positioned as a provider of personal satisfaction and security. The
need for affection, attention and continuous and excessive contact from the partner, anxiety
about separations, intense terror of relationship breakdown [18], and the impossibility of
imagining their own existence without it seals a relationship of dependence [20]. All this
can lead such individuals to place the partner at the center of their life, around whom
everything revolves [21,22]. It leads to soon becoming immersed in dysfunctional [23],
destructive [20] and suffocating [22] partner relationships where intense negative feel-
ings such as emotional emptiness, low mood, anxiety, and feelings of not feeling fulfilled
without the partner predominate [24].
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 3 of 15

Despite the dissatisfaction or discomfort these individuals feel in the relationship, they
show a great inability to break it [18]. These individuals also manifest sharp oscillations
in mood that is usually in line with the state of the relationship [21]. In addition, the
breakup of the relationship does not bring the expected relief, but rather greater suffering
and discomfort is experienced than what was experienced when being in the relationship.
Therefore, the relationship is resumed again and again, experiencing at first a temporary
relief and sense of well-being that lasts only a short time, becoming trapped in a sense of
loss of freedom [20].
It should be noted that the study of emotional dependence towards a partner is impor-
tant because previous empirical evidence has shown that it could favor the permanence in
violent relationships by making it difficult to break it [18,25]. Irrespective of the severity of
the violence suffered, the worst thing by far for individuals with emotional dependence
is the breakup of the relationship and the loneliness that this would entail [21]. These
difficulties in breaking up the relationship and staying in it when not being adaptive could
be derived from learned attitudinal relationship styles. From the perspective of attachment
theory, attachment styles in childhood can be reproduced in future relationships. In this
respect, intimate relationships could be particularly affected by these patterns [26]. An
individual who feels neglected and suspicious during childhood, might likely develop
poor self-esteem and self-concept. Consequently, developing poor emotional regulation
and relationships based on similar patterns in youth or adulthood [27].
Although the relationship between insecure attachment and emotional dependence
on a partner is well established, there are no previous studies that have examined whether
this relationship may be mediated by difficulties in the capacity for emotional regulation.
Neither if there are differences between the insecure dismissing attachment and the insecure
preoccupied attachment styles. Furthermore, the specific underlying mechanisms that
explain how insecure attachment relates to emotional dependence are unknown at present.
Such information is important because it would establish the direction of the psychological
intervention designs. As Bowlby’s theory proposes, early childhood attachment patterns
provide the child with personal resources to favorably or unfavorably face different life-
risks that the child may experience [26]. It is important to explore emotional regulation
as one of these personal resources for facing violent or complicated relationships. More
specifically, it would be interesting to examine how emotional regulation has an influence
on developing emotional dependence towards partner and staying in relationships that
involve conflict.
Therefore, the main objectives of the present study were to (i) explore differences
in emotional dependence toward the partner and difficulties in emotional regulation
as a function of secure, preoccupied or dismissing attachment style, and (ii) analyze
the potential mediating role of difficulties in emotional regulation in the relationship
between preoccupied or dismissing attachment and emotional dependence toward the
partner. The hypotheses (Hs ) were: (i) emotional dependence toward the partner and
difficulties in emotional regulation would be greater among individuals with insecure
dismissing attachment styles than among individuals with secure attachment or insecure
preoccupied attachment (H1 ), considering that individuals with dismissing attachment
might have higher difficulties for emotional regulation, due to the early affective deficiencies
that they have experienced in the past as result of childhood experiences of rejection
of their negative feelings that have led to the development of avoidant behaviors for
expressing emotional distress, therefore favoring the development of emotional dependence
towards the intimate partner; and (ii) the relationship between both types of insecure
attachment styles (dismissing and preoccupied) and emotional dependence toward the
partner would be mediated by difficulties in emotional regulation (H2 ). Dysfunctional
emotional regulation will act as a risk factor for individuals who have developed an
insecure attachment styles during childhood to establish emotionally dependent partner
relationships.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 4 of 15

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
The sample comprised 741 participants aged 18 to 30 years (M = 21.32 years, SD = 2.93).
Over three-quarters of the participants were female (77%), 22.3% were males, and 0.7% were
transgender men. Their educational level was mostly university level (96%). Regarding their
occupational situation, 78.5% were students, 20.6% were workers, and 0.8% were other (e.g.,
unemployed).

2.2. Instruments
Attachment. Cartes: Modèles Individuels de Relation [28,29] (CaMir-R). This scale
evaluates past attachment experiences retrospectively and presently, as well as family
dynamics. It comprises 32 items, divided into 7 subscales: security: availability and
support of attachment figures assesses the perception of being and having been loved by
attachment figures, as well as being able to trust and rely on them (e.g., When I was a child,
I knew that I would always find comfort in my loved ones); family worry assesses excessive
worry about loved ones and separation from loved ones (e.g., I am always worried about
the grief I might cause my loved ones by leaving them); parental interference assesses
the perception of having been overprotected during childhood and having had fears and
worries about being abandoned (e.g., My parents could not help but control everything:
my appearance, my school results, and even my friends); Self-sufficiency and resentment
against parents assesses feelings of resentment towards parents and rejection of dependence
and affective reciprocity (e.g., From my experience as a child, I have understood that we
are never good enough for parents); childhood trauma assesses memories of having had
unavailable, violent or neglectful parents during childhood (e.g., Threats of separation,
moving to another place, or breaking family ties are part of my childhood memories); value
of parental authority assesses family values of authority and hierarchy (e.g., In family life,
respect for parents is very important); parental permissiveness assesses the perception
of having suffered during childhood from an absence of parental limits and guidance
(e.g., My parents were unable to have authority when necessary). The first dimension is
associated to a secure attachment (security: availability and support of attachment figures),
defined as the perception of feeling loved and understood by attachment figures, which
are reliable and are available when they are needed. The second and third dimensions
refer to preoccupied attachment style (family worry and parental interference), that refer to
the perception of high levels of separation anxiety from loved ones and an intense worry
about the attachment figures, having been overprotected in childhood and who usually
feel fear of being abandoned. The fourth dimension describes the dismissing attachment
pattern (self-sufficiency and resentment against parents), that describes individuals who
reject feelings of dependence towards others and affective reciprocity, and have attitudes of
resentment towards loved ones. The scale format is a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly agree”). The Spanish version has presented good
psychometric properties, obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the subscales ranging
from 0.60 to 0.85. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the global scale
was 0.62, and the factorial structure demonstrated a good model fit (comparative fit index
[CFI] = 0.99; Tucker Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.98; root mean squared error of approximation
[RMSEA] = 0.033). The results of the Harman’s test showed no significant common method
variance because the one-factor solution only explained 23.5% of the variance.
Difficulties in Emotion Regulation. The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale
(DERS; adapted to Spanish by Hervás & Jódar) [30,31] assesses difficulties in the capacity
for emotional regulation through 28 items divided into five factors: lack of control assesses
difficulties in maintaining control of behavior when experiencing negative emotions (e.g.,
When I feel bad, I have difficulty controlling my behavior); life interference assesses
difficulties in concentrating and performing tasks when experiencing negative emotions
(e.g., When I feel bad, it is difficult for me to focus on other things); lack of emotional
attention assesses difficulties in attending to and recognizing emotions (e.g., I pay attention
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 5 of 15

to how I feel); emotional confusion assesses the difficulty in knowing and being clear
about the emotions being experienced (e.g., I have difficulty understanding my feelings);
and emotional rejection assesses rejection reactions to negative emotional experiences or
experiences that generate discomfort (e.g., When I feel bad, I am ashamed to feel that way).
The response format is Likert-type with five response options ranging from 1 (“Almost
never-0–10%”) to 5 (“Almost always-91–100%”). The Spanish version the scale has good
psychometric properties, obtaining a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.93 [31]. In the present study,
the subscales obtained adequate internal consistency (lack of control α = 0.96; emotional
rejection α = 0.90; life interference α = 0.88; lack of emotional attention α = 0.74; emotional
confusion α = 0.78). The factorial structure of the scale was replicated in the present study
and demonstrated a good model fit (CFI = 0.99. TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.073) and, based on
Harman’s test, there was no-significant common method variance (37.73%).
Emotional Dependence. The Emotional Dependence Questionnaire (CDE) [32] assesses
emotional dependence on the partner by means of 23 items divided into 6 scales: separation
anxiety assesses the emotional expression of fear of the possible breakup of the relationship
(e.g., I am worried about the idea of being abandoned by my partner); affective expression,
assesses the need for constant expressions of affection from the partner (e.g., I constantly
need expressions of affection from my partner); change of plans assesses the change of plans
and behaviors to satisfy the partner or to spend more time with him/her (e.g., if I have
plans and my partner shows up, I change them just to be with him/her); fear of loneliness
assesses the fear of not having a partner relationship and feeling unwanted (e.g., I feel a strong
sense of emptiness when I am alone); borderline expression assesses impulsive actions or
manifestations of self-harm in the face of a possible breakup of the relationship (e.g., I have
threatened to hurt myself so that my partner will not leave me); attention seeking, assesses the
attention seeking by the partner to ensure their permanence in the relationship and to try to
be the center of attention in their life (e.g., I do everything possible to be the center of attention
in my partner’s life). The response format is Likert-type with 6 response alternatives ranging
from 1 (“Completely false about me”) to 6 (“It describes me perfectly”). The overall scale has
high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93 [32]. In the present study,
good psychometric properties were obtained for the following scales (emotional dependence
α = 0.93; separation anxiety α = 0.89; affective expression α = 0.85; change of plans α = 0.79;
fear of loneliness α = 0.82; borderline expression α = 0.50; and attention seeking α = 0.62.).
The confirmatory factor analysis of the scales demonstrated a good model fit (CFI = 0.98.
TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.079). Harman’s test indicated the absence of significant common
method variance (42.67%).

2.3. Procedure
Participants were recruited through two channels (i.e., online and face-to-face) within
a university context. The sampling procedure was limited to individuals aged 18–30 years
and which limited the influence of age bias. For the online route, surveys were made
available through an online platform ([Link], accessed on 20 September 2024).
Participation was promoted through different social networks and advertisements on
research websites. For the face-to-face route, participants were recruited on campus at the
first author’s university who responded to the survey in paper-and-pencil format. The
inclusion criteria were being 18 years of age or older and having had at least one romantic
partner relationship. All participants gave their informed consent by clicking on a button
indicating that the study information had been read and that they agreed to participate
voluntarily in the case of the online version and by ticking the corresponding box in the case
of the in-person pencil-and-paper version. Participants could leave the study at any time.
The study obtained ethical approval from the Deontological Commission of the Faculty of
Psychology of the Complutense University of Madrid (with reference Ref. 2020/21-035).
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 6 of 15

2.4. Analytical Procedure

First, the descriptive statistics and the differences by attachment style (i.e., preoccupied
vs. dismissing vs. secure attachment style) relating to difficulties in emotion regulation
and emotional dependence were explored. In doing so, ANOVAs were computed with
the attachment style as factor and the difficulties on emotion regulation and emotional
dependence as dependent variables. Pair comparisons were developed with Bonferroni
correction.
The mediations were tested with linear regressions with the macro PROCESS v4.0 [33]
(Hayes, 2017). Seven models were tested applying Model 4. In all seven cases, the attach-
ment style (i.e., preoccupied vs. dismissing vs. secure attachment style) was included as
independent variable and the five difficulties in emotion regulation (i.e., lack of control,
life interference, lack of emotional attention, emotional confusion, and emotional rejection)
were modelled as parallel mediators. The global level of emotional dependence or each
of the dimensions of emotional dependence (i.e., separation anxiety, affective expression,
change of plans, fear of loneliness, borderline expression, and attention seeking) were
modelled as dependent variables in each of the respective seven models. Age and gender
were included as control variables due to their potential confounding effect [32,34] (e.g.,
Arbinaga et al., 2021; Lemos & Londoño, 2006). The indirect effect of attachment on each
indicator of emotional dependence was computed with 10,000 bootstrap samples to correct
for estimation bias [33] and a 95% interval confidence was computed. The datasets gener-
ated during and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding
author upon reasonable request.

3. Results
First, the descriptive statistics and the ANOVA comparisons by attachment style are
shown in Table 1. Regarding the difficulties in emotional regulation, the participants
significantly differed in their levels of emotional rejection and lack of attention. Participants
with dismissing attachment styles showed higher levels of emotional rejection and lack of
attention than participants with secure attachment style. Regarding emotional dependence,
participants differed in all emotional dependence indicators except attention seeking. More
specifically, dismissing attachment style was related to higher emotional dependence,
separation anxiety, affective expression, change of plans, fear of loneliness than secure, and
preoccupied attachments. Borderline personality was higher for the dismissing attachment
style than for the secure attachment style, but there were no differences between the
dismissing and preoccupied attachment styles.
Second, the regressions to examine the mediation effects were carried out (see Figures 1–3).
As observed in the t-test comparisons, the regression coefficients indicated that preoccupied
attachment was not related to any of the emotion regulation indicators. Moreover, dismissing
attachment was related to greater levels of lack of control, emotional rejection, lack of emotional
attention, and emotional confusion but not to life interference (see Table 2). As shown in Table 3,
when the difficulties in emotion regulation were included in the model, preoccupied attachment
was not directly related to any of the indicators of emotional dependence but dismissing
attachment was directly related to greater emotional dependence, separation anxiety, and
borderline expression. Emotional rejection and life interference were the emotional regulation
difficulties that were positively related to all indicators of emotional dependence. Lack of
control was positively associated with all indicators of emotional dependence except of change
of plans and attention seeking. Lack of emotional attention only had a significant positive
direct effect on fear of loneliness and borderline personality. Finally, emotional confusion was
negatively associated with global emotional dependence, separation anxiety, affective expression,
and change of plans, but was not associated with fear of loneliness, borderline expression or
attention seeking.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 7 of 15

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Differences by Attachment Style.

Descriptive Statistics ANOVA Differences

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15
Preoccupied
Total Secure Attachment Preoccupied Attachment Dismissing Attachment Global Secure vs. Secure vs.
vs.
(n = 741) (n = 667) (n = 35) (n = 39) Comparison Preoccupied Dismissing
Dismissing

Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD F ∆M ∆M ∆M
Emotional dependence 46.34 18.04 45.88 17.55 43.09 15.69 57.13 24.20 7.91 *** 2.79 −11.25 *** −14.04 ***
Age 21.32 2.93 21.33 2.88 20.83 2.77 21.69 3.82 0.81 0.50 −0.37 −0.86
Difficulties on emotion Separation anxiety 15.02 7.25 14.82 7.07 14.11 6.31 19.12 9.59 6.89 ** 0.71 −4.30 ** −5.01 **
regulation Affective expression 10.02 4.71 9.95 4.66 9.09 4.56 11.97 5.38 4.14 * 0.87 −2.02 * −2.89 *
Lack of control 17.21 7.15 17.03 7.07 17.77 8.30 19.85 7.05 2.99 −0.74 −2.81 −2.08
Emotional rejection Change of14.95
plans6.91 14.726.60 3.17 6.696.56 3.11 15.43
5.89 2.43 7.51 7.97 4.16
18.49 4.66 * 8.95 0.68 5.63 ** −1.41 * −0.71 −2.09 − * 3.77 ** −3.06
Life interference Fear of loneliness
10.76 4.09 10.675.55 3.05 4.085.47 3.01 11.03
5.54 2.48 4.13 6.92 3.89
11.95 4.19 * 4.10 −0.07 1.88 −1.45 * −0.36 −1.38 −1.28 −0.92
Lack of emotional attention 9.80 3.29 9.68 3.26 10.60 3.47 11.18 3.31 4.96 ** −0.92 −1.50 * −0.58
Emotional confusion
Borderline expression
9.28 3.21 9.22
3.86 1.59 3.183.80 1.48 9.37
3.63 1.26 3.71 5.15 2.79
10.23
14.20 ***3.19 0.17 1.83 −1.35 ***−0.15 1.53 ***−1.01 −0.86
Emotional dependence Attention46.34 seeking
18.04 45.885.28 2.27 17.55
5.27 2.26 43.09
4.83 1.99 15.695.97 2.53
57.13 2.54 24.20 0.44 7.91 *** −0.71 2.79 −1.15
−11.25 *** −14.04 ***
Separation anxiety 15.02 7.25 14.82 7.07 14.11 6.31 19.12 9.59 −4.30 **
6.89 ** 0.71 −5.01 **
Affective expression 10.02 4.71 9.95 Note. *4.66
p < 0.05; ** p9.09
< 0.01; *** p <4.56
0.001. 11.97 5.38 −2.02 *
4.14 * 0.87 −2.89 *
Change of plans 6.60 3.17 6.56 3.11 5.89 2.43 7.97 4.16 −1.41 *
4.66 * 0.68 −2.09 *
Fear of loneliness 5.55 3.05 5.47 3.01 5.54 2.48 6.92 3.89 −1.45 *
4.19 * −0.07 −1.38
Borderline expression 3.86 1.59 3.80 Second, the regressions to examine the mediation effects were carried out (see Figures
1.48 3.63 1.26 5.15 2.79 −1.35 ***
14.20 *** 0.17 1.53 ***
Attention seeking 5.28 2.27 5.27 2.26 4.83 1.99 5.97 2.53 −0.71
2.54 0.44 −1.15
1–3). As observed in the t-test comparisons, the regression coefficients indicated that pre-
p < 0.05; **
Note. *occupied p < 0.01; ***
attachment wasp <not
0.001.
related to any of the emotion regulation indicators. Moreo-
ver, dismissing attachment was related to greater levels of lack of control, emotional re-
jection, lack of emotional attention, and emotional confusion but not to life interference
(see
Table 2. Table 2). As
Regression shown in Table
Coefficients of the3,Effectswhen of theAttachment
difficulties Stylein emotion regulationon
on Difficulties were
Emotionin- Regulation.
cluded in the model, preoccupied attachment was not directly related to any of the indi-
cators of emotional dependence but dismissing attachment was directly related to greater
Dependent Variable

Lack of Control
emotional dependence, separation
Emotional Rejection
anxiety, and borderline
Life Interference
expression. Emotional rejec-
Lack of Emotional Attention Emotional Confusion
tion and life interference were the emotional regulation difficulties that were positively
Independent variable β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE
related to all indicators of emotional dependence. Lack of control was positively associ-
Age −0.30 ** 0.10 −0.34 *** 0.09 −0.20 *** 0.06 −0.02 0.04 −0.17 *** 0.04
Gender ated with all indicators of emotional dependence except of change of plans and attention
Males 0.06 0.68 0.28
Transgender-males 4.13 3.19 seeking.
−2.24 Lack of0.66
3.07
0.11
emotional attention
2.16 only had 0.39 0.27
1.82 a significant
0.06 positive direct
0.32 0.14
1.48 effect on −fear
0.10 of
0.31
1.43
Preoccupied attachment
Dismissing attachment
0.62
2.84 *
1.23
1.17
loneliness
0.52
3.88 ***
and borderline
1.18
1.13
personality.
0.26
1.29
Finally,
0.70
0.67
emotional 0.91confusion was
1.46 **
0.57 negatively0.06
0.54
asso-
1.05 *
0.55
0.53
ciated with global emotional dependence, separation anxiety, affective expression, and
p < 0.05,of**plans,
Note. *change p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
but was not associated with fear of loneliness, borderline expression or
attention seeking.

Figure 1. Regression effects of attachment and difficulties in emotion regulation on global emotional
1. Regression
Figuredependence. In theeffects ofattachment,
effects of attachment the and difficulties
first number in emotion
indicates the effect ofregulation
preoccupiedon global emotional
attach-
dependence. In second
ment and the the effects
numberoftheattachment, the attachment.
effect of dismissing first number
Dottedindicates the
lines indicate thateffect of preoccupied
the effect
attachment and the second number the effect of dismissing attachment. Dotted lines indicate that the
effect was only significant for dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 was only significant for dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results.
8 of 15 * p <
0.05, ** p < 0.01.

Figure
Figure2. [Link]
Regression effects ofattachment
effects of attachment
andand difficulties
difficulties in emotion
in emotion regulation
regulation on separation
on separation anxiety, anx-
iety, affective expression and change of plans. Dotted lines indicate that the effect was only
affective expression and change of plans. Dotted lines indicate that the effect was only significant forsignifi-
cant for dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results. * p < 0.05,
dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.01.
[Link].
Sci. 2024, 14, x14,
Sci. 2024, FOR909PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
9 of 15

Figure
Figure3. 3.
Regression
Regressioneffects
effects of attachmentand
of attachment anddifficulties
difficulties in emotion
in emotion regulation
regulation onoffear
on fear of loneliness,
loneliness,
borderline
borderlinepersonality andattention
personality and attention seeking.
seeking. Dotted
Dotted lineslines indicate
indicate that
that the thewas
effect effect
onlywas only signifi-
significant
cant
for dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. ** p < 0.01.
for dismissing attachment. Dashed lines indicate non-significant results. * p < 0.05,
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 10 of 15

Table 3. Regression Coefficients of the Effects of Attachment Style and Difficulties on Emotion
Regulation on Emotional Dependence.

Dependent Variable

Borderline
Emotional Dependence Separation Anxiety Affective Expression Change of Plans Fear of Loneliness Attention Seeking
Expression

Independent variable β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE β SE

Age 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.09 −0.01 0.06 0.10 * 0.04 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03
Gender
Males 6.91 *** 1.51 2.20 *** 0.61 0.78 0.41 1.48 *** 0.29 0.82 ** 0.27 0.45 *** 0.14 1.16 *** 0.21
Transgender-males −5.96 7.09 −3.92 2.91 −1.37 1.94 −0.37 1.35 −1.16 1.25 0.64 0.64 0.23 0.97
Preoccupied attachment −4.06 2.72 −1.24 1.12 −1.10 0.75 −0.77 0.52 −0.16 0.48 −0.28 0.25 −0.51 0.37
Dismissing attachment 5.67 * 2.63 2.28 * 1.08 0.99 0.72 0.70 0.50 0.62 0.46 0.88 *** 0.24 0.19 0.36
Difficulties on emotion regulation
Lack of control 0.36 ** 0.13 0.14 ** 0.05 0.07 * 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.06 ** 0.02 0.06 *** 0.01 0.02 0.02
Emotional rejection 0.73 *** 0.12 0.29 *** 0.05 0.16 *** 0.03 0.09 *** 0.02 0.09 *** 0.02 0.04 *** 0.01 0.07 *** 0.02
Life interference 0.77 *** 0.19 0.29 *** 0.08 0.22 *** 0.05 0.07 * 0.04 0.11 *** 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 * 0.03
Lack of emotional attention 0.28 0.20 0.14 0.08 −0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 * 0.03 0.04 * 0.02 −0.01 0.03
Emotional confusion −0.73 ** 0.23 −0.35 *** 0.10 −0.14 * 0.06 −0.10 * 0.04 −0.06 0.04 −0.02 0.02 −0.05 0.03

Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

The indirect effects of preoccupied and dismissing attachments on the indicators of

emotional dependence are shown in Table 4. As shown, none of the indirect effects of
preoccupied attachment on the indicators of emotional dependence was significant. Moreover,
all the mediated effects of dismissing attachment via emotional rejection were significant.
Dismissing attachment, compared to secure or preoccupied attachment, was associated with
higher emotional dependence by the relationship with higher emotional rejection. Emotional
rejection was the only significant mediator of the effects of attachment on affective expression,
change of plans, and attention seeking.

Table 4. Indirect Effects of Preoccupied and Dismissing Attachment Styles on Emotional Dependence
through Difficulties on Emotion Regulation.

Dependent Variable

Emotional Dependence Separation Anxiety Affective Expression Change of Plans Fear of Loneliness Borderline Expression Attention Seeking

Mediator β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI] β [95% BCI]

Preoccupied
Control 0.22 [−0.80, 1.40] 0.09 [−0.31, 0.58] 0.04 [−0.16, 0.30] 0.01 [−0.09, 0.11] 0.04 [−0.13, 0.23] 0.03 [−0.11, 0.21] 0.01 [−0.06, 0.10]
Rejection 0.38 [−1.43, 2.34] 0.15 [−0.56, 0.93] 0.09 [−0.32, 0.54] 0.05 [−0.18, 0.30] 0.05 [−0.18, 0.30] 0.02 [−0.07, 0.13] 0.03 [−0.13, 0.23]
Interference 0.21 [−0.86, 1.35] 0.08 [−0.33, 0.52] 0.06 [−0.25, 0.40] 0.02 [−0.09, 0.15] 0.03 [−0.13, 0.21] 0.01 [−0.03, 0.06] 0.01 [−0.07, 0.11]
Attention 0.26 [−0.16, 0.94] 0.12 [−0.06, 0.44] −0.02 [−0.16, 0.10] 0.04 [−0.04, 0.15] 0.07 [−0.02, 0.23] 0.04 [−0.01, 0.12] −0.01 [−0.08, 0.05]
Confusion −0.04 [−1.04, 0.86] −0.02 [−0.49, 0.41] −0.01 [−0.22, 0.17] −0.01 [−0.15, 0.12] <−0.01 [−0.11, 0.10] <−0.01 [−0.05, 0.04] <−0.01 [−0.09, 0.07]

Dismissing
Control 1.01 [0.07, 2.41] 0.40 [0.01, 0.97] 0.20 [−0.01, 0.51] 0.03 [−0.14, 0.23] 0.17 [0.02, 0.41] 0.16 [0.03, 0.33] 0.05 [−0.05, 0.18]
Rejection 2.85 [0.72, 5.42] 1.11 [0.28, 2.13] 0.64 [0.16, 1.25] 0.35 [0.08, 0.72] 0.35 [0.08, 0.71] 0.15 [0.03, 0.31] 0.26 [0.06, 0.53]
Interference 1.00 [−0.07, 2.45] 0.37 [−0.02, 0.92] 0.28 [−0.01, 0.67] 0.10 [−0.01, 0.27] 0.14 [−0.01, 0.37] 0.03 [−0.01, 0.11] 0.07 [−0.01, 0.20]
Attention 0.41 [−0.20, 1.23] 0.21 [−0.04, 0.57] −0.03 [−0.22, 0.15] 0.06 [−0.06, 0.20] 0.12 [0.01, 0.29] 0.06 [0.01, 0.15] −0.01 [−0.10, 0.08]
Confusion −0.77 [−1.85, 0.01] −0.37 [−0.85, −0.02] −0.15 [−0.39, 0.01] −0.10 [−0.27, <0.01] −0.07 [−0.21, 0.03] −0.02 [−0.10, 0.03] −0.06 [−0.17, 0.01]

Note. 95% BCI = 95% Bootstrap Confidence Interval; Preoccupied = Preoccupied attachment style; Dismissing = Dismissing
attachment style; Control = Lack of control; Rejection = Emotional rejection; Interference = Life interference; attention = Lack
of emotional attention; Confusion = Emotional confusion.

Besides emotional rejection, lack of emotional attention also significantly mediated

the relationship of dismissing attachment on fear of loneliness and borderline personality.
Dismissing attachment was associated with higher fear of loneliness and greater borderline
expression (as opposed to secure and preoccupied attachments) due to the increment on
difficulties of emotional attention.
Finally, dismissing attachment had a significant indirect effect on emotional depen-
dence, separation anxiety, fear of loneliness, and borderline expression via lack of emotional
control. Having a dismissing attachment style increased the probability of all these emo-
tional dependence indicators by the enhancement of lack of emotional control. These
models explained 26% of global emotional dependence, 22% of separation anxiety, 19% of
affective expression, 13% of change of plans, 19% of fear of loneliness, 23% of borderline
expression, and 13% of attention seeking.

4. Discussion
The present study aimed to elucidate if difficulties in emotional regulation mediated
the relationship between insecure attachment and emotional dependence on the partner.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 11 of 15

The first objective of the present study was to analyze the differences in emotional de-
pendence on the partner of participants and the difficulties in the capacity for emotional
regulation as a function of the types of secure, dismissing or preoccupied attachment,
established during childhood. The results confirmed the first hypothesis, showing that
participants with a dismissing attachment style reported significantly higher levels of lack
of control, rejection, and emotional attention than participants with secure or preoccupied
attachment. These results are in line with previous studies that reported greater difficulties
in the capacity for emotional regulation and avoidance patterns among individuals with an
insecure dismissing attachment compared to individuals with secure attachment [35,36].
Cooke et al. [37], found that children who had developed a dismissing attachment style
were less able to regulate emotions and experienced less general positive affect. Similarly,
Hoover and Jackson [38], suggested that increasing the couple’s abilities to regulate their
attachment-related emotions could decrease the levels of psychological aggression between
the couple. Girme et al. [15] asserted that the attachment style acquired during childhood
laid the foundations for emotion regulation throughout life. These authors found that
individuals with an insecure attachment style tended to use emotional suppression with
high frequency.
In terms of emotional dependence, individuals with dismissing attachment reported
greater fear of loneliness and greater borderline expression compared to individuals with
secure or preoccupied attachment. This finding is consistent with what has been previously
reported in the scientific literature [18]. Similarly, Hazan and Shaver [2] noted that the
characteristic of insecure attachment style among individuals with emotional dependence has
its origin in the combination of traumatic experiences experienced during childhood and a
perception of ambivalence in the behaviors emitted by attachment figures showing themselves
sometimes warm and accessible and other times cold and distant. This inability to predict
their parents’ behaviors can generate great insecurity and fear of abandonment, which leads
children of such parents to a state of constant alertness and high emotional distress.
The second objective of the study was to analyze the mediating role of difficulties in
emotional regulation in the relationship between the both types of insecure attachment (dis-
missing and preoccupied) and emotional dependence towards the partner of the participant.
The results partially confirmed the hypothesized relationships between the variables. It was
observed that the rejection of negative or discomfort-generating emotions was a risk factor
for individuals who had acquired only a dismissing attachment style during childhood to
establish emotionally dependent partner relationships. However, this was not observed
in the case of the insecure preoccupied attachment style. More specifically, individuals
with a dismissing attachment who employed emotional regulation strategies based on the
rejection of negative emotions were more likely to report emotional dependence towards
their partner. Considering previous research, insecure attachment has shown significant
positive associations with emotional dependence toward the partner and difficulties in
emotional regulation capacity [9]. In line with this, it has been found that individuals with
a dismissing attachment style tend to predominantly experience negative emotions and
employ dysfunctional strategies based on emotional inhibition [8]. Similarly, emotional
dependence has been associated with difficulties in emotional regulation [20].
These results can be explained because individuals with emotional dependence tend
to despise themselves [27] and present low self-esteem and negative thoughts about them-
selves and their personal worth [39]. Similarly, Castelló [21] notes that the dependent
individual considers their partner their guide and their lifeline. This makes them feel better
and allows them to avoid the intolerable feeling of loneliness and the aversion to being
with themselves. It has been reported that these individuals focus all their attention and
interest on their partner in order to avoid themselves and not to think about the rejection
felt. Here, the purpose is to shift the focus of attention from themselves to the partner and
this produces a sense of relief and attenuates their unhappiness. This leads such individuals
to generate a belief that staying in a relationship with an idealized person is the solution to
their pain and fear because it attenuates the excess of negative feelings that is experienced.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 12 of 15

The paradox is that a behavior that arises to reduce discomfort eventually ends up pro-
ducing pain and anxiety. Moreover, Moral-Jiménez and González-Sáez [40] asserted that
individuals with emotional dependence predominantly employ coping strategies based on
denial and disconnection. Moreover, Muriana and Verbitz [41], point out that individuals
with emotional dependence do not allow themselves to experience negative emotions
such as anger, suffering or pain because the expression of these emotions could destroy
or alienate the partner. Therefore, these individuals struggle for control over negative
emotions and try to suppress them.
Additionally, Heshmati et al. [42] verified the mediating role of emotional suppression
in the severity of grief after the breakup of a couple among individuals with insecure
attachment. Likewise, previous studies have verified the mediating role of emotional
regulation in the relationship between insecure attachment and other problems such as
emotional eating, bulimia, depression, and emotional well-being [43–45]. More specifically,
an insecure dismissing attachment style has been related to detrimental consequences on the
physical health of individuals characterized by emotional suppression and inhibition [8].

4.1. Limitations
The present study is not without limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the study
cannot determine any causal relationships between the study variables, therefore the results
are exploratory. Consequently, future studies should replicate and confirm the results here and
observe any patterns over time using longitudinal designs. Second, it should be noted that the
present study used retrospective self-report measures to assess attachment style. Therefore,
social desirability might have influenced responding to the questions asked. Third, the sample
predominantly comprised females and young people aged 18–30 years. The non-inclusion of
individuals aged over 30 years limits the results being generalized to other older populations.
Future studies could extend the heterogeneity of the sample, in order to explore if significant
differences are found among older age groups.

4.2. Practical Implications

Despite the limitations, the results of the present study have important implications
for research and clinical practice. The findings provide new evidence suggesting that a
dismissing attachment style may lead to increased emotional dependence on a partner
through increased use of emotional regulation strategies based on the rejection of nega-
tive or distress-generating emotions. Based on these results, among young adults with
dismissing attachment, rejection of negative emotions could predominate and lead to an
increase in emotional dependence on their partner. Therefore, focusing all their attention
on the partner may allow them to bury or displace the focus of attention from what really
causes them pain or discomfort. The dissemination of these findings is important for
professionals who work in preventing future mental health problems, with the aim of
conducting prevention and interventions focused on emotional expression of individuals
who have a dismissing attachment style. It will be necessary to work on attachment style
and interpersonal relationships, with the aim of reducing emotional dependence. This
dependence could be reduced by improving emotional regulation skills, through reducing
impulsivity, improving coping and resilience skills, as well as assertiveness, which would
consequently promote a more secure attachment.

5. Conclusions
The present study highlights the harmful consequences of the rejection of negative
or discomfort-generating emotions among individuals with dismissing attachment in the
development of emotional dependence towards their partner. This finding is of great
relevance due to the relationship between emotional dependence and the permanence
in violent relationships in this period of the life cycle where first couple relationships
begin to form. Data obtained in this study indicates that emotional regulation acts as a
specific underlying mechanism that explains how insecure attachment is associated with
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 13 of 15

emotional dependence. This information is important in order to establish the direction

of the psychological intervention designs. Consequently, it could be especially useful to
design prevention and intervention programs for young adults with dismissing attachment
where the rejection of negative or discomfort-generating emotions is managed to reduce the
establishment of dependent relationships. Consequently, future research should examine
whether training in the rejection of negative emotions could be useful in decreasing the
likelihood that an insecurely attached person will lead to the establishment of dependent
relationships among young adults.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.M. and A.E.; methodology, L.O. and I.I.; formal analysis,
M.H.; data curation, M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M. and P.M.; writing—review and
editing, A.E. and M.D.G.; funding acquisition, J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Basque Government, grant number [POS_2021_1_0031].
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study obtained ethical approval from the Deontological
Commission of the Faculty of Psychology of the Complutense University of Madrid (with reference
Ref. 2020/21-035).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available.
This data can be found here: Figshare; [Link] (accessed on
20 September 2024).
Conflicts of Interest: All study authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bowlby, J. La Separación Afectiva [Affective Separation]; Paidós: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1993.
2. Hazan, C.; Shaver, P.R. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 511–524.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Yárnoz, S.; Alonso-Arbiol, I.; Plazaola, M.; Sainz, L.M. Apego en adultos y percepción de los otros [Attachment in adults and
perception of others]. An. Psicol. 2001, 17, 159–170.
4. Barroso, O. El apego adulto: La relación de los estilos de apego desarrollados en la infancia en la elección y las dinámicas de
pareja [Adult attachment: The relationship of attachment styles developed in childhood on couple choice and dynamics]. Rev.
Digit. Med. Psicosomática Psicoter. 2014, 4, 1–25.
5. Kim, H.M.; Miller, L.C. Are insecure attachment styles related to risky sexual behavior? A meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2019, 39,
46–57. [CrossRef]
6. Slade, A.; Holmes, J. Attachment and psychotherapy. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 152–156. [CrossRef]
7. Gómez-Zapiain, J.; Ortiz, M.J.; Gómez-Lope, J. Experiencia sexual, estilos de apego y tipos de cuidados en las relaciones de pareja
[Sexual experience, attachment styles and types of care in couple relationships]. An. Psicol. 2011, 27, 447–456.
8. Garrido-Rojas, L. Apego, emoción y regulación emocional. Implicaciones para la salud [Attachment, emotion and emotional
regulation. Implications for health]. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2006, 38, 493–507.
9. Cohen, A.; Eagle, M. Prediction of relational functioning from attachment in adult romantic relationships. J. Am. Psychoanal.
Assoc. 2005, 53, 1331–1333.
10. Kerr, S.L.; Melley, A.; Travia, L.; Pole, M. The relationship of emotional expression and experience to adult attachment style.
Individ. Differ. Res. 2003, 1, 108–122.
11. Cassidy, J. Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. In The Development of Emotion Regulation: Biological and
Behavioral Considerations—Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; Fox, N.A., Ed.; University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, IL, USA, 1994; Volume 59, pp. 228–249.
12. Paley, B.; Cox, M.J.; Burchinal, M.R.; Payne, C.C. Attachment and marital functioning: Comparison of spouses with continuous-
secure, earned-secure, dismissing, and preoccupied attachment stances. J. Fam. Psychol. 1999, 13, 580–597. [CrossRef]
13. Fernandes, C.; Fernandes, M.; Santos, A.J.; Antunes, M.; Monteiro, L.; Vaughn, B.E.; Verissimo, M. Early attachment to mothers
and fathers: Contributions to preschoolers emotional regulation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 660866. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. McRae, K.; Gross, J.J. Emotion regulation. Emotion 2020, 20, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Girme, Y.U.; Jones, R.E.; Fleck, C.; Simpson, J.A.; Overall, N.C. Infants attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion
regulation strategies in adulthood. Emotion 2021, 21, 260–272. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R. An attachment perspective on loss and grief. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 45, 101283. [CrossRef]
17. Bates, G.W.; Elphinstone, B.; Whitehead, R. Self-compassion and emotional regulation as predictors of social anxiety. Psychol.
Psychother. 2021, 94, 426–442. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 14 of 15

18. Momeñe, J.; Estévez, A. Los estilos de crianza parentales como predictores del apego adulto, de la dependencia emocional y
del abuso psicológico en las relaciones de pareja adultas [Parental parenting styles as predictors of adult attachment, emotional
dependence and psychological abuse in adult couple relationships]. Behav. Psychol. Psicol. Conduct. 2018, 26, 359–377.
19. Momeñe, J.; Jáuregui, P.; Estévez, A. El papel predictor del abuso psicológico y la regulación emocional en la dependencia
emocional [The predictive role of psychological abuse and emotional regulation in emotional dependence]. Behav. Psychol. Psicol.
Conduct. 2017, 25, 65–78.
20. Skvortsova, S.N.; Shumskiy, V.B. Existential-phenomenological analysis of dependence in close interpersonal relationships.
Existenzanalyse 2014, 31, 4–13.
21. Castelló, J. El Miedo al Rechazo en la Dependencia Emocional [Fear of Rejection in Emotional Dependency]; Alianza Editorial: Madrid,
Spain, 2019.
22. Markez, I. Adicciones: Conocimiento, Atención Integrada y Acción Preventiva [Addictions: Knowledge, Integrated Care and Preventive
Action]; Asociación Española de Neuropsiquiatría: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
23. Sirvent, C.; Moral, M.V. Construcción y validación del Inventario de Relaciones Interpersonales y Dependencias Sentimentales
(IRIDS-100) [Construction and validation of the Inventory of Interpersonal Relationships and Sentimental Dependencies (IRIDS-
100)]. Health Addict. 2018, 18, 35–47.
24. Moral, M.V.; Sirvent, C.; Ovejero, A.; Cuetos, G. Dependencia emocional en las relaciones de pareja como Síndrome de Artemisa:
Modelo explicativo [Emotional dependence in relationships as Artemis Syndrome: Explanatory model]. Ter. Psicológica 2018, 36,
156–166. [CrossRef]
25. Sánchez, H.M. Los estilos de apego en mujeres con y sin violencia conyugal [Attachment styles in women with and without
spousal violence]. Rev. Investig. Psicol. 2016, 19, 35–49. [CrossRef]
26. Estévez, A.; Jauregi, P.; Lopez, H. Attachment and behavioural addictions in adolescents: The mediating and moderating role of
coping strategies. Scand. J. Psychol. 2019, 60, 348–360. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Caramillo, L.; Ferre, F.; Echeburúa, E.; Amor, P.J. Partners Emotional Dependency Scale: Psychometrics. Actas Esp. Psiquiatr. 2020,
48, 145–153.
28. Balluerka, N.; Lacasa, F.; Gorostiaga, A.; Muela, A.; Pierrehumbert, B. Versión reducida del cuestionario CaMir (CaMir-R) para la
evaluación del apego [Reduced version of the CaMir questionnaire (CaMir-R) for the assessment of attachment]. Psicothema 2011,
23, 486–494.
29. Pierrehumbert, B.; Karmaniola, A.; Sieye, A.; Meister, C.; Miljkovitch, R.; Halfon, O. Les modèles de relations: Développement
d’un auto-questionnaire d’attachement pour adultes. [Patterns of relationships: Development of a self-questionnaire of attachment
for adults]. Psychiatr. L’enfant 1996, 1, 161–206.
30. Gratz, K.; Roemer, L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and
initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2004, 26, 41–54. [CrossRef]
31. Hervás, G.; Jódar, R. Adaptación al castellano de la escala de dificultades en la regulación emocional [Spanish adaptation of the
scale of difficulties in emotional regulation]. Clínica Salud 2008, 19, 139–156.
32. Lemos, M.; Londoño, N.H. Construcción y validación del cuestionario de dependencia emocional en población Colombiana [Design
and validation of the emotional dependence questionnaire in Colombian population]. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2006, 9, 127–140.
33. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publica-
tions: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
34. Arbinaga, F.; Mendoza-Sierra, M.I.; Carballo-Aguilar, B.M.; Buiza-Calzadilla, I.; Torres-Rosado, L.; Benal-López, M.; García-
Martínez, J.; Fernández-Ozcorta, E.J. Jealousy, violence, and sexual ambivalence in adolescent students according to emotional
dependency in the couple relationship. Children 2021, 8, 993. [CrossRef]
35. Bretaña, I.; Alonso-Arbiol, I.; Recio, P.; Molero, F. Avoidant attachment, withdrawal-aggression conflict pattern, and relationship
satisfaction: A mediational dyadic model. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 6478. [CrossRef]
36. Fávero, M.; Lemos, L.; Moreira, D.; Ribeiro, F.N.; Sousa-Gomes, V. Romantic attachment and difficulties in emotion regulation on
dyadic adjustment: A comprehensive literature review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 723823. [CrossRef]
37. Cooke, J.E.; Kochendorfer, L.B.; Stuart-Parrigon, K.L.; Koehn, A.J.; Kerns, K.A. Parent-child attachment and children’s experience
and regulation of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Emotion 2019, 19, 1103–1126. [CrossRef]
38. Hoover, R.C.; Jackson, J.B. Insecure attachment, emotion dysregulation, and psychological aggression in couples. J. Interpers.
Violence 2021, 36, NP10908–NP10936. [CrossRef]
39. Estévez, A.; Urbiola, I.; Iruarrizaga, I.; Onaindia, J.; Jauregui, P. Dependencia emocional en el noviazgo y consecuencias
psicológicas del abuso de internet y móvil en jóvenes [Emotional dependence in dating and psychological consequences of
internet and cell phone abuse in young people]. An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 260–268. [CrossRef]
40. Moral-Jiménez, M.V.; González-Sáez, M.E. Distorsiones cognitivas y estrategias de afrontamiento en jóvenes con dependencia
emocional [Cognitive distortions and coping strategies in young people with emotional dependence]. Rev. Iberoam. Psicol. Salud
2020, 11, 15–30. [CrossRef]
41. Muriana, E.; Verbitz, T. Psicopatología de la Vida Amorosa [Psychopathology of Love Life]; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 2010.
42. Heshmati, R.; Zemestani, M.; Vujanovic, A. Associations of childhood maltreatment and attachment styles with romantic breakup
grief severity: The role of emotional suppression. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 37, NP11883–NP11904. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 909 15 of 15

43. Beijers, R.; Miragall, M.; van den Berg, Y.; Konttinen, H.; van Strien, T. Parent-infant attachment insecurity and emotional eating
in adolescence: Mediation through emotion suppression and alexithymia. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1662. [CrossRef]
44. Murray, C.V.; Jacobs JI, L.; Rock, A.J.; Clarck, G.I. Attachment style, thought suppression, self-compassion and depression: Testing
a serial mediation model. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0245056. [CrossRef]
45. Verhees MW, F.T.; Finet, C.; Vandesande, S.; Bastin, M.; Bijtebier, P.; Bodner, N.; Van Aswegen, T.; Van de Walle, M.; Bosmans, G.
Attachment and the development of depressive symptoms in adolescence: The role of regulating positive and negative affect. J.
Youth Adolesc. 2021, 50, 1649–1662. [CrossRef]

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.