The authors conducted 2 studies of attachment-related variations in thought suppression. Participants were asked, or not asked, to suppress thoughts about a relationship breakup and then to perform a Stroop task under high or low cognitive load. The dependent variables were the rebound, of previously suppressed separation-related thoughts (Study 1) and the accessibility of self-traits (Study 2). Under low cognitive load, avoidant individuals did not show any rebound of separation-related thoughts and activated positive self-representations. Under high cognitive load, avoidant participants failed to suppress thoughts of separation and were more likely to activate negative self-representations. Attachment anxiety was associated with high activation of negative self-representations and unremitting separation-related thoughts. The results are discussed in terms of the hidden vulnerabilities of avoidant individuals.

Attachment theorists have emphasized that attachment-anxious individuals are ambivalent in their relational tendencies, wishing to be close to their relationship partners but also fearing rejection. Here we report 6 studies examining the contribution of attachment anxiety and experimentally induced relational contexts (both positive and negative) to explicit and implicit manifestations of (a) attitudinal ambivalence toward a romantic partner and (b) motivational ambivalence with respect to the goals of relational closeness and distance. Attachment-anxious individuals exhibited strong attitudinal ambivalence toward a romantic partner, assessed by both explicit and implicit measures. They also exhibited strong motivational ambivalence regarding closeness (both explicit and implicit), and this motivational conflict was intensified in relational contexts that encouraged either approach or avoidance tendencies. Participants who scored relatively high on avoidant attachment proved to be implicitly ambivalent about distance issues but mainly in negative relational contexts. Several alternative interpretations of the results were considered and ruled out.

In 8 studies the authors explored the procedural knowledge (secure-base script; H. S. Waters & E. Waters, 2006) associated with secure attachment (i.e., low scores on attachment anxiety and avoidance). The studies assessed the accessibility, richness, and automaticity of the secure-base script and the extent to which it guided the processing of attachment-relevant information. Secure attachment (lower scores on anxiety and avoidance) was associated with greater secure-base "scriptedness" of attachment narratives, greater accessibility of the secure-base script in narratives and dreams about distressing experiences, deeper processing of script-relevant information, and faster and more confident script-relevant judgments. In addition, secure participants' tendency to process secure-base information more deeply was evident even 5 days after being exposed to it and was impervious to the depletion of cognitive resources, indicating automatic processing. The discussion focuses on implications of the findings for understanding the cognitive bases of secure people's affect-regulation strategies and behavior in social relationships.

In 6 studies we examined procedural, scriptlike knowledge associated with 2 different kinds of attachment insecurity: anxiety and avoidance. The studies examined associations between attachment insecurities, the cognitive accessibility of sentinel and rapid fight-flight schemas, and the extent to which these schemas guide the processing of threat-related information and actual behavior during an experimentally induced threatening event. Anxious attachment was associated with (a) greater accessibility of the sentinel schema in narratives of threatening events; (b) faster, deeper, and more schema-biased processing of information about components of the sentinel schema; and (c) quicker detection of a threat. Avoidant attachment was associated with greater accessibility of the rapid fight-flight schema in narratives of threatening events and faster, deeper, and more schema-biased processing of information about components of the schema. We discuss implications of the findings for understanding the cognitive aspects of insecure people's coping strategies in threatening situations, as well as the potential benefits of these strategies to the people who enact them and to the groups to which they belong.