This connection is strengthened by a study done by Meyers and Landsberger (2002). They studied the moderating effects of psychological distress and social support on attachment style and marital satisfaction. They found that the presence of psychological distress completely erased any correlation between secure attachment style and satisfaction. Social support may play a major role in the dissatisfaction of the two insecure types and may lead to the feelings of isolation of avoidant individuals.
Kirkpatrick and Hazan (1994) found that secure relationships are the most stable, followed by anxious/ambivalents, and then avoidant. The stability of anxious/ambivalents’ relationships should not be confused with satisfaction. They tend to have stable, yet unhappy, relationships because of their clingy nature. Secure attachment’s satisfaction did not always correlate to stability either. As discussed earlier, attachment style has been shown to change, and they found that relationship satisfaction is more closely related to current attachment style than to previous notions of attachment.
Some have found data that runs contrary to this secure-stable view. Cohn and Silver (1992) found that there was no correlation between attachment style and marital satisfaction. They found that the man’s view of the relationship is what mediated the satisfaction levels. This is a manifestation of attachment as well. The male’s attachment to his wife (levels of trust and kindness) are what would make the relationship work and increase levels of satisfaction. So although the numbers do not show a significant correlation, other research and theories create some doubt in their testing methods.
Another area where attachment style seems to have effect is sexual behavior. This makes sense seeing as sex is a social act, involving a relationship of some kind between