Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218

www.elsevier.com/locate/bodyimage

Adult attachment and body satisfaction

An exploration of general and specific relationship differences
Nita Mary McKinley *, Leigh Anne Randa
Interdisciplinary Arts and Science, University of Washington, 1900 Commerce Street,
Campus Box 358436, Tacoma, WA 98466, USA
Received 27 September 2004; received in revised form 27 April 2005; accepted 27 April 2005

Abstract

The relationship between general and specific adult relationship attachment and body satisfaction was examined in a
community sample of 133 women. Participants completed measures of body image (body surveillance, body-as-object esteem,
and body-as-process satisfaction) and general attachment (anxiety and avoidance) and then were primed for a romantic partner
or close friend relationship, after which they completed specific measures of attachment and body satisfaction. General
attachment results replicated previous research. Specific attachment results demonstrated distinct differences both from general
attachment and between romantic partner attachment and close friend attachment. Attachment independently predicted body
satisfaction both for general and close friend measures; however, in romantic relationships, only body surveillance indepen-
dently contributed to body satisfaction.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Body image; Adult attachment behavior; Body surveillance

Introduction that attachment theory may provide insights into the

The way we feel about our bodies is central to our
self concept (Cash & Pruzinksy, 2002) and rooted in
our interactions with others (Kearney-Cooke, 2002).
Attachment theory, originally developed to explain the
bond between mothers and infants, has been usefully
extended to understanding romantic attachments in
adulthood (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Given the
importance of relationships to body image, it is likely
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 253 692 4543;
fax: +1 253 692 5718.
E-mail address: nmmckin@u.washington.edu
(N.M. McKinley).
association of body image to interpersonal relation-
ships (Cash & Fleming, 2002). Although there is a
burgeoning body of research showing a connection
between attachment and eating disorders (see Ward,
Ramsay, & Treasure, 2000, for a review), very little
research has examined the relationship between
attachment and body satisfaction or other elements
of body image (Cash & Fleming, 2002; Cash,
Theriault, & Annis, 2003). In this study, we examined
the relationship of attachment to body satisfaction in
adult women and whether that relationship varied as a
function of the attachment figure’s role, either a close
friend or romantic partner.

1740-1445/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.04.003
210 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
Body image and significant others
Although body image is influenced by interactions
with peers, and even strangers, theorists believe that
significant others play a major role in the development
of body image (Kearney-Cooke, 2002; Tantleff-Dunn
& Gokee, 2002). Life stage may determine which
significant others are most important, with parents
contributing to body image most strongly in childhood,
friends contributing in adolescence, and romantic
partners playing the most important role in adulthood
(Tantleff-Dunn & Gokee, 2002). Research supports the
idea that romantic relationships are importantly related
to body image in adulthood. For example, Hoyt and
Kogan (2001) found that body satisfaction was related
to satisfaction in dating relationships and sex lives for
both women and men undergraduates. Friedman et al.
(1999) found that marital status per se was not related
to body satisfaction, but marital satisfaction was.
Close friendships may also be important to body
image. In their review of research on friendship across
the lifespan, Sherman et al. (2000) stated that there has
been less attention to friendships during middle
adulthood compared to childhood, adolescence, and
old age, but that friendships in adulthood continue to
be an important contributor to psychological well-
being. Because close friendships are voluntary, they
may be especially important in feelings of self worth
(Fehr, 1996). There is some research demonstrating
the importance of friendships to body image in
adolescence. For example, Paxton et al. (1999) found
that body image concerns of adolescent girls were
more closely related to the concerns of other girls in
their friendship cliques than to the concerns of their
more general peer group. We found no research that
examined close friendships and body image in adults.
Attachment and body image
One variable that may be important to understand-
ing relationships and body image is adult attachment
style. Attachment style refers to the ways individuals
organize their connections to important others
(Bowlby, 1969). Although attachment was originally
thought of as categorical (i.e., secure, preoccupied,
fearful, and dismissing), Fraley and Shaver (2000)
argued it is more accurately conceptualized as
two continuous dimensions: anxiety, monitoring the
relationship and being sensitive to rejection or threats
to security, and avoidance, avoiding closeness with
the attachment figure. Secure attachment would
correspond to low levels of both dimensions. Indivi-
duals can have both a general attachment style that
is chronically accessible, and relationship-specific
attachment styles (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, &
Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver,
2002). That adult attachment types are predictive
of relationship quality has been widely replicated
(Brennan & Shaver, 1995). Exploring whether attach-
ment style and body image are related is likely to help
us more fully understand the importance of relation-
ships to body image.
There is a small body of evidence that attachment
style is related to eating problems and weight concern.
In a review of this literature, Ward et al. (2000) found
that insecure attachment is related to eating problems
in both clinical and non-clinical populations. There
are few studies, however, examining the relationship
of adult attachment to body satisfaction (Cash &
Fleming, 2002; Cash et al., 2003). In a recent study,
however, Cash et al. (2003) examined both general
adult attachment and romantic attachment in college
students. They found for general attachment style that
secure attachment was positively related to body
satisfaction; in romantic attachment, greater anxiety
was related to lower body satisfaction, but avoidance
was unrelated to body satisfaction. This is consistent
with Brennan and Shaver (1995), who found their
eating and body satisfaction measures to be related to a
preoccupied attachment style, which implies a relation-
ship with anxiety, but not avoidance. It may be that
those who are high on attachment anxiety attend more
to socially relevant cues such as appearance, while
avoidance of closeness is less likely to cue a person to
attend to her or his appearance.
Other individual traits may also cue a person to
attend to her or his appearance more or less and thus
may be important to understanding the relationship
between body image and attachment. For example,
Cash et al. (2003) found that appearance schema, a
construct that measures the importance an individual
places on appearance, was positively associated with
both the anxiety and avoidant dimensions of attach-
ment for women and with the anxiety dimension for
men. Another variable that may cue attention to
 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
appearance is body surveillance, which is the tendency
to view one’s body from the perspective of an outside
observer and which predicts negative body experience
for women (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Body
surveillance is presumably adopted to avoid potential
negative judgment of others. Given the importance of
appearance for women’s romantic relationships
(Feingold, 1990), surveillance may function in a
similar way as attachment anxiety as a way to monitor
for threats of rejection. Evans and Wertheim (1998)
found a related construct, public self consciousness
(Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975), which measures a
person’s attention to the self as seen by others,
mediated the relationship between a combined
intimacy measure (including attachment style) and
eating, weight, and shape concerns. Controlling for the
tendency to adopt this view of the body would be
important for understanding whether attachment style
is more specifically related to body satisfaction over
and above the individual trait of body surveillance.
The current study
The purpose of this study was to clarify further the
relationship between adult attachment and body
satisfaction. Particularly we were interested in
exploring whether this relationship differed when
participants were reporting on their general attach-
ment style or on a specific attachment to either a
romantic partner or a close friend and whether these
relationships held with body surveillance controlled.
To our knowledge, no researcher has examined
attachment styles and body image for specific others,
either romantic partners or close friends.
After completing questionnaires about their gen-
eral attachment style and body image, participants
were primed for either the close friend or the romantic
partner condition using a methodology similar to
Baldwin et al. (1996); then the participants completed
the specific attachment and body image measures.
Two dimensions of body satisfaction were used: body-
as-object, which includes evaluations of body parts
(waist, chest, hips, and so on), and body-as-process,
which includes evaluations of body functions (energy
level, agility, health, and so on) (Franzoi, 1995).
Because body-as-object focuses more on appearance,
we presumed body-as-object evaluations would be
211
more sensitive to interpersonal appearance concerns
than would body-as-process evaluations.
1. Consistent with previous research (Cash et al.,
2003), we expected general attachment anxiety to be
related to body-as-object satisfaction and to
uniquely predict this variable even with body
surveillance controlled. We expected no relationship
between body-as-object satisfaction and general
attachment avoidance. We also did not expect to find
a relationship between either general attachment
variable and body-as-process satisfaction.
2. Because one’s romantic partner is likely to be the
most chronically accessible attachment figure
(Baldwin et al., 1996), for specific romantic partner
attachment style, we expected relationships with
body satisfaction similar to those for the general
attachment style. We were unsure what to expect for
close friendship attachment style, but expected that
these relationships might be different from those for
the general or romantic partner conditions.
3. We expected that the greater the difference
between general and specific attachment style
the greater would be the difference in general and
specific body satisfaction, further supporting the
importance of the relationship between attachment
style and body satisfaction.
4. Again, because one’s romantic partner is likely to
be the most chronically accessible attachment
figure (Baldwin et al., 1996), we expected these
differences between general and specific attach-
ment style would be greater for close friendships
than for romantic partners.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a small commuter
university and from various workplaces, including a
motorcycle sales company and a state government
office. Of the 133 total, 76 (57%) women were
recruited from campus and 57 (43%) women were
recruited from workplaces. The mean age was 30.5
years (SD = 13.58; range 18–94 years). Seven women
were African American (5.3%), two women were
Asian American (1.5%), 112 were European American
212 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
(84.2%), three were Hispanic (2.3%), four were Native
American or American Indian (3.0%), three were
biracial or multiracial (2.3%), and two women reported
their ethnicity as ‘‘other’’ (1.5%). Sixty-four (48.1%)
women were married, 12 (9.0%) were not married but
living with partner, 20 (15.0%) were dating one person
exclusively, five (3.8%) were dating more than one
person, 32 (24.1%) were not currently in a romantic
relationship, and none of the women reported never
having been in a romantic relationship.
Materials
Participants filled out demographic information,
including age, current romantic relationship status,
and ethnicity. The survey then consisted of a general
section, consisting of the Body Surveillance scale,
general attachment scales, and general body satisfac-
tion scales, and a specific section, consisting of specific
attachment scales and specific body satisfaction scales.
Body surveillance
The Body Surveillance scale (McKinley & Hyde,
1996) measures the extent to which one views one’s
body as an outside observer (‘‘I rarely worry about
how I look to other people’’). The scale consists of
eight items and uses a seven-point scale, ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree with a midpoint of
neither agree nor disagree. The Body Surveillance
Scale has been shown to be internally consistent and
temporally reliable (McKinley & Hyde, 1996). Scores
were calculated by summing item responses and
dividing by the number of non-missing items, with
higher scores indicating more surveillance. Internal
consistency for this sample was good: a = .86.
Attachment style
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
(ECR-R; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) scale,
developed via factor analysis of existing adult attach-
ment scales, measures attachment style on two
dimensions: avoidance (ECR-Avoidance: discomfort
with closeness and dependency, 18 items, ‘‘I feel
comfortable depending on others.’’); and anxiety (ECR-
Anxiety: concern with rejection and abandonment, 18
items, ‘‘I rarely worry that people won’t like me
anymore.’’). Participants responded to statements using
a seven-point scale, ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree, with a mid-point of neither agree or
disagree. Dimension scores were an average of non-
missing items. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety
and greater avoidance. Standard instructions were used
to complete the ECR-R for the general condition.
Instructions written for the specific condition asked
participants to remember the conversation with the
prime target and the feelings experienced (see below)
prior to responding to the measures. The order of items
was varied for the two administrations. Internal
consistencies for both the general and specific versions
were excellent, ranging from .90 to .96 in this sample.
Body satisfaction
The Body Esteem Scale (BES; Franzoi & Shields,
1984) measures satisfaction with different aspects
of the body. Franzoi (1995) had undergraduates
classify these aspects as how one looks (17 items;
body-as-object: BES-Object) and as what one does (12
items; body-as-process: BES-Process). Participants
responded to items on a five-point scale from have
strong negative feelings to have strong positive feeling.
For each of these two subscales, the mean of the non-
missing items was calculated such that higher scores
indicate greater body satisfaction. Standard instructions
were used for the general condition. Instructions written
for the specific condition asked the participants to
remember the primed target and their conversation
(see below) prior to completing the measure. Internal
consistencies for all scales were excellent for this
sample, ranging from a = .85 to .98.
Procedure
Surveys for each of the two conditions, close
friendship and romantic partner, were randomly
ordered prior to distribution. Undergraduate partici-
pants were recruited in classes or were approached in
small groups in public areas of campus. Surveys were
taken home, and participants returned them via
campus mail. Off-campus participants were recruited
via a contact person within the company or office.
Participants took surveys home and either returned
them to their contact person or returned them in a
postage-paid envelope.
In Part I (General Condition), participants com-
pleted scales according to standard instructions.
Participants were then primed by written instructions
 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
to evoke a specific attachment figure, either a close
friend or romantic partner. The priming instructions
for the Close Friend were written to ensure that the
close friend fit the definition of an attachment figure
(see Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Priming directions for the
Close Friend were:
Think of a close friend who is not your romantic
partner. This person is someone you enjoy being with,
someone you want to talk to or be with when you have
a problem, or a friend who has played a central role in
your life. Think about how this person has affected
your life. If there is not currently a close friend in your
life, think of a close friend from your past.
Priming directions for the Romantic Partner were:
Think of a romantic partner you are emotionally
involved with. Someone you cuddle with, and share
intimate moments with. Think about how this person
has affected your life. If there is not currently a
romantic partner in your life, think of a romantic
partner from your past.
Immediately following these instructions, partici-
pants were asked to write down the person’s initials,
indicate the person’s gender, and then to say the
person’s name to herself in order to increase the
accessibility of their cognitive working model for this
person. Participants were then asked to imagine a
situation involving separation from the specific person
to further increase the likelihood of activating
attachment behavior (Mikulincer et al., 2002). The
imagery instructions were
Imagine that you are having a conversation with this
person before you leave on a trip alone. You will be out
of touch for 2 weeks. Take a moment to really see this
close friend [romantic partner] in your mind. Imagine
how they look. Imagine what you are thinking and
feeling.
Participants then completed Part II (Specific
Condition) which included the specific measures.
A total of 300 surveys were distributed to women
and men on campus and 111 were returned (37%
response rate). One hundred surveys were distributed
off campus and 83 were returned (83% response rate).
This difference in return rate may be the result of the
contact person recruiting individuals from the work-
places versus the more impersonal classroom setting.
213
Only surveys completed by women were analyzed
(N = 133). Gender of primed attachment figure was
related to priming group, x2 (1) = 88.86, p < .001. For
the close friend condition, 51 (86%) primed attach-
ment figures were women, six (10%) were men, and
the sex was not give for two (3%) primed attachment
figures. For the romantic partner condition, four (5%)
primed attachment figures were women, 64 (88%)
were men, and the sex was not give for five (7%)
primed attachment figure.
Results
To determine whether there were any differences in
age, the general attachment scales, body surveillance,
or the general BES scales as a function of priming group
or recruitment site, a 2 (prime group)  2 (on- or off-
campus) MANOVA was conducted. The multivariate
effect for site was significant, Pillai’s F (6,122) = 5.45,
p < .001. Univariate tests showed that the off-campus
group was significantly older (M = 40.62 years,
SD = 1.64) than the on campus group (M = 29.34
years, SD = 1.38), F (1,127) = 27.72, p < .001. There
were no other differences between the sites. There was
also a significant multivariate effect for prime group,
Pillai’s F (6,122) = 2.26, p < .05, however, univariate
tests only revealed a marginally significant effect for
age, F (1,127) = 3.66, p < .10 and no other significant
univariate effect. The romantic partner group was
marginally older (M = 37.03 years, SD = 1.40) than the
close friendship group (M = 32.93 years, SD = 1.62).
The multivariate interaction was not significant, Pillai’s
F (6,122) = 2.12, ns. Due to differences in age, age was
controlled in subsequent analyses.
Zero-order correlations
Table 1 shows the correlations between the
variables. For general measures, ECR-Anxiety scale
was negatively related to both BES-Object and BES-
Process. In addition, there was a small significant
negative relationship between ECR-Avoidance and
BES-Process. For specific measures, both ECR-
Avoidance and ECR-Anxiety had small negative
relationships with both BES-Object and BES-Process.
Body surveillance was negatively related to general
and specific measures of BES-Object, but was not
214 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218

Table 1
Zero-order correlations
Variable Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Age 34.48
(11.60)
2. Body surveillance 4.13
(1.20) .33 ***
3. ECR 1: Avoidance 3.40
(1.04) .10 .09
4. ECR 1: Anxiety 2.93
(1.16) .20 * .38*** .45***
5. BES OBJECT 1 3.42
(.64) .12 .23** .17 .40 ***
6. BES PROCESS 1 3.62
(.70) .28 ** .13 .20* .26 ** .71***
7. ECR 2: Avoidance 2.00
(1.03) .04 .13 .37*** .35 *** .19* .17
8. ECR 2: Anxiety 2.23
(1.38) .14 .16 .31* .45 *** .17 .10 .64 ***
9. BES OBJECT 2 3.53
(.71) .05 .20* .14 .31 *** .89*** .62*** .20 * .17*
10. BES PROCESS 2 3.68
(.75) .25 ** .09 .26** .27 ** .72*** .85*** .19 * .19* .72 ***
Note: N = 130–132.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

related to BES-Process for women. Surveillance was
positively related to general ECR-Anxiety.
Attachment style and body satisfaction
To test whether ECR-Anxiety and ECR-Avoidance
added significant additional variance to body satisfac-
tion over and above body surveillance and age, a series
of hierarchic regressions were run for general and
specific measures (Table 2). For each regression
predicting either BES-Object or BES-Process, age and
body surveillance were entered on the first step to
control for age differences between the groups and
individual differences in body surveillance, followed
by the ECR-Anxiety and ECR-Avoidance measures.
For the general measures, ECR-Anxiety and ECR-
Avoidance explained a significant additional 10% of
the variance in BES-Object over and above age and
surveillance, for a total of 19% of the variance
explained. In the final step, only ECR-Anxiety and age
significantly predicted BES-Object. Greater anxiety
and age were associated with less positive BES-
Object. For general BES-Process, the ECR measures
accounted for an additional 5% of the variance, with
ECR-Anxiety and age both being significant con-
tributors to the final 17% of the variance accounted for.
Again, greater anxiety and age were associated with
less positive BES-Process.
For close relationships for BES-Object, ECR-
Anxiety and ECR-Avoidance accounted for a signi-
ficant additional 14% of the variance, for a total of
19% of the variance accounted for. Only age
contributed significantly negatively in the final step.
This may have been due to the strong correlation
between the two attachment scales in specific
relationships. Two additional exploratory regressions
were run: one with ECR-Avoidance only and one
ECR-Anxiety only. In both of these the attachment
 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218 215

Table 2
Predicting body esteem from relationship quality for women
Variable General (N = 130) Close friend (N = 56) Romantic partner (N = 71)
Step 1 (b) Step 2 (b) Step 1 (b) Step 2 (b) Step 1 (b) Step 2 (b)
Body-as-object
Age .22 * .26 ** .31 * .29 * .07 .09
Body surveillance .31 ** .17 .06 .01 .37 ** .34**
ECR: Anxiety .40 *** .21 .12
ECR: Avoidance .06 .25 .03
R2 adjusted .09 ** .19 *** .05 .19 ** .10 * .09*
DR 2 .09 ** .10 *** .05 .14 ** .10 * .00
Body-as-process
Age .36 *** .38 *** .40 ** .40 ** .28 * .30*
Body surveillance .25 ** .14 .01 .07 .38 ** .36**
ECR: Anxiety .26 ** .34 * .13
ECR: Avoidance .03 .10 .02
R2 adjusted .12 *** .17 *** .13 ** .27 *** .13 ** .12*
DR 2 .12 ** .05 ** .13 ** .14 ** .13 ** .00
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

scale contributed significantly to the final equation.
For close relationships for BES-Process, ECR-
Anxiety and ECR-Avoidance added a significant
additional 14% of the variance, for a total of 27%
accounted for. Only age and ECR-Anxiety contributed
significantly in the final step, with greater ECR-
Anxiety and age associated with lower BES-Process.
For romantic partnerships for BES-Object, the
ECR variables did not add significant variance to the
model. Only surveillance contributed significantly and
positively to BES-Object. For BES-Process, the ECR
variables did not add significant variance; both
surveillance and age contributed uniquely and
negatively to the final step. As with close friendships,
exploratory analyses were run with each of the ECR
variables separately because of potential multicolli-
nearity, and the results were the same as the analyses
with the ECR variables entered in the same equation.
Predicting differences in body satisfaction from
attachment style
To test whether differences in attachment style
were related to differences in body satisfaction from
general to specific for close friends and for romantic
relationships, difference scores were calculated by
subtracting specific scores from general scores for
ECR-Anxiety, ECR-Avoidance, BES-Object, and
BES-Process. Thus, negative difference scores meant
higher scores for specific versus general scores and
positive difference scores meant lower specific versus
general scores. The BES-Object and BES-Process
were highly skewed (skew = 7.84 and 2.17,
respectively), and transformations of the variables
did not result in a normal distribution. For this reason,
participants were divided into three separate groups,
those whose BES improved in specific relationships,
those whose BES was worse in specific relationships,
and those who had no difference. Age was included as
a covariate in each analysis, but did not contribute
significantly and thus was dropped in the following
analyses.
Two 2 (close friend or romantic partner)  3
(difference in BES) MANOVAs with body surveil-
lance as a covariate and difference in ECR-Avoidance
and ECR-Anxiety as the dependent variables were run
with either difference in BES-Object or difference in
BES-Process as the independent variable. For BES-
Object, the multivariate effect for the covariate was
only marginally significant, Pillais’ F (2,121) = 2.41,
p < .10. There was a significant effect for relationship
type, Pillais’ F (2,121) = 5.32, p < .01. Only the
univariate effect for difference in ECR-Anxiety
was significant, F (1,122) = 10.33, p < .01, h2 = .08.
216 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
On average, there was less anxiety in specific versus
general relationships, but this difference in anxiety
was greater for close friendships (M = 1.02) than for
romantic relationships (M = .23). The multivariate
effect for difference in BES group was also significant,
Pillais’ F (4,244) = 2.57, p < .05. Univariate effects
were significant for difference in ECR-Avoidance,
F (2,122) = 3.31, p < .05, h2 = .05. Although ECR-
Avoidance was lower for specific relationships com-
pared to general relationships on average across BES
groups, a lower BES-Object in specific relationships
was associated with a smaller difference in ECR-
Avoidance (M = 1.53, 1.50, and .93 for increased BES,
no change, and decreased BES, respectively). Those
whose BES-Object scores were higher, the decrease in
avoidance was greater than those whose BES-Object
scores were lower in the specific relationships, t
(97) = 2.24, p < .05. None of the other mean differ-
ences were significant. The multivariate interaction
between relationship type and BES-Object difference
was not significant, Pillais’ F (4,244) = .64, ns.
For the BES-Process analysis, the multivariate
effect for relationship type was significant, Pillais’ F
(2,121) = 5.66, p < .01. Only the univariate effect
for difference in ECR-Anxiety was significant, F
(1,122) = 11.36, p < .01, h2 = .09. Similar to the
analysis for BES-Object, ECR-Anxiety was lower
on average for specific relationships than for general
relationships, but this difference in anxiety was greater
for close friendships (M = 1.14) than for romantic
relationships (M = .32). Neither the effect for change
in BES-Process nor the interaction term were signi-
ficant, Pillais’ F (4,244) = .12, ns, and Pillais’ F
(4,244) = .63, ns, respectively.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the
relationship of attachment style to body satisfaction in
women. We expected to replicate Cash et al.’s (2003)
study of attachment and body satisfaction. We also
extended this research by determining whether the
relationship between attachment style and body
satisfaction differed as a function of whether the
participants were reporting on their general attachment
style or on attachment to a specific other, either a
romantic partner or a close friend, and whether these
relationships still were obtained when body surveil-
lance was controlled. A major contribution of this
study is the use of a more general adult population
that included both undergraduates and community
participants.
As expected, these results partially replicate Cash
et al.’s (2003) study. General attachment anxiety was a
zero-order predictor of body satisfaction, as well as a
unique predictor of body-as-object satisfaction, with
body surveillance and age controlled. More positive
body satisfaction was associated with lower levels of
anxiety. Also, as predicted, general attachment
avoidance did not uniquely predict any body
satisfaction variable for women with body surveil-
lance and age controlled. This supports the hypothesis
that attachment anxiety, which represents sensitivity
to rejection, is more important in predicting negative
body experience than is attachment avoidance, which
represents avoidance of closeness. It may be that
women who are high on attachment anxiety use body
surveillance as a strategy to control rejection. This
strategy in turn leads to poorer body image. This
hypothesis is supported by the positive relationship
between attachment anxiety and body surveillance in
these data and research showing body surveillance
precedes negative body experience (e.g., Tiggemann &
Lynch, 2001). On the other hand, women who feel
negatively about their bodies may both engage in
greater body surveillance and may also be higher in
attachment anxiety because of the importance of
appearance for social relations (Cash & Fleming, 2002).
Contrary to our predictions, both general attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance also predicted body-as-
process satisfaction and anxiety predicted body-as-
process with body surveillance and age controlled.
Although body-as-process has been hypothesized to
be less sensitive to interpersonal contexts (Franzoi,
1995), for these women, fear of rejection may have
resulted in less positive evaluations of body function,
or less positive evaluations of body function may have
led to greater fear of rejection.
The analyses comparing the general variables with
those for specific significant others demonstrated
that the relationships between attachment and body
satisfaction differ in specific relationships compared
to general attachment style. Consistent with our
hypotheses, analyses of difference scores from general
to specific relationships found greater differences for
 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
attachment anxiety for close friendships than for
romantic relationships, although the effect sizes were
small. This may be due to the characteristics of these
two types of relationships. On the other hand, given
that the gender of the primed attachment figure was
confounded with the relationship type, with close
friends most likely to be women and romantic partners
most likely to be men, it may be that women
experience more fear of rejection in relationships with
men than with women.
Regression analyses, however, did not support the
hypotheses that romantic partner attachment style
should be more similar to general attachment style
than close friend attachment style. For romantic
partnerships, only body surveillance uniquely con-
tributed to body-as-object satisfaction and body-as-
process satisfaction, whereas in the general regression
analysis, body surveillance did not uniquely predict
body satisfaction. The analysis for women’s close
friendships was more similar to the general analysis,
with attachment anxiety being the only unique
predictor for body-as-process satisfaction and both
attachment dimensions adding significantly to the
variance for body-as-object satisfaction. The fact that
the results for these analyses differ demonstrates the
importance of examining attachment and body image
in the context of specific others. Even though the
presumption has been that attachment to romantic
partners may the most chronically accessible (Baldwin
et al., 1996) and the analyses of difference scores
support this contention (as there was less difference
between general and specific attachment for romantic
partners than for close friends), these regressions
analyses suggest that factors other than attachment,
such as individual levels of body surveillance, may be
more important in understanding body image in the
context of specific romantic relationships.
As predicted, differences in attachment style from
general to specific were associated with differences in
body-as-object satisfaction for women, although the
effect sizes were quite small, perhaps due to loss of
power by converting a continuous variable to a
categorical one. Women who felt less positive about
their body-as-object in specific relationships had
smaller decreases in attachment avoidance in those
relationships compared to their general attachment than
did women who had no difference or whose body-as-
object evaluation improved in specific relationships.
217
There was no relationship between differences in
body-as-process satisfaction and differences in attach-
ment style. For body-as-object, feeling more positive
about their bodies with a particular person appeared
to decrease women’s use of avoidance within that
relationship. Of course, it could also be that relation-
ships that encourage closeness also encourage more
positive feelings about the body than one would feel in
general. It is surprising given the evidence in these
data and other studies (e.g., Cash et al., 2003) that
attachment anxiety differences were unrelated to
differences in body satisfaction. This suggests attach-
ment anxiety is more useful for predicting levels of
body satisfaction in general, while differences in
attachment avoidance from general to specific relation-
ships is more useful in predicting differences between
general body satisfaction and body satisfaction in
specific relationships.
As noted above, a major limitation of this study is
that the sex of the primed attachment figure was
confounded with the relationship type. Future research
should include more diverse samples in terms of
sexual orientation and distribution of gender in close
friendships to examine whether different findings are a
function of the relationship type or the sex of the
primed attachment figure. Also, the use of categorical
variables for the difference scores rather than
continuous variables, while necessary due to skew-
ness, was likely to reduce power for finding effects.
This research is also limited in that the self-report data
are correlational, and thus, the direction of causation
cannot be determined. It seems entirely possible that
higher attachment anxiety decreases body satisfaction
or body dissatisfaction increases attachment anxiety or
that both of these occur. While this study included a
wider population sample than studies that include
only undergraduates, it was limited in that it included
primarily European American, heterosexual partici-
pants, which limits its generalizability.
This study demonstrates that examining differences
in the general and specific relationship attachment
styles is important to understanding the relationship
between women’s relationship attachment and body
satisfaction. Our data show that for specific romantic
partnerships, attachment did not uniquely predict body
satisfaction; whereas, it did predict body satisfaction
for specific close friendships and for general attach-
ment. In addition, the study overall shows there are
218 N.M. McKinley, L.A. Randa / Body Image 2 (2005) 209–218
significant connections between attachment style and
body image in adults and suggests that further research
in this area is warranted. Particularly, future studies
may want to use longitudinal analyses to test whether it
appears that attachment style shapes body experience or
whether body experience shapes attachment style, or
whether a third factor, such as body surveillance shapes
both attachment style and body satisfaction. Answers to
these questions would be important both in suggesting
solutions for improved body satisfaction and/or more
secure relationship attachments.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Kristi Arevena, Natalie Dean,
Erin Fisher, and Colleen Keeton-Sims for data
collection and data entry, and Jeannie Jacobson and
Bronwyn Pughe for help with editing.
References
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-
Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of
attachment working models: Availability and accessibility
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1),
94–109.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attach-
ment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 267–283.
Cash, T. F., & Fleming, E. C. (2002). Body image and social
relations. In T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinksy (Eds.), Body image:
A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 277–
286). New York: Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F., & Pruzinksy, T. (2002). Understanding body images:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. In T. F. Cash, & T.
Pruzinksy (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research,
and clinical practice (pp. 3–12). New York: Guilford Press.
Cash, T. F., Theriault, J., & Annis, N. W. (2003). Body image in an
interpersonal context: Adult attachment, fear of intimacy, and
social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23,
89–103.
Evans, L., & Wertheim, E. H. (1998). Intimacy patterns and relation-
ship satisfaction of women with eating problems and the med-
iating effects of depression, trait anxiety and social anxiety.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 44, 355–365.
Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical
attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five
research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 59, 981–993.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and
private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment:
Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unan-
swered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132–154.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item
response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attach-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–
365.
Franzoi, S. L. (1995). The body-as-object versus the body-as-
process: Gender differences and gender considerations. Sex
Roles, 33, 417–437.
Franzoi, S., & Shields, S. (1984). The body esteem scale: Multi-
dimensional structure and sex differences in a college popula-
tion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 173–178.
Friedman, M. A., Dixon, A. E., Brownell, K. D., Whisman, M. A., &
Wilfley, D. E. (1999). Marital status, marital satisfaction, and
body image dissatisfaction. International Journal of Eating
Disorders, 26(1), 81–85.
Hoyt, W. D., & Kogan, L. R. (2001). Satisfaction with body image
and peer relationships for males and females in a college
environment. Sex Roles, 45, 199–215.
Kearney-Cooke, A. (2002). Familial influences on body image
development. In T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinksy (Eds.), Body image:
A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 99–
107). New York: Guilford Press.
McKinley, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (1996). The objectified body
consciousness scale: Development and validation. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 20, 181–215.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of
the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes
increase the accessibility of mental representations of attach-
ment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(4), 881–895.
Paxton, S. J., Schutz, H. K., Wertheim, E. H., & Muir, S. L. (1999).
Friendship clique and peer influences on body image concerns,
dietary restraint, extreme weight-loss behaviors, and binge eat-
ing in adolescent girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108,
255–266.
Sherman, A. M., de Vries, B., & Lansford, J. E. (2000). Friendship
in childhood and adulthood: Lessons across the lifespan.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development,
51(1), 31–51.
Tantleff-Dunn, S., & Gokee, J. L. (2002). Interpersonal influences on
body image development. In T. F. Cash, & T. Pruzinksy (Eds.),
Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical
practice (pp. 108–116). New York: Guilford Press.
Tiggemann, M., & Lynch, J. E. (2001). Body image across the life
span in adult women: The role of self-objectification. Develop-
mental Psychology, 37, 243–253.
Ward, A., Ramsay, R., & Treasure, J. (2000). Attachment research
and eating disorders. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 73,
35–51.