Boys Do Cry: Influences of Masculinity & Avoidant-Attachment Style on Post-Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress

Boys Do Cry: Influences of Masculinity & Avoidant-Attachment Style on Post-Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Boys Do Cry: Influences of Masculinity & Avoidant-Attachment Style on Post-Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress Morgen Joy Sherwood, Chirinjeev Kathuria, Howard Steele This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This investigation sought to explore the effects of gender and attachment style on intensity of emotional distress following a romantic breakup, and to challenge the substantiated notion that avoidant men experience significantly less emotional distress than all other people including avoidant women. Of 488 individuals who had previously disbanded from a romantic partner, the results of the study showed that avoidant men do not experience significantly less emotional distress than avoidant women. Gender does not have a significant effect on levels of emotional distress, even when participants share similar levels of anxiety and avoidance. Furthermore, results showed a significant positive correlation between anxious-attachment style and level of emotional distress. No such correlation was shown for attachment-avoidance. Discussion focuses on possible reasons for a newfound lack of gender difference among avoidantly-attached individuals, emotionality in relation to societal gender norms, and the role of attachment in romantic relationship breakups. Biological sciences/Genetics Biological sciences/Psychology attachment style romantic relationship breakup emotionality gender differences Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Background Breaking up is hard to do– and it may seem like it’s harder for some people than others. In a 1990 study which examined the influence of attachment style on emotional distress in a post-breakup context, it was found that attachment style was uncorrelated to intensity of emotional distress following a romantic breakup, except in avoidant men — who experienced significantly less emotional distress than all other people including avoidant women, even when relationship length and quality were statistically controlled (Simpson, 1990). The current study challenges this finding in conceptual replication with updated attachment and emotional distress measures with a diverse sample– re-examining the factors of gender and attachment-style in relation to post-romantic break-up emotional distress. We hypothesized that avoidant men are not actually less emotionally distressed than all other people following the dissolution of a romantic connection. Furthermore, we predicted that attachment style will have a significant effect on the level of emotional distress experienced by participants, and that gender will not. Masculinity and Emotional Expression A heightened societal pressure to conceal outward emotional expression is widely found in men of differing cultures, racial groups, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations (Vogel et. al., 2011). Men are primed from childhood with messages such as "boys don’t cry” and expected to act “tough” and “strong” when vulnerability and emotional expression are equated with weakness and may lead to social-ostracization in younger men (Newberger, 1999). Although men may experience the same emotionally-jarring feelings as women, they are far less likely to display their emotion in commonly discernable ways, i.e. by crying (Nyklíček et. al., 2004). Women tend to be more intense in their display of physiological emotional response (Kring & Gordon, 1998), tend to be more emotionally-open in terms of social-sharing, and more inclined to seek emotional support from others in a post-breakup context (Davis et al., 2003). Men tend to suppress emotional expression even when emotion is inwardly felt (Butler & Gross, 2008) and are in the context of romantic breakups are more likely to engage in non-obvious coping or escape mechanisms such as “rebound” relationships (Shimek et al. 2014). Men and women may not display emotional distress in the same perceivable intensity, yet the reasoning behind the differentiation is unclear. Is the difference biologically-supported or perhaps a reflection of societally-conditioned gender roles? In a study done on emotional processing within the brain, no general gender differences in brain activation patterns in response to emotions presented apart from the fact that men seem to exhibit more lateralized activation whilst women’s brainstem regions are seemingly more frequently activated (Wager et al., 2003). It is suggested that differences in emotional response which are seemingly dependent on gender could actually be a result of culture (Derntl et al., 2012). To understand the relationship between “nature—biological, gender-specific cognitive processes” and “nurture—societal impact” in determining where these perceived emotional gender differences stem from, an extensive study of 6-month-old infants concluded that male infants were significantly more emotionally reactive than female infants with both positive and negative emotion at a higher frequency and intensity (Weinberg et al., 1997). This evidence suggests that men’s unemotional tendencies may not be inherently natural. In the absence of a general consensus regarding gender and emotionality, questions that inform the current study arise: Are avoidant men really less emotionally distressed than avoidant women? Or are they just displaying emotional distress in less detectable or non-obvious ways? Attachment Styles and Break-ups Adult attachment styles provide a framework from which we can understand the variety of ways in which emotional distress is experienced. The primary purpose of the attachment system is thought to promote the likelihood of survival (Bowlby 1969), and is said to “awaken” or “activate” when there is perceived danger to promote feelings of safety and well-being (Simpson & Rholes, 2012, Bowlby, 1969). A romantic break-up could signify a loss of an accessible attachment figure (Simpson & Rholes, 2012), which would awaken the attachment system and create emotional pain (Feeney & Karantzas, 2017). Insecure attachment styles: attachment-avoidance and attachment-anxiety, predispose an exhibition of differing negative emotional responses (Bowlby, 1969). People who tend to exhibit an anxious-attachment style may experience an intensification of emotional response in times of distress, i.e., hyperactivation (Gillath et al., 2016). Hyperactivating strategies entail clinging, controlling, an outward or even exaggerated expression of emotion combined with proximity to the attachment figure (Shaver, 2007). Contrarily, people who exhibit an avoidant-attachment style may experience suppression of emotional response, i.e. deactivation (Cassidy, 1994). Deactivating strategies include downplaying threats, and dismissing the need for intimacy or support (Shaver, 2007). Avoidance, not unlike masculinity, may contribute to the concealment of emotional distress in ex-partners, since people who are more avoidant tend to display less outward emotion than others. This suppression of emotional response can manifest into other behaviors and feelings which may not be classically construed as emotional pain from an outsider’s perspective, but are nonetheless indicative of the presence of emotional pain. Non-obvious Expression of Emotional Pain A withholding of emotional expression can have many negative consequences such as substance abuse, sexual addiction, reluctance to seek therapeutic help (Vogel et al., 2011), and physical symptoms and psycho-somatic ailments (Kotler et al., 1994). In the context of the current study, pre-experimental qualitative research was conducted over an online forum, wherein people were asked to anonymously describe their emotional distress and breakup symptoms. Several people in the forum commented about a feeling of suppressed/blocked emotions manifesting into physical pain. For example, one man described the feeling of “not being able to cry,” and how it led to throat and chest pain. Other people on the forum described a feeling of numbness, stomach pain, or loss of appetite. These remarks about physical symptoms are not unfounded in medical research. In fact, there is a condition called Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, commonly referred to as “broken heart syndrome,” wherein patients going through emotional heartbreak experience acute heart failure as a result of stress-induced dilation of the left ventricle (Boyd et al., 2020). Pre-experimental research also indicated a prevalence of non-obvious responses to emotional pain that were more action-oriented such as partying, engaging in sexual relations with multiple partners within a short span of time, or excessively working or exercising. Although emotional pain can be explicitly felt , it seems to not always be explicitly expressed . After all, there is a difference between feeling something on the inside and displaying something on the outside. Suppression of emotional response is commonly apparent in people with attachment avoidance, and since the substantiated result of lessened emotional distress which informed our current study was only apparent in men (Simpson, 1990), we consider the possibility that high levels of attachment-avoidance in men combined with masculine social norms (male reluctance to display emotion) were responsible for the result that avoidant men are “less emotional” than all other people after a romantic breakup. Could it be that they feel as emotional as others, but are just better at hiding their emotions? Controlling for Emotional Social-Norms Personal accounts from the pre-experimental qualitative research informed the current study, and led to the experimental decision to try to eliminate the risk of participants downplaying or withholding their emotional pain by creation of an original Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress Measure (which was designed to detect self-destructive coping behaviors & non-obvious manifestations of emotional pain), and a non-threatening experimental design to ensure participant comfortability and cultivate vulnerability and willingness to share their break-up experience. Method Participants The participants were anonymously recruited through forums on the social media website, Reddit. An a-priori power analysis was utilized to determine the minimum sample size for the study. An alpha of .05, power of .80, and a small effect size were assumed for all three primary analyses. The recommended sample size ranged between 782 and 1,096 participants. After exhausting all eligible forums on Reddit, the participants became 488 people aged 18-59 years old, and gave informed consent to participate. The sole recruitment criteria was that the participants experienced a past romantic relationship & subsequent break-up. Out of 488 people, there were 284 women, 183 men, and 21 non-binary people. The participants described themselves as 74% “heterosexual,” 19% “bisexual,” 3% “homosexual,” and 4% “other.” Design and Procedure An online survey was posted to social media in an effort to recruit participants anonymously, with comfortability and convenience. The survey consisted of the following: demographic information (age, gender, sexual orientation), the attachment measure (ECR-S), questions about the relationship experience pre-breakup (quality of relationship, duration of relationship), questions regarding post-breakup context (reason for the breakup, duration of breakup, willingness to reconcile the past relationship), and the emotional distress measure. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the research, and voluntarily completed the survey on their own time. All methods were carried out in accordance with federal regulations under 45 CFR 46., upon approval with permission of the Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board at The New School for Social Research. Measures Attachment Measure Levels of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were measured in the context of the participants’ feelings and experience in their last relationship. The Experience in Close Relationship Scale - Short Form (ECR-S) was used, composed of 12 questions/statements pertaining to attachment avoidance or anxiety (Wei et al., 2007). These statements included sentiments such as “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need,” and “I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.” Participants rated the extent to which they “Agree” or “Disagree” to each statement on a likert scale of 1-7. Responses were scored to indicate levels of avoidant attachment, and anxious attachment. Emotional Distress Measure An original emotional distress measure was created to capture multiple types of emotional distress experienced by participants. It was formulated by referencing the measure used in Simpson 1990 accounting for the duration and intensity of emotional distress (6-item index by Simpson 1987), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services assessment of warning signs & risk factors of emotional distress, and original pre-experimental qualitative research. This pre-experimental qualitative research was performed by creation of an anonymous online forum– wherein people were asked to describe their experience of emotional pain post-breakup. 167 anonymous responses were reported and coded into categories according to commonality (1. outwardly emotional, anxious-leaning expression 2. avoidant, action-based, indicators of emotional distress 3. neutral emotional pain responses, relevant to both anxious and avoidant types). The responses of this research, after being coded and weighted, were formulated into 19 yes or no questions such as, “How much have you cried during or after the breakup?” and more non-obvious emotional distress questions such as “Did you ever have sexual relations with another person to try to distract yourself or lessen the pain of losing your partner?” Responses were rated on scales ranging from 1-3 with the higher scores pertaining to higher levels of emotional distress. Hence, the Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress Measure was created in a balanced manner– in order not to favor any specific “category” of emotional pain, but rather to be inclusive of non-obvious indicators while still maintaining realistic accuracy in assessment of emotional pain. Results Influence of Sexual Orientation & Non-binary exclusion To consider the possible influences of sexual orientation on ECR-S responses, number of past relationships and emotional distress post-breakup, these various scores were grouped by the 4 sexual orientation response categories. Non-binary participants were excluded from the data-set to more closely conceptually replicate Simpson’s 1990 finding. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if both avoidance and anxiety scores were different for groups with different sexual orientations. Participants self-identified into one of four groups: heterosexual ( n = 365), homosexual ( n = 92), bisexual ( n = 15), and other ( n = 21). Data are presented as mean and standard deviation in Table 1 and Fig. 1 . Both Avoidance and Anxiety scores were not statistically significantly different between the sexual orientations, F (3, 480) = 0.01, p = .998, \({\eta }^{2}\) = .00, and, F (3, 480) = 1.66, p = .175, \({\eta }^{2}\) = .01, respectively. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Both Anxiety and Avoidance for Four Sexual Identities Avoidance Anxiety n M ( SD ) M ( SD ) Heterosexual 356 16.4 (6.49) 27.1 (7.16) Homosexual 92 16.3 (7.18) 28.6 (7.25) Bisexual 15 16.5 (8.15) 28.3 (6.85) Other 21 16.3 (6.82) 29.6 (8.53) Note . None of the means were found to be statistically significantly different from one another. The Bayesian one-way ANOVA for avoidance indicates that the data were 0.03 times more likely to occur under the model including the effect for sexual orientation, compared to the model without the effect. This Bayes factor of 0.03 indicates very strong evidence in favor of the null model. A similar effect was found for anxiety with the data being 0.18 times more likely to occur under the model including the effect for sexual orientation, compared to the model without the effect. This Bayes factor of 0.18 indicates substantial evidence in favor of the null model. Table 1 and Fig. 1 show the non-significant relationship between sexual orientation and attachment avoidance/anxiety. Influence of Gender on Emotional Distress Post-Breakup An independent-samples t -test was run to determine if there were differences in emotional distress scores between males and females. Emotional distress scores were higher among males ( M = 34.97, SD = 6.10) as compared to females ( M = 33.33, SD = 6.63), a statistically significant difference, M = 1.64, 95% CI [0.43, 2.84], t (460) = 2.67, p = .008, d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.07, 0.44] (see Fig. 2 ). A Bayesian analysis assuming a Cauchy prior width of 0.707 was conducted. The Bayes factor for the alternative hypothesis was 3.26, which provides anecdotal evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis. This indicates that males scored slightly higher than females on emotional distress with a median effect of -0.25 95% Credence Interval [-0.43, -0.06]. Figure 2 shows the level of emotional distress post-breakup in females versus males. Influence of Attachment on Emotional Distress Post-Breakup A Pearson's correlation was run to assess the relationship between avoidance and anxiety with emotional distress among 479 participants. There was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between anxiety and emotional distress, r (477) = .39, p < .001 with anxiety explaining 15.37% of the variation in emotional distress. There was a statistically significant, weak positive correlation between avoidance and emotional distress, r (477) = .10, p < .05, with avoidance explaining 0.94% of the variation in emotional distress. A Bayesian correlation using a two-sided alternative hypothesis there was a moderate positive correlation for anxiety and emotional distress ( r = .39) this was accompanied by a Bayes factor of \({9.79}^{{10}^{15}}\) indicating an extreme likelihood of this occurring under the alternative hypothesis rather than the null hypothesis. A Bayesian correlation using a two-sided alternative hypothesis there was a weak positive correlation for avoidance and emotional distress ( r = .10) this was accompanied by a Bayes factor of 0.54 indicating anecdotal likelihood of this occurring under the null hypothesis rather than the alternative hypothesis. Through the Bayesian analysis following the Pearson’s correlation, it can be assumed that attachment-avoidance does not have a significant effect on emotional distress that is experienced by ex-partners after a romantic break-up. Figure 3 shows the relationship between severity of emotional distress post-breakup and attachment avoidance/anxiety. Attachment anxiety was more closely correlated with high emotional distress scores than attachment avoidance. Comparing Emotional Distress Levels Among Gender/Attachment Style Groups In an effort to more closely replicate the findings of Simpson’s 1990 research, four types of participants were grouped according to a high severity of insecure attachment tendency within their ECR-S responses: highly avoidant men, highly avoidant women, highly anxious men, and highly anxious women. A series of cross tabulation tests were conducted, showing that 69% of highly anxious women were also high in emotional distress, compared with 61% of anxious men, 49% of avoidant women, and 47% of avoidant men. This 2% difference between avoidant men and avoidant women found Simpson’s 1990 result irreplicable. Figure 4 shows the likelihood of being highly emotionally distressed, comparing the 4 gender/attachment style groups: highly avoidant men, highly avoidant women, highly anxious men, and highly anxious women. Discussion Lack of Gender Differences Overall, men and women within the sample displayed similar levels of emotional distress after a romantic break-up. The large sample size presented in the experiment, about four to five times larger than Simpson (1990) had the power to detect small, medium or large effects, given the sample size and after consulting power curvers (Lakens, 2022) such that if an even small gender effect was there, the current research would have detected it. Of course, there is still room to consider that there might have been a very small gender effect that escaped detection. Although highly avoidant men were the least distressed group out of the 4 gender/attachment style groups, the difference was not at a significant level in comparison to highly avoidant women (2% difference). A possible reason for a departure from Simpson’s 1990 result could’ve been a difference in experimental design of the emotional distress measure. In the 1990 measure, the open-endedness of the questions, although measured on a likert scale, did not account for a participant’s detailed account of emotional distress. This could have made it difficult to elicit detailed responses from any participant that is going through a breakup and may rather not be talking about their feelings— especially highly avoidant people who already have the tendency to avoid or suppress their emotions, with added societal pressure due to their gender. Furthermore, the experimental setting of a phone call which was used by Simpson 1990 is more personal than an anonymous online survey. Research has shown that people are more comfortable sharing personal details in an anonymous context (Joinson, 1999) and as a result Simpson’s experimental design could have lowered the social-comfortability of participants, lowering the candidness of responses. Another experimental factor that could have contributed to Simpson’s found gender difference could have been due to the mean age of the participants (18-19 years old) since research has shown that adolescent females favor higher levels of emotional intelligence, expression, and management than males of the same age (Ciarrochi et al., 2001). Male Emotional Expression The implications of this current research suggest that there is more commonality between people of different genders in a post-breakup context than once thought. Men may not be displaying emotion as openly as women but research is growing to show more emotionality in men over time and to challenge patriarchally-informed emotional inhibition (De Boise & Hearn, 2017). Acknowledgement of alternative displays of emotional distress can lead to greater emotional awareness in men, and greater chance for healing (Oliffe et al., 2022). The newfound result of the current study is a prime example of the notion “don’t judge a book by its cover,” especially when there is societal pressure for people of a certain gender to appear a certain way. Limitations There is always a possibility of “selection bias” in romantic-relationship research– which refers to the bias that participants can have in selecting the events that they disclose to researchers. People may be less likely to talk about deeply personal or hurtful experiences from their past (Walker et. al. 2019). The opposite could be true as well, where participants could overestimate the amount of emotional distress they have been through while participating in a survey that they know is about romantic break-ups. In creating distance between researcher and participant (anonymous online survey) though, the risks of selection bias should decrease due to the lack of social pressure. Another limitation in this study was the ambiguity around each participants’ level of social-support from friends, family, or even professional therapists. The presence of social help or talk-therapy can decrease emotional distress, if participants had worked through pain and developed healthy habits since their break-up (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In terms of conceptual replication of Simpson 1990, a limitation arises in the time period from which both studies were conducted. In the 1990 study, all participants had their emotional distress levels measured within 6 months of their relationship’s end as opposed to the current study which collected data on when the relationship ended but did not incorporate time limits into the findings, allowing memory of emotional distress to evolve over time. Although the “fading affect bias,” which is a cognitive mechanism within the brain which shows that the affect associated with negative memories fades faster than the affect associated with positive memories (Walker et al., 1997), does not seem to apply to past or “failed” relationships (Zengel et al., 2019). This feature of the “fading affect bias” informed the decision to not limit the time frames in the current study, even though this may be viewed as a limitation in terms of replication. Future Research Experimentation is arguably psychology’s most common “reputable” source for gaining new information – yet a vast majority of psychological phenomena are born from experimentation with exclusively westernized undergraduate college students (Jones, 2010, Barrett, 2020). In future research, replication of past studies with experimental designs and more diverse participant samples should be highly encouraged – to challenge past conclusions drawn. Future research should focus on facilitating openness and vulnerability from participants. Eliciting candid responses from people on vulnerable/personal topics such as romantic relationships and heartbreak is important. In psychological experiments where face-to-face contact is unnecessary, participant-anonymity by the way of video-conferencing apps and online surveys can breed honesty by increasing social comfortability. If participants are dishonest or emotionally withholding within experiments, the beliefs that we hold in the field of psychology are merely illusions. Luckily, the antidote to an unemotional façade is comfort – and the anecdote to outdated or questionable truths in the field of psychological research could very well be: new and improved experimental design. Declarations Data Availability Access to a ‘minimal data set’ is available through Open Science Framework, in a public repository, at: https://osf.io/ztdas/?view_only=97dba6c743164bf4bad1f54d5c4152f2. Code Availability The code for both classical and Bayesian analysis utilized within the study is available through Open Science Framework in a public repository, and can be found at: https://osf.io/ztdas/?view_only=97dba6c743164bf4bad1f54d5c4152f2. References Barrett, H. C. (2020). Deciding what to observe: Thoughts for a post-WEIRD generation. Evolution and Human Behavior , 41 (5), 445-453. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books. Boyd, Brenton MMSc, PA-C; Solh, Tia MSPAS, PA-C. (2020). Takotsubo cardiomyopathy: Review of broken heart syndrome. JAAPA 33(3):p 24-29 | DOI: 10.1097/01.JAA.0000654368.35241.fc Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. Butler, E., Gross, J. “Hiding Feelings in Social Contexts: Out of Sight Is Not Out of Mind.” The Regulation of Emotion , New York, NY, 2008. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59 (2-3), 228–283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166148 Ciarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y., & Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents. Personality and individual differences , 31 (7), 1105-1119. Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (7), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007006 De Boise, S., & Hearn, J. (2017). Are men getting more emotional? Critical sociological perspectives on men, masculinities and emotions. The Sociological Review , 65 (4), 779-796. Derntl, B. (2012). Culture but not gender modulates amygdala activation during explicit emotion recognition. BMC Neuroscience. Feeney, J., Karantzas, G., (2017). Couple conflict: insights from an attachment perspective, Current Opinion in Psychology, Volume 13, Pages 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.017. Gillath, O., Karantzas, G., Fraley, C. (2016). “What are the Implications of Attachment Processes for Psychopathology and Therapy?” Adult Attachment, Academic Press, 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420020-3.00011-6. Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,511-524. Joinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers , 31 (3), 433-438. Jones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists' studies. Science. Kotler, T., Buzwell, S., Romeo, Y., & Bowland, J. (1994). Avoidant attachment as a risk factor for health. British Journal of Medical Psychology , 67 (3), 237-245. Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 686–703. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686 Lakens, Daniël. “Sample Size Justification.” Collabra: Psychology , vol. 8, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rohling, M. L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and victims , 15 (1), 73-90. Newberger, E. H. (1999). The men they will become: The nature and nurture of male character. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press. Nyklíček, I., Temoshok, L., Vingerhoets, A. (2004) Emotional Expression and Health: Femininity, Masculinity, and the Riddle of Crying . 1st ed., Brunner-Routledge. Oliffe, J. L., Kelly, M. T., Gonzalez Montaner, G., Seidler, Z. E., Kealy, D., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., & Rice, S. M. (2022). Mapping Men’s mental health help-seeking after an intimate partner relationship break-up. Qualitative Health Research , 32 (10), 1464-1476. SAMHSA. (n.d.). Warning signs and risk factors for emotional distress . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/disaster-distress-helpline/warning-signs-risk-factors Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and the regulation of emotion. Handbook of emotion regulation , 446 , 465. Shimek, Cassie & Bello, Richard. (2014). Coping with Break-Ups: Rebound Relationships and Gender Socialization. Social Sciences. 2014. 24-43. 10.3390/socsci3010024. Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971 Simpson J. A., Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 45, Academic Press (2012), pp. 279-328, 10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00006-8 Sloan, D. M., & Kornstein, S. G. (2003). Gender differences in depression and response to antidepressant treatment. The Psychiatric clinics of North America, 26(3), 581–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-953x(03)00044-3 Vogel, D. L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S., Hammer, J. H., & Hubbard, A. (2011). “Boys don't cry”: Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58 (3), 368-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023688 Wager, T. & P., Luan K., Liberzon, I. & Taylor, S. (2003). Valence, Gender, and Lateralization of Functional Brain Anatomy in Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Findings from Neuroimaging. NeuroImage. 19. 513-31. 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8. Walker, W. R., Alexander, H., & Aune, K. (2019). Higher Levels of Grit Are Associated With a Stronger Fading Affect Bias. Psychological Reports , 123 (1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119852579 Walker, W. R., Vogl, R. J., & Thompson, C. P. (1997). Autobiographical memory: unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 11 (5), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199710)11:53.0.co;2-e Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204. Weinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., & Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.175 Zengel, B., Lee, E. M., Walker, W. R., & Skowronski, J. J. (2019). Romantic relationships and fading of affect for memories of the shared past. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 33 (5), 861–872. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3527 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ATTACHMENTMEASURE.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3031566","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":210693312,"identity":"5868739c-d761-470d-97b0-a33cc1fa087a","order_by":0,"name":"Morgen Joy Sherwood","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The New School for Social Research","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Morgen","middleName":"Joy","lastName":"Sherwood","suffix":""},{"id":210693313,"identity":"04d30dd8-b252-44bd-9c9e-d8ea1c873065","order_by":1,"name":"Chirinjeev Kathuria","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Brown University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chirinjeev","middleName":"","lastName":"Kathuria","suffix":""},{"id":210693314,"identity":"81855970-492d-4441-86f2-2eeace034b7c","order_by":2,"name":"Howard Steele","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The New School for Social Research","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Howard","middleName":"","lastName":"Steele","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-06-07 01:44:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"coiExplicitlySet":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":39107393,"identity":"83ec72b7-5320-445e-9d50-005046ea22ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-26 18:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":17165,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSexual Orientation and Attachment Style\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/53b640d598ff27e5d6a9758d.png"},{"id":39107392,"identity":"db239c28-a101-4e37-b8bb-546113334775","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-26 18:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":12046,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmotional Distress in Females vs Males\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Males experienced more emotional distress than females.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/69ca71f668bf4316832cbbf6.png"},{"id":39107394,"identity":"9515f9fd-8b16-42fd-b320-cf0e71ec2c30","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-26 18:27:56","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":226687,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/39478d0e1a9ac0b091a5e1e7.jpeg"},{"id":39107395,"identity":"b099f3a6-dc5f-410c-a756-ed750c00019b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-26 18:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/168d1c03f0ae5c3d7401d3a6.png"},{"id":42065113,"identity":"d598b96e-0d07-4196-ab0e-1ee299baa90c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-08-24 09:37:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":388267,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/1b08f13a-ad0b-4bbd-86e1-cb88a9fe179c.pdf"},{"id":39109108,"identity":"caec7fda-43cd-4655-aba3-65994ab094aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-06-26 18:35:56","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":64790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ATTACHMENTMEASURE.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3031566/v1/88441414835102781ca12592.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Boys Do Cry: Influences of Masculinity \u0026 Avoidant-Attachment Style on Post-Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eBreaking up is hard to do\u0026ndash; and it may seem like it\u0026rsquo;s harder for some people than others. In a 1990 study which examined the influence of attachment style on emotional distress in a post-breakup context, it was found that attachment style was uncorrelated to intensity of emotional distress following a romantic breakup, except in avoidant\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;men\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash; who experienced significantly less emotional distress than all other people including avoidant women, even when relationship length and quality were statistically controlled (Simpson, 1990). The current study challenges this finding in conceptual replication with updated attachment and emotional distress measures with a diverse sample\u0026ndash; re-examining the factors of gender and attachment-style in relation to post-romantic break-up emotional distress. We hypothesized that avoidant men are not actually less emotionally distressed than all other people following the dissolution of a romantic connection. Furthermore, we predicted that attachment style will have a significant effect on the level of emotional distress experienced by participants, and that gender will not.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMasculinity and Emotional Expression\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eA heightened societal pressure to conceal outward emotional expression is widely found in men of differing cultures, racial groups, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations (Vogel et. al., 2011). Men are primed from childhood with messages such as \u0026quot;boys don\u0026rsquo;t cry\u0026rdquo; and expected to act \u0026ldquo;tough\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;strong\u0026rdquo; when vulnerability and emotional expression are equated with weakness and may lead to social-ostracization in younger men (Newberger, 1999). Although men may experience the same emotionally-jarring feelings as women, they are far less likely to display their emotion in commonly discernable ways, i.e. by crying (Nyklíček et. al., 2004). Women tend to be more intense in their display of physiological emotional response (Kring \u0026amp; Gordon, 1998), tend to be more emotionally-open in terms of social-sharing, and more inclined to seek emotional support from others in a post-breakup context (Davis et al., 2003). Men tend to suppress emotional expression even when emotion is inwardly felt (Butler \u0026amp; Gross, 2008) and are in the context of romantic breakups are more likely to engage in non-obvious coping or escape mechanisms such as \u0026ldquo;rebound\u0026rdquo; relationships (Shimek et al. 2014). Men and women may not display emotional distress in the same perceivable intensity, yet the reasoning behind the differentiation is unclear. Is the difference biologically-supported or perhaps a reflection of societally-conditioned gender roles? In a study done on emotional processing within the brain, no general gender differences in brain activation patterns in response to emotions presented apart from the fact that men seem to exhibit more lateralized activation whilst women\u0026rsquo;s brainstem regions are seemingly more frequently activated (Wager et al., 2003). It is suggested that differences in emotional response which are seemingly dependent on gender could actually be a result of culture (Derntl et al., 2012). To understand the relationship between \u0026ldquo;nature\u0026mdash;biological, gender-specific cognitive processes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;nurture\u0026mdash;societal impact\u0026rdquo; in determining where these perceived emotional gender differences stem from, an extensive study of 6-month-old infants concluded that male infants were significantly more emotionally reactive than female infants with both positive and negative emotion at a higher frequency and intensity (Weinberg et al., 1997). This evidence suggests that men\u0026rsquo;s unemotional tendencies may not be inherently natural. In the absence of a general consensus regarding gender and emotionality, questions that inform the current study arise: Are avoidant men really less emotionally distressed than avoidant women? Or are they just displaying emotional distress in less detectable or non-obvious ways?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttachment Styles and Break-ups\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAdult attachment styles provide a framework from which we can understand the variety of ways in which emotional distress is experienced. The primary purpose of the attachment system is thought to promote the likelihood of survival (Bowlby 1969), and is said to \u0026ldquo;awaken\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;activate\u0026rdquo; when there is perceived danger to promote feelings of safety and well-being (Simpson \u0026amp; Rholes, 2012, Bowlby, 1969). A romantic break-up could signify a loss of an accessible attachment figure (Simpson \u0026amp; Rholes, 2012), which would awaken the attachment system and create emotional pain (Feeney \u0026amp; Karantzas, 2017). Insecure attachment styles: attachment-avoidance and attachment-anxiety, predispose an exhibition of differing negative emotional responses (Bowlby, 1969). People who tend to exhibit an anxious-attachment style may experience an intensification of emotional response in times of distress, i.e., hyperactivation (Gillath et al., 2016). Hyperactivating strategies entail clinging, controlling, an outward or even exaggerated expression of emotion combined with proximity to the attachment figure (Shaver, 2007). Contrarily, people who exhibit an avoidant-attachment style may experience suppression of emotional response, i.e. deactivation (Cassidy, 1994). Deactivating strategies include downplaying threats, and dismissing the need for intimacy or support (Shaver, 2007). Avoidance, not unlike masculinity, may contribute to the concealment of emotional distress in ex-partners, since people who are more avoidant tend to display less outward emotion than others. This suppression of emotional response can manifest into other behaviors and feelings which may not be classically construed as emotional pain from an outsider\u0026rsquo;s perspective, but are nonetheless indicative of the presence of emotional pain.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNon-obvious Expression of Emotional Pain\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eA withholding of emotional expression can have many negative consequences such as substance abuse, sexual addiction, reluctance to seek therapeutic help (Vogel et al., 2011), and physical symptoms and psycho-somatic ailments (Kotler et al., 1994).\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eIn the context of the current study, pre-experimental qualitative research was conducted over an online forum, wherein people were asked to anonymously describe their emotional distress and breakup symptoms. Several people in the forum commented about a feeling of suppressed/blocked emotions manifesting into physical pain. For example, one man described the feeling of \u0026ldquo;not being able to cry,\u0026rdquo; and how it led to throat and chest pain. Other people on the forum described a feeling of numbness, stomach pain, or loss of appetite. These remarks about physical symptoms are not unfounded in medical research. In fact, there is a condition called Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, commonly referred to as \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;broken heart syndrome,\u0026rdquo; wherein patients going through emotional heartbreak experience acute heart failure as a result of stress-induced dilation of the left ventricle (Boyd et al., 2020). Pre-experimental research also indicated a prevalence of non-obvious responses to emotional pain that were more action-oriented such as partying, engaging in sexual relations with multiple partners within a short span of time, or excessively working or exercising. Although emotional pain can be explicitly \u003cem\u003efelt\u003c/em\u003e, it seems to not always be explicitly \u003cem\u003eexpressed\u003c/em\u003e. After all, there is a difference between \u003cem\u003efeeling\u003c/em\u003e something on the inside and \u003cem\u003edisplaying\u003c/em\u003e something on the outside. Suppression of emotional response is commonly apparent in people with attachment avoidance, and since the substantiated result of lessened emotional distress which informed our current study was only apparent in men (Simpson, 1990), we consider the possibility that high levels of attachment-avoidance in men combined with masculine social norms (male reluctance to display emotion) were responsible for the result that avoidant men are \u0026ldquo;less emotional\u0026rdquo; than all other people after a romantic breakup. \u0026nbsp;Could it be that they feel as emotional as others, but are just better at hiding their emotions?\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eControlling for Emotional Social-Norms\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ePersonal accounts from the pre-experimental qualitative research informed the current study, and led to the experimental decision to try to eliminate the risk of participants downplaying or withholding their emotional pain by creation of an original Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress Measure (which was designed to detect self-destructive coping behaviors \u0026amp; non-obvious manifestations of emotional pain), and a non-threatening experimental design to ensure participant comfortability and cultivate vulnerability and willingness to share their break-up experience.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants were anonymously recruited through forums on the social media website, Reddit. An a-priori power analysis was utilized to determine the minimum sample size for the study. An alpha of .05, power of .80, and a small effect size were assumed for all three primary analyses. The recommended sample size ranged between 782 and 1,096 participants. After exhausting all eligible forums on Reddit, the participants became 488 people aged 18-59 years old, and gave informed consent to participate. The sole recruitment criteria was that the participants experienced a past romantic relationship \u0026amp; subsequent break-up. \u0026nbsp;Out of 488 people, there were 284 women, 183 men, and 21 non-binary people. The participants described themselves as 74% \u0026ldquo;heterosexual,\u0026rdquo; 19% \u0026ldquo;bisexual,\u0026rdquo; 3% \u0026ldquo;homosexual,\u0026rdquo; and 4% \u0026ldquo;other.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign and Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn online survey was posted to social media in an effort to recruit participants anonymously, with comfortability and convenience. The survey consisted of the following: demographic information (age, gender, sexual orientation), the attachment measure (ECR-S), questions about the relationship experience pre-breakup (quality of relationship, duration of relationship), questions regarding post-breakup context (reason for the breakup, duration of breakup, willingness to reconcile the past relationship), and the emotional distress measure. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the research, and voluntarily completed the survey on their own time. All methods were carried out in accordance with federal regulations under 45 CFR 46., upon approval with permission of the Human Research Protection Program and Institutional Review Board at The New School for Social Research. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttachment Measure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eLevels of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were measured in the context of the participants\u0026rsquo; feelings and experience in their last relationship. The Experience in Close Relationship Scale - Short Form (ECR-S) was used, composed of 12 questions/statements pertaining to attachment avoidance or anxiety (Wei et al., 2007). These statements included sentiments such as \u0026ldquo;It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.\u0026rdquo; Participants rated the extent to which they \u0026ldquo;Agree\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Disagree\u0026rdquo; to each statement on a likert scale of 1-7. Responses were scored to indicate levels of avoidant attachment, and anxious attachment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEmotional Distress Measure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAn original emotional distress measure was created to capture multiple types of emotional distress experienced by participants. It was formulated by referencing the measure used in Simpson 1990 accounting for the duration and intensity of emotional distress (6-item index by Simpson 1987), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services assessment of warning signs \u0026amp; risk factors of emotional distress, and original pre-experimental qualitative research. This pre-experimental qualitative research was performed by creation of an anonymous online forum\u0026ndash; wherein people were asked to describe their experience of emotional pain post-breakup. 167 anonymous responses were reported and coded into categories according to commonality (1. outwardly emotional, anxious-leaning expression 2. avoidant, action-based, indicators of emotional distress 3. neutral emotional pain responses, relevant to both anxious and avoidant types). The responses of this research, after being coded and weighted, were formulated into 19 yes or no questions such as, \u0026ldquo;How much have you cried during or after the breakup?\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand more non-obvious emotional distress questions such as \u0026ldquo;Did you ever have sexual relations with another person to try to distract yourself or lessen the pain of losing your partner?\u0026rdquo; Responses were rated on scales ranging from 1-3 with the higher scores pertaining to higher levels of emotional distress. Hence, the Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress Measure was created in a balanced manner\u0026ndash; in order not to favor any specific \u0026ldquo;category\u0026rdquo; of emotional pain, but rather to be inclusive of non-obvious indicators while still maintaining realistic accuracy in assessment of emotional pain.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eInfluence of Sexual Orientation \u0026amp; Non-binary exclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo consider the possible influences of sexual orientation on ECR-S responses, number of past relationships and emotional distress post-breakup, these various scores were grouped by the 4 sexual orientation response categories. Non-binary participants were excluded from the data-set to more closely conceptually replicate Simpson\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if both avoidance and anxiety scores were different for groups with different sexual orientations. Participants self-identified into one of four groups: heterosexual (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;365), homosexual (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;92), bisexual (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15), and other (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21). Data are presented as mean and standard deviation in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Both Avoidance and Anxiety scores were not statistically significantly different between the sexual orientations, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 480)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.998, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\eta }^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e = .00, and, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 480) = 1.66, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .175, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({\\eta }^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e = .01, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeans and Standard Deviations for Both Anxiety and Avoidance for Four Sexual Identities\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvoidance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnxiety\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e356\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.4 (6.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1 (7.16)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHomosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.3 (7.18)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.6 (7.25)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.5 (8.15)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.3 (6.85)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.3 (6.82)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.6 (8.53)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. None of the means were found to be statistically significantly different from one another.\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Bayesian one-way ANOVA for avoidance indicates that the data were 0.03 times more likely to occur under the model including the effect for sexual orientation, compared to the model without the effect. This Bayes factor of 0.03 indicates very strong evidence in favor of the null model. A similar effect was found for anxiety with the data being 0.18 times more likely to occur under the model including the effect for sexual orientation, compared to the model without the effect. This Bayes factor of 0.18 indicates substantial evidence in favor of the null model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e show the non-significant relationship between sexual orientation and attachment avoidance/anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eInfluence of Gender on Emotional Distress Post-Breakup\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAn independent-samples \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-test was run to determine if there were differences in emotional distress scores between males and females. Emotional distress scores were higher among males (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34.97, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.10) as compared to females (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;33.33, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.63), a statistically significant difference, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.64, 95% CI [0.43, 2.84], \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(460)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23, 95% CI [0.07, 0.44] (see Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA Bayesian analysis assuming a Cauchy prior width of 0.707 was conducted. The Bayes factor for the alternative hypothesis was 3.26, which provides anecdotal evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis. This indicates that males scored slightly higher than females on emotional distress with a median effect of -0.25 95% Credence Interval [-0.43, -0.06].\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the level of emotional distress post-breakup in females versus males.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eInfluence of Attachment on Emotional Distress Post-Breakup\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA Pearson\u0026apos;s correlation was run to assess the relationship between avoidance and anxiety with emotional distress among 479 participants. There was a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation between anxiety and emotional distress, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(477)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001 with anxiety explaining 15.37% of the variation in emotional distress. There was a statistically significant, weak positive correlation between avoidance and emotional distress, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(477)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05, with avoidance explaining 0.94% of the variation in emotional distress.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA Bayesian correlation using a two-sided alternative hypothesis there was a moderate positive correlation for anxiety and emotional distress (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.39) this was accompanied by a Bayes factor of \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\({9.79}^{{10}^{15}}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e indicating an extreme likelihood of this occurring under the alternative hypothesis rather than the null hypothesis. A Bayesian correlation using a two-sided alternative hypothesis there was a weak positive correlation for avoidance and emotional distress (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10) this was accompanied by a Bayes factor of 0.54 indicating anecdotal likelihood of this occurring under the null hypothesis rather than the alternative hypothesis. Through the Bayesian analysis following the Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation, it can be assumed that attachment-avoidance does not have a significant effect on emotional distress that is experienced by ex-partners after a romantic break-up.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the relationship between severity of emotional distress post-breakup and attachment avoidance/anxiety. Attachment anxiety was more closely correlated with high emotional distress scores than attachment avoidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparing Emotional Distress Levels Among Gender/Attachment Style Groups\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn an effort to more closely replicate the findings of Simpson\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e research, four types of participants were grouped according to a high severity of insecure attachment tendency within their ECR-S responses: highly avoidant men, highly avoidant women, highly anxious men, and highly anxious women. A series of cross tabulation tests were conducted, showing that 69% of highly anxious women were also high in emotional distress, compared with 61% of anxious men, 49% of avoidant women, and 47% of avoidant men. This 2% difference between avoidant men and avoidant women found Simpson\u0026rsquo;s \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e result irreplicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the likelihood of being highly emotionally distressed, comparing the 4 gender/attachment style groups: highly avoidant men, highly avoidant women, highly anxious men, and highly anxious women.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLack of Gender Differences\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eOverall, men and women within the sample displayed similar levels of emotional distress after a romantic break-up. The large sample size presented in the experiment, about four to five times larger than Simpson (1990) had the power to detect small, medium or large effects, given the sample size and after consulting power curvers (Lakens, 2022) such that if an even small gender effect was there, the current research would have detected it. Of course, there is still room to consider that there might have been a very small gender effect that escaped detection. Although highly avoidant men were the least distressed group out of the 4 gender/attachment style groups, the difference was not at a significant level in comparison to highly avoidant women (2% difference). A possible reason for a departure from Simpson\u0026rsquo;s 1990 result could\u0026rsquo;ve been a difference in experimental design of the emotional distress measure. In the 1990 measure, the open-endedness of the questions, although measured on a likert scale, did not account for a participant\u0026rsquo;s detailed account of emotional distress. This could have made it difficult to elicit detailed responses from any participant that is going through a breakup and may rather not be talking about their feelings\u0026mdash; especially highly avoidant people who already have the tendency to avoid or suppress their emotions, with added societal pressure due to their gender. Furthermore, the experimental setting of a phone call which was used by Simpson 1990 is more personal than an anonymous online survey. Research has shown that people are more comfortable sharing personal details in an anonymous context (Joinson, 1999) and as a result Simpson\u0026rsquo;s experimental design could have lowered the social-comfortability of participants, lowering the candidness of responses. Another experimental factor that could have contributed to Simpson\u0026rsquo;s found gender difference could have been due to the mean age of the participants (18-19 years old) since research has shown that adolescent females favor higher levels of emotional intelligence, expression, and management than males of the same age (Ciarrochi et al., 2001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMale Emotional Expression\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe implications of this current research suggest that there is more commonality between people of different genders in a post-breakup context than once thought. Men may not be displaying emotion as openly as women but research is growing to show more emotionality in men over time and to challenge patriarchally-informed emotional inhibition (De Boise \u0026amp; Hearn, 2017). Acknowledgement of alternative displays of emotional distress can lead to greater emotional awareness in men, and greater chance for healing (Oliffe et al., 2022). The newfound result of the current study is a prime example of the notion \u0026ldquo;don\u0026rsquo;t judge a book by its cover,\u0026rdquo; especially when there is societal pressure for people of a certain gender to appear a certain way.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThere is always a possibility of \u0026ldquo;selection bias\u0026rdquo; in romantic-relationship research\u0026ndash; which refers to the bias that participants can have in selecting the events that they disclose to researchers. People may be less likely to talk about deeply personal or hurtful experiences from their past (Walker et. al. 2019). The opposite could be true as well, where participants could overestimate the amount of emotional distress they have been through while participating in a survey that they know is about romantic break-ups. In creating distance between researcher and participant (anonymous online survey) though, the risks of selection bias should decrease due to the lack of social pressure. Another limitation in this study was the ambiguity around each participants\u0026rsquo; level of social-support from friends, family, or even professional therapists. The presence of social help or talk-therapy can decrease emotional distress, if participants had worked through pain and developed healthy habits since their break-up (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In terms of conceptual replication of Simpson 1990, a limitation arises in the time period from which both studies were conducted. In the 1990 study, all participants had their emotional distress levels measured within 6 months of their relationship\u0026rsquo;s end as opposed to the current study which collected data on when the relationship ended but did not incorporate time limits into the findings, allowing memory of emotional distress to evolve over time. Although the \u0026ldquo;fading affect bias,\u0026rdquo; which is a cognitive mechanism within the brain which shows that the affect associated with negative memories fades faster than the affect associated with positive memories (Walker et al., 1997), does not seem to apply to past or \u0026ldquo;failed\u0026rdquo; relationships (Zengel et al., 2019). This feature of the \u0026ldquo;fading affect bias\u0026rdquo; informed the decision to not limit the time frames in the current study, even though this may be viewed as a limitation in terms of replication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuture Research\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eExperimentation is arguably psychology\u0026rsquo;s most common \u0026ldquo;reputable\u0026rdquo; source for gaining new information \u0026ndash; yet a vast majority of psychological phenomena are born from experimentation with exclusively westernized undergraduate college students (Jones, 2010, Barrett, 2020). In future research, replication of past studies with experimental designs and more diverse participant samples should be highly encouraged \u0026ndash; to challenge past conclusions drawn. Future research should focus on facilitating openness and vulnerability from participants. Eliciting candid responses from people on vulnerable/personal topics such as romantic relationships and heartbreak is important. In psychological experiments where face-to-face contact is unnecessary, participant-anonymity by the way of video-conferencing apps and online surveys can breed honesty by increasing social comfortability. If participants are dishonest or emotionally withholding within experiments, the beliefs that we hold in the field of psychology are merely illusions. Luckily, the antidote to an unemotional fa\u0026ccedil;ade is comfort \u0026ndash; and the anecdote to outdated or questionable truths in the field of psychological research could very well be: new and improved experimental design.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAccess to a \u0026lsquo;minimal data set\u0026rsquo; is available through Open Science Framework, in a public repository, at: https://osf.io/ztdas/?view_only=97dba6c743164bf4bad1f54d5c4152f2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe code for both classical and Bayesian analysis utilized within the study is available through Open Science Framework in a public repository, and can be found at: https://osf.io/ztdas/?view_only=97dba6c743164bf4bad1f54d5c4152f2.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrett, H. C. (2020). Deciding what to observe: Thoughts for a post-WEIRD generation. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(5), 445-453.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoyd, Brenton MMSc, PA-C; Solh, Tia MSPAS, PA-C. (2020). Takotsubo cardiomyopathy: Review of broken heart syndrome. JAAPA 33(3):p 24-29 | DOI: 10.1097/01.JAA.0000654368.35241.fc\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., \u0026amp; Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson \u0026amp; W.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButler, E., Gross, J. \u0026ldquo;Hiding Feelings in Social Contexts: Out of Sight Is Not Out of Mind.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eThe Regulation of Emotion\u003c/em\u003e, New York, NY, 2008.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. \u003cem\u003eMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59\u003c/em\u003e(2-3), 228\u0026ndash;283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166148\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCiarrochi, J., Chan, A. Y., \u0026amp; Bajgar, J. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence in adolescents. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and individual differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1105-1119.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, D., Shaver, P. R., \u0026amp; Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29\u003c/em\u003e(7), 871\u0026ndash;884. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029007006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Boise, S., \u0026amp; Hearn, J. (2017). Are men getting more emotional? Critical sociological perspectives on men, masculinities and emotions. \u003cem\u003eThe Sociological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(4), 779-796.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDerntl, B. (2012). Culture but not gender modulates amygdala activation during explicit emotion recognition. BMC Neuroscience.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeeney, J., Karantzas, G., (2017). Couple conflict: insights from an attachment perspective, Current Opinion in Psychology, Volume 13, Pages 60-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.017.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGillath, O., Karantzas, G., Fraley, C. (2016). \u0026ldquo;What are the Implications of Attachment Processes for Psychopathology and Therapy?\u0026rdquo; Adult Attachment, Academic Press, 241-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-420020-3.00011-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHazan, C, \u0026amp; Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,511-524.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoinson, A. (1999). Social desirability, anonymity, and Internet-based questionnaires. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods, Instruments, \u0026amp; Computers\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 433-438.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJones, D. (2010). A WEIRD view of human nature skews psychologists\u0026apos; studies. \u003cem\u003eScience.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKotler, T., Buzwell, S., Romeo, Y., \u0026amp; Bowland, J. (1994). Avoidant attachment as a risk factor for health. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Medical Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e67\u003c/em\u003e(3), 237-245.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKring, A. M., \u0026amp; Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: Expression, experience, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 686\u0026ndash;703.\u0026nbsp; https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.686\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLakens, Dani\u0026euml;l. \u0026ldquo;Sample Size Justification.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eCollabra: Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, vol. 8, no. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.33267.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLanghinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., \u0026amp; Rohling, M. L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. \u003cem\u003eViolence and victims\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 73-90.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNewberger, E. H. (1999). The men they will become: The nature and nurture of male character. \u003cem\u003eCambridge, MA: De Capo Press.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNyklíček, I., Temoshok, L., Vingerhoets, A. (2004) Emotional Expression and Health: \u003cem\u003eFemininity, Masculinity, and the Riddle of Crying\u003c/em\u003e. 1st ed., Brunner-Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOliffe, J. L., Kelly, M. T., Gonzalez Montaner, G., Seidler, Z. E., Kealy, D., Ogrodniczuk, J. S., \u0026amp; Rice, S. M. (2022). Mapping Men\u0026rsquo;s mental health help-seeking after an intimate partner relationship break-up. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1464-1476.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSAMHSA. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eWarning signs and risk factors for emotional distress\u003c/em\u003e. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 26, 2023, from https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/disaster-distress-helpline/warning-signs-risk-factors\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShaver, P. R., \u0026amp; Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult attachment strategies and the regulation of emotion. \u003cem\u003eHandbook of emotion regulation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e446\u003c/em\u003e, 465.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShimek, Cassie \u0026amp; Bello, Richard. (2014). Coping with Break-Ups: Rebound Relationships and Gender Socialization. Social Sciences. 2014. 24-43. 10.3390/socsci3010024.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.971\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSimpson J. A., Rholes, W. S. (2012). Adult attachment orientations, stress, and romantic relationships. Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 45, Academic Press (2012), pp. 279-328, 10.1016/B978-0-12-394286-9.00006-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSloan, D. M., \u0026amp; Kornstein, S. G. (2003). Gender differences in depression and response to antidepressant treatment. The Psychiatric clinics of North America, 26(3), 581\u0026ndash;594. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-953x(03)00044-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVogel, D. L., Heimerdinger-Edwards, S., Hammer, J. H., \u0026amp; Hubbard, A. (2011). \u0026ldquo;Boys don\u0026apos;t cry\u0026rdquo;: Examination of the links between endorsement of masculine norms, self-stigma, and help-seeking attitudes for men from diverse backgrounds.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58\u003c/em\u003e(3), 368-382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023688\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWager, T. \u0026amp; P., Luan K., Liberzon, I. \u0026amp; Taylor, S. (2003). Valence, Gender, and Lateralization of Functional Brain Anatomy in Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Findings from Neuroimaging. NeuroImage. 19. 513-31. 10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00078-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWalker, W. R., Alexander, H., \u0026amp; Aune, K. (2019). Higher Levels of Grit Are Associated With a Stronger Fading Affect Bias. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e(1), 124\u0026ndash;140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119852579\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWalker, W. R., Vogl, R. J., \u0026amp; Thompson, C. P. (1997). Autobiographical memory: unpleasantness fades faster than pleasantness over time. \u003cem\u003eApplied Cognitive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(5), 399\u0026ndash;413. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199710)11:5\u0026lt;399::aid-acp462\u0026gt;3.0.co;2-e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., \u0026amp; Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 187-204.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeinberg, M. K., Tronick, E. Z., Cohn, J. F., \u0026amp; Olson, K. L. (1999). Gender differences in emotional expressivity and self-regulation during early infancy. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 175\u0026ndash;188. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.175\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZengel, B., Lee, E. M., Walker, W. R., \u0026amp; Skowronski, J. J. (2019). Romantic relationships and fading of affect for memories of the shared past. \u003cem\u003eApplied Cognitive Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(5), 861\u0026ndash;872. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3527\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"attachment style, romantic relationship, breakup, emotionality, gender differences","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis investigation sought to explore the effects of gender and attachment style on intensity of emotional distress following a romantic breakup, and to challenge the substantiated notion that avoidant men experience significantly less emotional distress than all other people including avoidant women. Of 488 individuals who had previously disbanded from a romantic partner, the results of the study showed that avoidant men do not experience significantly less emotional distress than avoidant women. Gender does not have a significant effect on levels of emotional distress, even when participants share similar levels of anxiety and avoidance. Furthermore, results showed a significant positive correlation between anxious-attachment style and level of emotional distress. No such correlation was shown for attachment-avoidance. Discussion focuses on possible reasons for a newfound lack of gender difference among avoidantly-attached individuals, emotionality in relation to societal gender norms, and the role of attachment in romantic relationship breakups.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Boys Do Cry: Influences of Masculinity \u0026amp; Avoidant-Attachment Style on Post-Romantic Breakup Emotional Distress","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-06-26 18:27:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031566/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9d2c869b-70dc-453d-ba58-745fc627e024","owner":[],"postedDate":"June 26th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":22482789,"name":"Biological sciences/Genetics"},{"id":22482790,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2023-08-24T09:29:35+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2023-06-26 18:27:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3031566","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3031566","identity":"rs-3031566","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"FbvkV6FR0MCFSLy54lSbu","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}