{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026309495336044007, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012915570437694332, 'mean_word_length': 5.12298682284041, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Can't Buy Me Love”: An Attachment Perspective on Social Support and Money as Psychological Buffers

We are pleased to see that 44 years after the Beatles told us that while money can make us feel all right, it ultimately “Can’t Buy Me Love,” Zhou and Gao (this issue) have written a provocative review of research on the ways in which these two resources act as buffers against physical and psychological pain. Zhou and Gao, like the Beatles, emphasize the importance of love and money as stress or pain reducers, and the possibility of using money to complement or replace the more natural resource of love. However, Zhou and Gao’s argument suggests a different song title and lyrics. Whereas Lennon and McCartney argued that money cannot restore or replace love, Zhou and Gao might suggest a new song, “Money Can Do the Job of Love.” In this commentary, we consider the connections between love and money and also their potential roles as psychological stress and pain buffers through the lenses of Bowlby’s (1973, 1980, 1982) attachment theory and our own conceptualization of the activation and functioning of the attachment behavioral system in adulthood (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007a, 2007b; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002, 2007). Attachment theory is a theory of emotion regulation that emphasizes the importance of seeking and receiving love and support in times of need and stress. It characterizes social support as an innate form of amelioration and protection from physical and psychological pain. Attachment theory has been tested in hundreds of studies—some observational, some experimental, and some longitudinal—and the theory has been expanded to apply to all phases of the human lifespan. It has been explored and tested at all different levels of analysis, such as genes, neurons, conscious and unconscious mental processes, and interpersonal relations in a variety of settings: from the bedroom and nursery to large businesses and military organizations. As such, attachment theory offers a broad and wellvalidated perspective on the role of social support as a pain-buffering mechanism. Although attachment theory does not deal directly with the potential pain-buffering role of money, and has generated no published research on this issue, it may still provide important insights into the ability of money to restore or replace love. Specifically, we agree with Zhou and Gao (this issue) that money can act as a secondary defense against physical and psychological pain mainly when potentially supportive others (whom Bowlby, 1982, called attachment figures) fail to provide love, support, and relief in times of need. However, we disagree with Zhou and Gao that money can replace or restore social support, nor do we agree that its psychological effects are identical to those resulting from loving a attachment figure’s provision of a safe haven and secure base when a person is bothered by stress or pain. Our analysis looks back to England in the 1960s, where Bowlby developed his theory of attachment and the Beatles sang “Can’t Buy Me Love.” Our commentary contains four sections. The first explains attachment theory’s perspective on supportseeking as a distress-buffering mechanism. The second section considers the empirically documented psychological benefits of receiving love and support, which we summarize in terms of a “broaden-and-build cycle of attachment security” (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007a, 2007b). In the third section, we argue that money can act as a pain buffer mainly among people who fail to receive love and support from others and do not possess a solid and stable sense of attachment security. Specifically, we focus on individual differences in attachment orientations and review evidence showing that money-seeking and an avoidant attachment orientation have similar correlates and outcomes. We also present new evidence concerning the association between avoidant attachment and money seeking. In the last section, we consider why money “can’t buy love,” according to an attachment-theoretical perspective. To save space and keep references to a minimum we rely heavily on our prior reviews of the attachment literature.