A Look into the Emotion Regulation Capacities of Different Attachment Styles - Lab Report Example

This study examines how people’s regulation of emotions varies with their attachment style. Survey data from Australian participants were gathered to provide an understanding of how varying attachment styles likewise affect one’s capacities to regulate his or her emotions. A four-group model, as adapted from Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), was used to classify participants into four different attachment styles, namely, Secure, Pre-Occupied, Dismissive, and Fearful. Subsequently, capacity to regulate emotions was measured at two levels, Suppression and Reappraisal, using Wei, et al’s (2007) Experiences in Close Relationship (ECR) scale. Findings show that in comparison to Secure people, Pre-Occupied people have higher Reappraisal level; Dismissing people have a lower Suppression level; and, Fearful people have a higher Suppression level and lower Reappraisal level. Introduction It was in his landmark study that Bowlby explored the processes by which bonds of affection are forged and broken, which are attachment, separation, and loss (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008; Gentzler, Kers, & Keener, 2009). Research has shown that among these processes, the attachment style that emerges plays a considerable part on how a child eventually develops in terms of his or her emotional state. As such, children first rely on parents and other family members to help regulate their emotions. As children grow into adults, they find other outlets that aid in regulating their emotions in the form of their spouses/partners, mentors, and therapists (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Gross and John (2003) mentions two types of emotion regulation strategies, namely, the antecedent-focused emotion regulation strategy and the response-focused emotion regulation strategy. As the names imply, antecedent-focused strategies include the actions that are accomplished prior to the full activation and behavior and peripheral physiological responding effects of emotion response tendencies. On the other hand, response-focused strategies include the actions that are performed after the emotion has passed, a point by which the person has already generated the response tendencies (Gross & John, 2003). While prior research seem to agree that emotional reactions and regulatory responses are generally associated with attachment, Gentzler, Kerns, and Keener further propose that other factors play a part in regulating emotions (2003). Specifically, they showed that while attachment plays a part in the degree of the intensity of immediate negative emotional reactions, gender and situational conditions likewise contribute to the responses made to positive events and emotions (Gentzler, Kerns, & Keener, 2003). This propensity of attachment to negative emotional reactions is supported by Diamond, et. al (2006) who were able to confirm that individuals who are avoidant exhibit emotion-regulation strategies that involve the repression of negative thoughts and feelings. Three major attachment styles developed from infancy has long been established. These attachment styles are Secure, Anxious, and Avoidant (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Mikulincer (1995) provides the following definitions for each of the three attachment styles (p. 1203): “The secure style is defined by confidence in the availability of attachment figures in times of need, comfort with closeness, interdependence, and trust. The avoidant style is characterized by insecurity in others' intentions and preference for emotional distance. The anxious-ambivalent style portrays a strong desire for intimacy together with insecurity about others' responses to this desire and high fear of rejection.” In 1991, Bartholomew and Horowitz proposed a four-category attachment style model using a combination of a person’s self-image and image of others. These four categories were Secure, Preoccupied, Fearful, and Dismissive. For them, the Secure style exhibits “a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an expectation that other people are generally accepting and responsive (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, p. 227). The Preoccupied style exhibits a “sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others” thus leading them to “strive for self-acceptance by gaining the acceptance of valued others” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, p. 227). The Fearful or Fearful-Avoidant style “indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting)” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, p.227) and as such, people who exhibit this particular attachment style avoid close involvement with other people in order to keep their sense of worth by protecting themselves from the rejection that they expect others to exhibit towards them. Finally, the Dismissive or Dismissive avoidant style exhibits “a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people” (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, p. 227) and so people exhibiting this style demonstrate a sense of independence and imperviousness in order to avoid close relationships and keep their sense of worth by protecting themselves from the rejection that they expect others to exhibit towards them. The aim of this research is to examine how the regulation of emotions varies with attachment style. That is, it is of this study’s interest to find out if people belonging to different attachment styles differ significantly in terms of their control over their emotions as exhibited by their levels of suppression and tendency to reappraise the situation. It is hypothesized that those belonging to the Secure group exhibit a higher level of suppression and tendency to reappraise the situation. Thus, the null and alternative hypotheses may be stated as such: Ho: There is no significant difference in the ability to exhibit control over the emotions between the Secure and Pre-Occupied, Dismissive, and Fearful attachment styles. Ha: The Secure attachment style exhibits a higher level of control over their emotions. Method Participants A total of 298 participants, with mean age of 26.94 (SD=11.08) were gathered for this study. The youngest participant was 17 years old while the most senior participant was at 68 years old. Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the participants by gender, birth country, educational background, and current enrollment status. Table 1. Summary of demographic characteristics of participants. Characteristic Frequency Percent Gender Female 216 72.5 Male 82 27.5 Birth Country Australia 248 83.2 Other 43 14.4 Educational Background Primary / Elementary School 3 1.0 Secondary / High School 174 58.4 TAFE or technical diploma 54 18.1 University degree 67 22.5 Currently enrolled No 40 13.4 Yes, full time 196 65.8 Yes, part time 60 20.1 Materials Attachment Style. The predominant attachment style exhibited by the participant was measured using the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR) - short Form (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007). This tool was originally a 36 item measure developed by Brennan, Clark and Shaver, and was modified to become a 12-item scale suited for use in this study. Employing a Likert scale (with 1 representing Strongly disagree and 5 representing Strongly Agree), six items in the scale assessed the anxiety dimension while six items assessed the avoidance dimension. In order to measure the prevalent attachment style, participants were asked how they would typically feel in romantic relationships. Examples of Avoidance items include (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), “I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.” “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.” “I am nervous when partners get too close to me.” Examples of Anxiety items include (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998), “I worry about being abandoned.” “I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them away.” “I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like.” Scores were summed up to form the total anxiety and avoidance scores, with higher scores representing a higher degree of attachment anxiety and avoidance. The attachment and avoidance scales had a reliability measure of Cronbach’s alpha equal to.73 and .82, respectively. Suppression of Emotions Expressive suppression was defined by Gross and John (2003) “as a form of response modulation that involves inhibiting ongoing emotion-expressive behavior” (p. 349). Thus, people with high levels of suppression rarely show visible signs of their emotions. Items 7 and 9 from the scale by Gross and John (2003) were used for this sublevel (p. 351). “7. I control my emotions by not expressing them. 9. I keep my emotions to myself.” Since there was a need to reduce the number of items, these items were chosen because they had the highest loadings on the scale. The originally 7-point scale was reduced to a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scores for each item were summed up to get the total Suppression score, with a low score indicating a low suppression level and a high score indicating a high suppression level (? = 0.78). Reappraisal of Situation Cognitive reappraisal was defined by Gross and John (2003) as “a form of cognitive change that involves construing a potentially emotion-eliciting situation in a way that changes its emotional impact” (p. 351). Thus, people with high reappraisal levels tend to look at the bright side of the situation in order to diminish the emotional impact that it may cause. Two items from the scale by Gross and John (2003) were chosen as they related a problem-solving/cognitive approach in situations to maintain emotional control. These were items 1 and 6 (Gross & John, 2003, p. 351). “1. I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.” “6. When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm.” The originally 7-point scale was reduced to a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scores for each item were summed up to get the total Reappraisal of Situation score, with a low score indicating a reappraisal level and a high score indicating a high reappraisal level (? = 0.85). Procedure Participants for this study include the students enrolled in the course, together with their friends and acquaintances. The issue of human rights is an important one when doing such kinds of researches as it ensures the ethical integrity of the data. All the prospective participants were informed of the purpose of the study and the nature of the questions they would be asked. They were also made aware of their rights to choose not to participate in the study, or to discontinue at any time. Moreover, they were informed that should they choose to be part of the study, their anonymity will be guaranteed, covering the confidentiality of their responses and participation. As the topic touched sensitive and personal issues, they were likewise advised of the potential distress that might arise from completing the survey and given information, and that potential support services are available, when necessary. As these procedures were approved by the University Ethics Committee, completion of the online questionnaire was taken as implied consent. Results Formation of Attachment Style Groups A median split method was employed in creating the divisions for the Attachment Groups. After obtaining the medians of both the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions, the groups were defined according to combinations formed by determining whether they were lower or higher than the medians on these dimensions. In particular, those falling below the median scores for Anxiety and Avoidance made up the Secure group; those falling below the median on avoidance and above the median score on anxiety made up the Pre-Occupied group; those falling above the median score on Avoidance and below the median score for Anxiety made up the Dismissive group; and, those falling above the median scores for both Avoidance and Anxiety made up the Fearful group. Results indicate that the Anxiety measure had a median of 23 (Mean = 22.4, SD = .37) while the Avoidance measure had a median of 15 (Mean = 15.9, SD = .37). Following the set grouping conditions, 83 (27.9%) of the participants belonged to the Secure group, 59 (19.8%) belonged to the Pre-occupied group, 64 (21.5%) belonged to the Dismissive group, and 92 (30.9%) belonged to the Fearful group. Differences between Attachment Groups and Emotional Regulation T-test was conducted in order to find out if there are differences in the degree of control over the emotions of those belonging to different attachment styles. Results of the t-test are shown in Table 1. It should be noted that the Levene’s test for equality of variance was performed prior to extracting the appropriate t-test results and corresponding significance level. In all cases, adjustments have been made when Levene’s test indicates equal variances cannot be assumed. Table 1. Mean Suppression and Reappraisal Ratings for Four Attachment Styles.     n Suppression   Reappraisal       Mean (SD) t df   Mean (SD) t df Secure 83 4.08 (1.7) 6.82 (1.8) Preoccupied 59 4.47 (1.9) -1.24 117 5.75 (1.9) 3.40*** 123 Dismissive 64 5.31 (2.2) -3.79*** 145 6.58 (2.1) 0.74 127   Fearful 92 5.52 (2.3) - 4.68*** 173   5.82 (1.9) 3.52*** 172 Note. *** = p ? .001. Standard Deviations appear in parentheses beside means. Findings show that the Dismissive, t(145) = - 1.24, p < .001, and Fearful group, and t(173) = - 3.79, p < .001, have significantly greater tendencies to control the exhibition of their emotions compared to the Secure group. On the other hand, Pre-Occupied, t(123) = 3.40, p = .001, and Fearful, t(172) = 3.52, p = .001, group members are less likely to see the positive or lighter side of a given situation, establishing a significant difference from those of the Secure group. Implications of these results will be further discussed in the succeeding section. Discussion Prior research have shown that people who fall under Insecure attachment styles exhibit a lower degree of emotion regulation capacities in such that they tend to have higher anxiety and avoidance levels (Gross & John, 2003; Wei, et. al, 2007; Brumariu & Kerns, 2010). Findings of this study confirm such research results as the Dismissive group do exhibit a lower level of control over their emotions, the Pre-Occupied group do exhibit a higher level of situation reappraisal, while the Fearful group exhibit both a lower level of control over their emotions and a higher level of situation reappraisal, when compared with the Secure group. It should be recalled that participants from the Dismissive group were classified as having a High Avoidance score and Low Anxiety score. Indeed, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) were able to establish that Dismissive people have a significantly high confidence level, thus having a low Anxiety score. It was further established that such people barely show their emotions in such that they do not exhibit frequent crying or warmth towards their fellowmen (Ibid.). On the other hand, participants from the Pre-Occupied group have a Low Avoidance and High Anxiety score. Again, findings of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) show that Pre-Occupied people tend to elaborate and inappropriately disclose their emotions and feelings. They frequently express their emotions through crying, even in the presence of other people. They tend to rely too much on other people and even use others as a secure base to ground their emotions. Pre-Occupied people also tend to be involved more deeply in romantic relationships and less coherent in friendships (Ibid). On the other hand, participants from the Fearful group were rated as having high Anxiety and Avoidance scores. Based on the study by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), people in the Fearful group generally had low levels of self-disclosure and intimacy. Thus, the rarely get romantically involved nor do they rely on others too much (Ibid.). These findings are in congruence with the study by Gentzler, Kerns, and Keener (2010) which greatly emphasize the high correlation between attachment style and emotional reactions and regulatory responses. Calkins and Keane (2009) express the same views in their study, emphasizing that antisocial behavior is rooted early on through the attachments that were and were not established by the patient as a child. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Study One of the shortcomings of this study is the non-probabilistic sampling strategy used to gather participants. Because only convenience sampling was employed in gathering the required data, results that are arrived at may not be entirely conclusive (Fink, 2003). Future research should exert effort in ensuring a probabilistic sampling strategy in order to establish the validity and reliability of the study’s results. It should likewise be noted that scores that determined the Suppression and Reappraisal levels of participants consisted only of two items each, and may not have been sufficient to capture the actual degree of Suppression and Reappraisal levels of the participants. As such, any study conducted in the future may want to utilize a more comprehensive survey scale that would be able to capture more robust data from the participants in terms of their Suppression and Reappraisal levels. A solid review of literature should be another key element that future studies may look at. Due to limited access to more current studies, this research utilized literature that are dated more than ten years ago. A more current set of literature ought to be used in future attempts to replicate the study. References Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (2), 226-244.  Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: an integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (eds.). Attachment theory and close relationships (pp.46-76). New York: Guilford Press. Diamond, L.M., Hicks, H.M., & Otter-Henderson, K. (2006). Physiological evidence for repressive coping among avoidantly attached adults, Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 23, 205-229. Feeney, J, & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291. Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Gentzler, A., Kerns, K., &. Keener, E. (2010). Emotional reactions and regulatory responses to negative and positive events: Associations with attachment and gender, Motivation & Emotion, 34, 78-92. Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationship, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 348-362. Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the mental representation of the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1203-1215. Mikulincer, M. Florian, V. & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of personality and Social psychology, 64, 817-826. Mikulincer, M., P., Shaver, R., & Cassidy, J. (2008). Adult attachment and affect regulation. In Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp. 503-531. Wei, M., Russell, D.W., Manninckrodt, 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. Read More