THE EFFECT OF PARENTAL AND ADULT ATTACHMENT ON AN
INDIVIDUAL’S SENSE OF SELF AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
Navneet Kaur Thind
B.A., University of California, Los Angeles, 2007
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS in
PSYCHOLOGY at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SUMMER
2011

THE EFFECT OF PARENTAL AND ADULT ATTACHMENT ON AN
INDIVIDUAL’S SENSE OF SELF AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
A Thesis by
Navneet Kaur Thind
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Lawrence S. Meyers, Ph.D
__________________________________, Second Reader
Tim Gaffney, Ph.D
__________________________________, Third Reader
Lee P. Berrigan, Ph.D
_____________________________
Date ii

Student: Navneet Kaur Thind
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Date Jianjian Qin, Ph.D
Department of Psychology iii

Abstract of
THE EFFECT OF PARENTAL AND ADULT ATTACHMENT ON AN
INDIVIDUAL’S SENSE OF SELF AND PSYCHOSOCIAL ENVIRONMENT by
Navneet Kaur Thind
Attachment, bonding in a secure, avoidant, or anxious way, can impact a range of domains. This study explored the impact of attachment type (secure, avoidant, or anxious) on seven aspects of personality in 269 introductory psychology students. A total of 10 inventories (Experiences in Close Relationships, Adult Attachment Scale, Parent
Attachment Questionnaire, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Family Relations Index,
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Personality Research
Form, and the Internal Control Index) were administered. The predictors measured attachment with parents, partners, and others. The dependent variables measured impulsivity, achievement, affiliation, locus of control, fear of negative evaluation, trait anxiety, family functioning, eating habits, and ethnic identity exploration. A canonical correlation analysis yielded four significant roots from which three were interpreted. The results suggest that attachment type is a potentially important factor in the formulation of three distinct personality types.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Lawrence S. Meyers iv
_______________________
Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my thesis chair, Dr. Meyers and committee members, Dr.
Berrigan, and Dr. Gaffney for their guidance throughout this entire process. I thank them for their time and consideration. I am especially thankful to Dr. Meyers for helping me with the conceptualization and writing processes of this thesis. Thank you, Dr. Meyers for the opportunities that you have provided me with at Sacramento State. I appreciate your support and patience throughout the last few years. I would have been lost without your direction. I am also very thankful to Dr. Berrigan for his encouragement, support, and faith in my abilities. I am especially appreciative of his advice and assistance during my first year as a graduate student. Thank you, Dr. Berrigan for always having the time to answer my questions. I would also like to thank Dr. Gaffney for volunteering to teach us higher level statistics during his personal time. Thank you, Dr. Gaffney for your perpetual consideration and flexibility. Lastly, I am thankful to my parents, sisters, and friends for their love and words of encouragement during the writing process of my thesis.
Thank you for your confidence in me and pushing me forward when I was faltering. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................... .. vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
The Origin of Attachment ................................................................................. 2
John Bowlby and Attachment Theory .............................................................. 6
Mary Ainsworth and the Formulation of Attachment Styles ............................ 9
Adult Attachment ............................................................................................ 12
Attachment in First Time Interactions ............................................................ 15
Attachment, Anxiety, and Locus of Control ................................................... 16
Attachment and Eating Disorders ................................................................... 18
Attachment and Personality ............................................................................ 19
Attachment, Familial Harmony, and Ethnic Identity Exploration .................. 21
Attachment and Fear of Negative Evaluation ................................................. 23
The Present Study ........................................................................................... 24
Expectations .................................................................................................... 24
2. METHOD .............................................................................................................26
Participants ...................................................................................................... 26
Materials ......................................................................................................... 26
Procedure ........................................................................................................ 34
3. RESULTS .............................................................................................................35
4. DISCUSSION ….............. .....................................................................................51
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 56
References ................................................................................................................... 58 vi

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations ……………………………………...37
2.
Table 2 Intercorrelations Among the Predictors………………………………..39
3.
Table 3 Intercorrelations Among the Criterion Variables…….………….…….41
4.
Table 4 Correlations Between Predictors and Criterion Variables……………..43
5.
Table 5 Multivariate Tests of Significance……………………………………. 44
6.
Table 6 Dimension Reduction Analysis……………………………………......45
7.
Table 7 Eigenvalues and Canonical
Correlations………………………………………………………………….....46
8.
Table 8 Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables
Extracted for the First Function………………………...................................... 47
9.
Table 9 Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables
Extracted for the Second Function……………………………………………...48
10.
Table 10 Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables
Extracted for the Third Function………………………......................................50 vii

1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In society, “attachment” is viewed as a bond formed between two individuals through mutual affection (Bretherton, 1992). However, in psychology, the notion of
“attachment” is more complex and has its own theoretical basis. The development of attachment theory is attributed to two prominent figures, John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. John Bowlby, a psychiatrist and trained psychoanalyst, drew on ideas from disciplines such as psychoanalysis, ethology, behavioral systems, information-processing, and developmental psychology which culminated into the formulation of attachment theory (Bretherton, 1992).
Bowlby became interested in the notion of attachment through his research on affectionless children (Bretherton, 1992). Bowlby believed that an individual’s relationship with his/her caregiver in infancy impacted his/her subsequent relationships and quality of life (Schwartz, Lindley, & Buboltz 2007). Bowlby (1958) describes that infant attachment behavior manifests as “sucking, clinging, crying, following, and smiling” (p. 13).
According to Dilmac, Hamarta, and Arslan (2009), the functions of this attachment behavior are “being close to the caregiver (i.e. mother), and being able to rely on the mother for comfort, protection, and support, as well as using the mother as a secure base that offers support when exploring the climate, and initiating new things” (p. 145).
Although these theories were plausible, it was still necessary to test them in an experimental setting.

2
Mary Ainsworth was integral to the realm of attachment because she empirically tested Bowlby’s theories. Ainsworth is known most for her “strange situation” experiment in which she observed infant-mother attachments. This study yielded three distinct types of attachment—secure, anxious-avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent which were paramount in the field of psychology (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). Furthermore, Cynthia Hazan and Phil
Shaver (1987) built on Bowlby and Ainsworth’s studies on infant-mother attachment and initiated studies on adult attachment in romantic relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed an attachment model in adults which was similar to Ainsworth’s model. Like
Ainsworth, they categorized individuals into three attachment types as well—secure, anxious/doubtful, and avoidant. This model has been successfully refined by others in the field of attachment (Dilmac et al., 2009).
Fruitful research on adult attachment patterns has led to subsequent research on the effect of attachment on a variety of domains such as locus of control, anxiety (Dilmac et al.,
2009), eating disorders (Troisi, Massaroni, & Cuzzolaro, 2005; Evans and Wertheim, 2005), affiliation (Schwartz et al., 2007), achievement (Omivale, 2009), impulsivity (Shaver &
Brennan, 1992; Fossati, Feeney, Carretta, Grazioli, Milesi, Leonardi & Maffei, 2005), and fear of negative evaluation (Anhault, 2001; Erozkan, 2009).
The Origin of Attachment
The concepts of nativism and empiricism centrally affect the development of attachment theory, and date back to Aristotle and Plato (Grossman, 1995). Aristotle, who represented the empiricist school of thought, argued that the “newborn child is devoid not only of all actual intellectual cognition, [but] it also does not yet possess a faculty of

3 intellectual cognition” (George, 1977, p. 8). In his work,
De Anima , Aristotle suggested that the newborn is incapable of intellectual thought; however, the newborn is able to interact with external objects through his/her five senses (Aristotle, trans. 1994) Thus,
Aristotle described the idea that is later coined as “tabula rasa” by John Locke (George,
1977). Conversely, Plato endorsed the nativist perspective, suggesting that humans are born with innate knowledge. In the Phaedo,
Plato (trans. 1994) suggested that “our souls…existed apart from bodies, and they had intelligence” (p. 23). Plato indicated that the human soul is immortal and separate from the body. The soul possesses knowledge and desires to attain truth; however, when the soul enters the body, it becomes confused.
Bodily desires, such as the need for food get in the way of the soul’s desire for truth.
Therefore, if the newborn is born with innate knowledge, it possesses the inborn ability to form an attachment to its caregiver (Plato, trans. 1994).
Moreover, Plato’s observations of parent-child interactions and child-rearing practices were some of the earliest recorded (Grossman, 1995). According to Grossman
(1995), Plato suggested that caretakers should observe how their children respond to them, and thus be able to sense their needs (p. 85). Caretakers should also be vigilant of how their child communicates distress in the first three years of his/her life because it may be integral to his/her future development. Further, Plato believed that “training at a very early age can contribute to the ‘virtue’ of the infant’s soul” (Grossman, 1995, p. 85).
In addition, Darwin’s theory of evolution influences a parent’s attachment with his/her offspring (Grossman, 1995). According to Grossman (1995), “What parents do to their

4 offspring is an expression of their biological endowment,” meaning a parent’s interaction with his/her offspring is to an extent, biologically inherited (p. 86).
Psychoanalytic drive theory, which was posited by Sigmund Freud, is also integral to the formulation of attachment theory (Geyskens & Van Haute, 2007). Freud
(1905) indicated that an individual experiences two drives—the need for nourishment and sexual impulse (Freud, 1905). Thus, a child’s attachment to its mother is contingent upon the reduction of these two drives. Children become attached to their mothers and feel love for them because she satisfies their hunger and offers them protection from the dangers of the outside world (Freud, 1927). Further, Freud (1905) suggested that the infant experiences sexual gratification when his/her vital needs are met. Watters, Crowell,
Elliot, Corcoran, and Treboux (2002) indicate that an individual’s early parent-child interaction becomes a “prototype” for their subsequent relationships (p. 5). Therefore, after an individual outgrows his dependency on his/her mother in infancy, he/she learns to rely on others who help with drive reduction (Freud, 1927).
Drive theory was not only present in the psychoanalysis, but in behaviorism as well. Behaviorists believed that feeding had the most significant role in attachment
(Pendry, 1998). Clark Hull’s drive reduction model suggested that when the mother, a secondary, or learned drive, fulfilled the infant’s primary drive, hunger, pairing occurred.
Through this pairing, the child learned to associate stimuli such as warmth, eye contact, and verbal communicate with feeding (Hull, 1943). Burrhus Frederic Skinner (1974) expounded on Hull’s theory with the idea that specific behavior can be increased through positive reinforcement other than food. Further, Skinner (1974) suggested that praise or

5 toys could be utilized as positive reinforcers, items that increase the probability of a desired behavior. He also believed that a child’s behavior can be decreased in this same way through punishment, which meant that positive reinforcement was taken away from the child. Ultimately, the greater number of reinforced behaviors, the stronger the parentinfant bond (Skinner, 1974).
Studies in the field of ethology countered the behaviorist perspective that attachment was a result of feeding (Bretherton, 1992). Konrad Lorenz (1935) researched imprinting in birds, which suggested that animals had a critical period where they attained the ability to learn, recognize, and become attached to another animal, that is its parent (Lorenz, 1935). Inspired by studies of orphaned infants who died due to a lack of love and attention, Harlow and Zimmerman (1958) researched the concept of attachment in infant rhesus monkeys. In Harlow’s research, the monkeys were separated from their mothers and placed in the care of two synthetic mothers who were equipped with a feeding nipple. One mother was made of wire while the other was covered with terry cloth. Even when the wire mother provided the monkeys with food, they gravitated toward the terry cloth mother for comfort, which contradicted the behaviorist and psychoanalysts’ perspective that feeding was central to attachment (Harlow &
Zimmerman, 1958).
Furthermore, monkeys who never experienced any sort of interaction and were isolated from birth, exhibited more withdrawal and bizarre behaviors than monkeys who were placed in isolation after some social interaction with their mothers and peers. Also, monkeys who were in isolation for six months after birth, showed signs of permanent

6 damage to their social and sexual capabilities. However, the behavioral deficits of monkeys who were in isolation for three months after birth were completely reversible
(Harlow & Mears, 1979). It was believed that the human infants would react in a similar manner because they needed something or someone to provide them with comfort (van der Horst, LeRoy, & van der Veer, 2008).
Jean Piaget (1954), however, maintained that in order for the infant to recognize the loss of his/her mother, he/she needed to understand the idea of object permanence
(Bowlby, 1958). Piaget (1954) ascertained that, initially, a child is unable to discern itself from an object in the environment. Gradually, the child begins to create his/her conceptual world when presented by a myriad of visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile stimuli. After the child is able to reconcile all of these experiences, he/she begins to construct a world full of permanent objects. According to Piaget, a typically developing infant understands the idea of object permanence at nine months. At this point, the child is also able to distinguish between his/her mother, others in his/her world, and strangers
(Piaget, 1954). John Bowlby, however, suggested that an infant was able to become attached to his/her mother before he/she showed cognition of object permanence (Bowlby
1958).
John Bowlby and Attachment Theory
Bowlby published three papers that articulated the development of attachment theory. In his first paper, Bowlby (1958) agreed with Piaget’s view that the infant is unable to perceive an object that is separate from him/her for the first six to nine months of life. In addition, the infant is unaware of any past, present, or distinguishing features

7 associated with the object. At the same time, Bowlby (1958) described that attachment behavior tying the infant to his/her mother is present before he/she is able to discern his or her physical presence. He indicated that an infant’s attachment behavior is comprised of several responses. The first response is crying, in which the mother provides the
“terminating stimuli for crying,” such as food and touch (Bowlby, 1958, p. 18). The second response is an infant’s smile, which is indicative of the fact that he/she is loved and cared for. The third response is following, in which the infant follows his mother’s movements with his/her eyes; the mother also provides the terminating stimuli for this response. The fourth response is an infant’s clinging to his/her mother, which usually strengthens when he/she fears separation from her. The fifth and last response is sucking, which is important because the infant uses it to obtain milk from his/her mother (Bowlby,
1958).
In addition, Bowlby (1951) stated that the mental health and development of an individual is related to his/her relationship with his mother, writing that the “infant or young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent-mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment”
(p.11). Further, Bowlby (1951) indicated that feelings of guilt and anxiety that give rise to ill mental health in individuals are reduced if he/she has unlimited love from his/her parents. When a child does not have such a relationship with his/her mother, he/she is said to be suffering from maternal deprivation. Maternal deprivation refers to a mother who is physically or emotionally absent. The effects of maternal deprivation in infants can be adverse, in some cases leading to deficits in language and social behavior.

8
However, the effects of maternal deprivation are not so severe if infants experience love and care from someone other than their mother or permanent-mother substitute (Bowlby,
1951).
Inspired by Robertson (1953b) and Harlow and Zimmerman’s (1958) work,
Bowlby (1959) published a second paper on separation anxiety which was relevant to maternal deprivation. Bowlby (1959) indicated that traditional theories of psychoanalysis and behaviorism do not explain infants’ intense reaction when they are separated from their mother. Based on his work with Robertson, Bowlby described three phases of a separation response, which are protest , despair , and denial or detachment (Robertson &
Bowlby, 1952). Bowlby (1944) showed the adverse effects of maternal separation in infancy on children later in life. Bowlby (1944) studied 88 children in a child clinic, where 44 were juvenile thieves and 44 were not. Bowlby (1944) concluded that there were more instances of maternal separation in juvenile thieves than in the control group.
According to Bretherton (1992), Bowlby (1960) expounded on the idea of maternal deprivation in his third paper, suggesting that “grief and mourning processes in children and adults appear whenever attachment behaviors are activated but the attachment figure continues to be unavailable” (p. 12). Moreover, Bowlby (1960) indicated that individuals lost the ability to form deep relationships with people if they substituted their initial attachment figure for other individuals too frequently. In his later work with Parkes, Bowlby proceeds to define four main stages of grief which are numbness, yearning and searching for the lost figure, disorganization and despair, and reorganization or letting go of the attachment figure (Bowlby & Parkes, 1970). The ideas

9 described in the three papers formed the tenets of Bowlby’s attachment theory, and Mary
Ainsworth proceeded to validate them empirically through her studies with infant children.
Mary Ainsworth and the Formulation of Attachment Styles
Mary Ainsworth (1969) described attachment as an “affectional tie that one person (or animal) forms to another specific individual” (p. 2). Although the individual’s initial attachment is to his/her mother, attachment can occur at any age with any number of persons. According to Ainsworth (1969), attachment is not indicative of “helplessness” or “immaturity” (p. 2). Ainsworth’s work in the attachment arena began with her study on
Ugandian infants and mothers (Bretherton, 1992).
Ainsworth (1963) observed 26 mother-infant pairs for 2 hours every 2 weeks for
9 months. The infants were all under 24 months of age. The objective of Ainsworth’s research was to study how sensitive mothers were to their infant’s proximity promoting behaviors, which provoked mother-infant contact (Ainsworth, 1963). Ainsworth’s examples of proximity- provoking behaviors were crying, smiling, following, clinging, and sucking (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). The proximity-provoking behaviors employed by
Ainsworth in her research, were analogous to the attachment behavior responses outlined by Bowlby in his 1958 paper.
In her study of Ugandian families, Ainsworth (1963) found that mothers who were defined as “sensitive” were able to provide detailed accounts of their infant’s proximity-provoking behaviors as opposed to mothers who were not perceptive of their infant’s proximity-provoking behaviors. Further, Ainsworth (1963, 1967) found that

10 sensitive mothers had securely attached infants, whereas non-sensitive mothers had insecurely attached infants. Securely attached infants did not cry frequently and were keen on exploring their environments when their mother was present. On the contrary, insecurely attached infants did not explore their environment, cried often, and were not comforted by their mother’s presence. Infants who had not developed any type of attachment to the mother did not show any differential behavior to the mother (Ainsworth,
1963, 1967). Ainsworth (1963, 1967) also noted that mothers of securely attached infants were more enthusiastic to breastfeed than mothers of insecurely attached infants.
After her work with Ugandian infants, Ainsworth conducted a series of experiments based on the strange situation (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). The strange situation took place in a laboratory room where the infant experienced separation from his/her mother, had the chance to interact with a stranger, explore a novel environment, and reunite with his/her mother (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). The strange situation empirically tested Bowlby’s three defining factors of attachment, which were proximity maintenance , secure base , and safe haven . Proximity maintenance referred to an individual’s desire to remain physically close to the attachment figure, and to avoid any separations. Proximity is especially sought when the infant is distressed or afraid of something. When infants are fearful of their environment, they see their mother/caregiver as their safe haven. The mother/caregiver is also the infant’s secure base. When she is around, they feel comfortable exploring their environment (Hazan & Shaver, 1994).
The strange situation was replicated for in a series of studies with various groups of infants and children. Ainsworth categorized the infants into three attachment styles

11 after she analyzed the results of her studies (Ainsworth Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).
Ainsworth et al. (1978) grouped the infants into the following three categories: A, B, and
C. Group A infants were classified as having avoidant insecure attachment (avoidant) , in which the infants ignored their mothers when she returned to them after her hiatus. They did not treat the stranger much differently. Group B infants were classified as having secure attachment.
Securely attached babies explored their environments when the mother was present, cried when she left, stopped crying when she came back, and engaged with the stranger. Group C infants were classified as having resistant-ambivalent insecure (anxious) , in which the infants did not explore their environment in their mother’s presence and were wary of strangers. They were extremely distressed when their mother left them and were not easily consoled when she returned. Upon their mother’s return, the resistant-ambivalent infant sought his/her mother’s arms and did not easily let her put him/her down (Ainsworth et al., 1978).
According to Mary Main (1996), Ainsworth’s three classifications of attachment behavior were insufficient because they did not accurately encompass all infants.
Research in the 1980’s indicated that a percentage of infants exposed to replications of
Ainsworth’s strange situation procedure were found to be unclassifiable (Main, 1996).
Main and Soloman (1990) procured and analyzed 200 videos of unclassifiable infants who participated in replications of the strange situation. Main and Solomon (1990) found that many of these infants displayed odd, unclassifiable behaviors while in the presence of their parents. The infants exhibited trancelike behaviors such as rocking, falling, and freezing of all movement.

12
Main and Solomon (1990) developed a fourth classification of attachment behavior, Group D, and referred to it as insecure-disorganized-disoriented attachment .
Previously unclassifiable infants as well as many infants inaccurately classified as Group
B were now categorized as having an insecure-disorganized-disoriented attachment style
(Main & Solomon, 1990). Main’s work with infant attachment influenced the field of adult attachment, as she assisted with the development of the Adult Attachment Interview
(AAI). Although the AAI did not ask individuals about their adult relationships, it was the first of its kind to question adults about their own childhood attachment experiences and the impact of these experiences on the adults’ behavior and personality development
(George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985).
Adult Attachment
Cindy Hazan and Philip Shaver (1987) were the first to suggest that Bowlby and
Ainsworth’s theories be employed to adult attachment in relationships with significant others. Hazan and Shaver (1987) indicated that the “specific characteristics of parentchild relationships identified by Ainsworth et al. as the probable causes of differences in infant attachment styles are also among the determinants of adult’s romantic attachment styles” (p. 513). Hazan and Shaver (1987) created their own measure of romantic attachment in which they revamped items from previous love-oriented measures and descriptions from Ainsworth’s three infant attachment styles to assess adult attachment in romantic relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that 56% of individuals were classified as secure, 25% were identified as insecure-avoidant, and 19% were identified as insecure-anxious/ambivalent (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). These results were in

13 conjunction with a series of American studies on infant attachment where 62% of infants were secure, 23% were avoidant, and 15% were anxious/ambivalent (Campos, Barrett,
Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983).
Hazan and Shaver (1987) also found that individuals who had secure attachments with their partners reported their relationships as friendly, happy, and trustworthy. Avoidant individuals, on the other hand, experienced inconsistent emotions, jealousy, and feared intimacy in their romantic relationships. Anxious/ambivalent individuals reported extreme sexual attraction to their partners, feelings of obsession and jealousy, and as well as an unquenched desire for reciprocation in their romantic relationships. Securely attached individuals also reported longer lasting relationships than their avoidant and anxious/ambivalent counterparts (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In the same studies, Hazan and Shaver (1987) unearthed that the perceived quality of an individual’s relationship with his/her parent affected the quality of his/her romantic relationships.
Based on their research, Hazan and Shaver (1987) devised the adult attachment questionnaire. Nancy Collins and Stephen Read (1990) studied Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) categorical scale and created their own measure, the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS). The
AAS was created to measure adult attachment style dimensions; the three dimensions that emerged were, close , depend , and anxious . The subscale close referred to the extent to which an individual is comfortable with closeness. The subscale depend referred to how much an individual feels he or she can depend on others, and the subscale anxious referred to an individual’s fear of abandonment and not being loved (Collins & Reed,
1990).

14
Kim Bartholomew and Leonard Horowitz (1991) built on Main and Soloman’s
(1990) four category infant attachment model and proposed their own four category model for adult attachment. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) suggested that the “single detached avoidant category may obscure conceptually separable patterns of avoidance in adulthood” (p. 2). This indicated that Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) wanted to divide Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) avoidant category into two parts. The first category was labeled fearful-avoidant, which incorporated individuals who were avoidant because they felt unworthy of love and anticipated rejection from others. The second category was labeled dismissive-avoidant , which encompassed individuals who felt worthy of love, but desired to protect themselves from disappointment while maintaining their invulnerability and independence. The dismissive-avoidant style corresponds to the dismissive/detached attitude described in Main’s analysis of infants (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
When Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) tested their four category model of attachment, they found evidence for the presence of both dismissive-avoidant and fearful avoidant categories. There was a significant difference in perceptions of self-worth among individuals who were identified as dismissive-avoidant and fearful avoidant.
Although both groups displayed avoidance of close relationships, the fearful-avoidant group was “consistently associated with social insecurity and lack of assertiveness”
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991, p. 15). Based on these four categories, Bartholomew and Horowitz created the Relationship Questionnaire.
Fraley and Waller (1998) indicated that categorical models of attachment were not appropriate for studying variation in romantic attachment. They concluded that the

15 data better adhered to a dimensional model of individual differences (Fraley & Shaver,
2000). In order to test the idea of a dimensional model, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) created a 320-item self report measure which was produced from a multitude of attachment inventories and models. They administered this 320-item measure to a large group of individuals in order to find similarities and differences among the different measures of attachment. Their analyses revealed the emergence of a two dimensional model. The two dimensions were referred to as anxiety and avoidance.
The first dimension, anxiety, referred to anxiety incited by fears of rejection and abandonment.
The second dimension, avoidance, explained feelings of discomfort and reluctance when it came to intimacy and closeness in interpersonal relationships (Brennan, Clark, and
Shaver, 1998). This research led to the formulation of the Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR) measure and later the revised version of the Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR-R) measure (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).
Attachment in First Time Interactions
According to Roisman (2006), the study of attachment has been limited to the examination of interactions with parents and significant others. Therefore, he wanted to study the manifestation of individuals’ attachment styles in first time interactions.
Roisman (2006) contrived an interaction condition which was defined by a puzzleactivity between two individuals. Participants between the ages of 18 and 30 were asked to build a 3-D puzzle with a random person and were administered Main’s AAI in which they were asked about their interactions with their parents during childhood. Roisman
(2006) found that participants who had secure attachments as opposed to insecure

16 attachments with their parents (as measured by the AAI) showed differences in their interactions with their puzzle-building partners. Participants with secure attachment showed more positive emotional engagement with their partners, whereas participants with anxious attachment were more inclined to dominate the task. Participants who had reported attachment avoidance displayed higher levels of negative emotion, and chose not to collaborate on the puzzle-building activity (Roisman, 2006).
Feeney, Cassidy, and Ramos-Marcuse (2008) studied the influence of attachment on support-seeking in first time interactions. Participants had two 10-minute discussions with unfamiliar people before they completed the ECR and AAI measures, which asked them about their relationships with their parents and significant others. Feeney et al.
(2008) found that participants who experienced anxious attachment with their significant others showed support seeking behaviors and a negative/hostile affect. Further, participants who had insecure attachments with their parents also showed hostility toward their discussion partner. Participants who had secure attachments with their parents also showed support-seeking behaviors, however, they were more receptive toward the support that was given to them by their discussion partner (Feeney et al., 2008).
Attachment, Anxiety, and Locus of Control
According to Bowlby (1959), separation anxiety in children played a significant role in the development of anxiety later in life. Bowlby (1959) suggested that when the child’s secure base (the parent) was separated from the child, the child became anxious and protested to elicit a reunion. Troisi et al. (2005) expounded on this idea and researched separation anxiety in childhood and attachment. Their findings indicated that

17 women with insecure attachment reported more severe separation anxiety during their early childhood than women with secure attachment (Troisi et al., 2005).
Research also shows that the quality of early parent-child relationships influences the development of anxiety (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). Individuals with controlling parents who show a lack of warmth and sensitivity are more likely to suffer from excessive anxiety in their adulthood. These individuals typically grow up to have an anxious (or preoccupied) attachment style (Parker, 1983). Dumas, LaFreniere, and
Serketich (1995) observed mother-child dyads, and discovered that children of mothers who exerted “aversive control” over their children experienced more anxiety than mothers who did not (p. 11). The idea of aversive control was defined by attempts to elicit compliance through humiliation, criticism, and intrusion (Dumas et al., 1995).
Dilmac et al. (2009) studied the relationship between parental attachment, anxiety, and locus of control in 480 university students. Participants completed measures of adult attachment in close relationships (ECR), anxiety (State-Trait Inventory), and locus of control (The Rotter Locus of Control Scale). Dilmac et al. (2009) discovered that participants with anxious attachment experienced significantly higher levels of trait anxiety than participants with secure and avoidant attachment. There was also a significant difference in locus of control among the groups of students. Participants with anxious attachment possessed a significantly lower internal locus of control than participants with secure attachment. Participants suffering from attachment avoidance also exhibited a lower internal locus of control when compared to participants with secure attachment. However, the difference was not significant (Dilmac et al., 2009).

18
Hexel (2003) also studied adult attachment styles, locus of control, and alexithymia in 220 undergraduate students. Alexithymia is described as the inability to express emotion through words. Results from the study revealed that participants with secure attachment reported a high internal locus of control, more confidence, and low alexithymia, whereas participants with insecure attachment experienced a lower internal locus of control and higher alexithymia (Hexel, 2003).
Attachment and Eating Disorders
Troisi et al. (2005) researched attachment, separation anxiety, and eating disorders in two groups of women. The separation anxiety symptom inventory (SASI) and the attachment style questionnaire (ASQ) were administered to 78 healthy women and 64 women with eating disorders. Their results suggested that most women with eating disorders experienced anxious attachment and severe forms of separation anxiety during their childhood. Most women in the control group reported secure attachment and less severe forms of separation anxiety in their childhood (Troisi et al., 2005).
Evans and Wertheim (2005) looked at adult attachment styles in clinically depressed women, women diagnosed with bulimia nervosa, and women without either of these diagnoses (the control group). The results from this study indicated that women who were depressed or had bulimia nervosa reported high levels of attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety. They also reported significantly higher levels of dissatisfaction and negativity toward their partners. However, women with attachment anxiety reported depressive symptoms and more negativity toward their partners than secure and avoidant women. Women with no eating disorders or depressive symptoms did not report

19 attachment anxiety or avoidance. Also, women with attachment avoidance reported significantly longer relationships than any of the other groups (Evans & Wertheim, 2005).
Evans and Wertheim (2005) suggested that women with secure attachment were more likely to end a negative relationship, whereas women suffering from attachment avoidance did not. Instead, they dealt with unhappy relationships through avoidance and bulimia (Evans & Wertheim, 2005).
Attachment and Personality
Previous research shows that attachment type affects certain aspects of personality such as affiliation (Schwartz et al., 2007). Bowlby (1959) initially posed that attachment is related to affiliation. Schwartz et al. (2007) studied 322 participants and discovered that those with anxious and avoidant attachments showed differences in need for affiliation. The research showed that participants with attachment avoidance were less likely than those with secure and anxious to seek affiliation with others. Participants with attachment avoidance were not intent on seeking affiliation for support and positive stimulation (Schwartz et al., 2007). Bartholomew (1990) indicated that avoidant individuals distance themselves from others because they fear rejection. Anxious individuals, on the contrary, were inclined to affiliate with others for attention, social comparison, and positive stimulation, demonstrating that they need others to validate them (Schwartz et al., 2007).
Omivale (2009) studied the effect of attachment style on another domain of personality, achievement, in 122 undergraduate psychology students. Achievement goal orientations such as mastery-approach and performance-approach orientations were also

20 examined. Students displaying secure attachment had a higher need for achievement and displayed decreased fear of failure. However, students with insecure attachment displayed a lower need for achievement and an increased fear of failure. Further, students with secure attachment perceived that they possessed the potential for success in the task at hand, whereas insecure students did not (Omivale, 2009).
Secure students also demonstrated a mastery-approach goal orientation, in which they desired to learn the material for the sake of learning it. Anxious students, on the other hand, demonstrated a performance-approach goal orientation, which meant that they learned the material not for the sake of learning it, but because they wanted to attain positive reinforcement (a good grade). Avoidant students showed mastery-avoidance goal orientation, meaning their motivation for doing well was the idea that they would appear incompetent to others if they did not (Omivale, 2009).
Another potentially important variable affected by attachment type is borderline personality disorder. Specific symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) such as impulsivity and aggression show higher degrees of manifestation in individuals with attachment problems. Fossati et al. (2005) examined adult attachment and its role in BPD in 470 clinical outpatients. The study concluded that there was a relationship between attachment style and impulsivity/aggression, which are indirect risk factors of BPD.
Fossati et al. (2005) found that impulsivity was negatively correlated with attachment avoidance. They suggested that the avoidance of intimacy and close relationships
“require some inhibition of the subject’s impulse response” (Fossati et al., 2005, p. 533).
Fossati et al. (2005) also posed that individuals with attachment avoidance have learned

21 to completely shut out “attachment-related concerns… as a result of repeated experiences in which parents discourage emotional expression and encourage self-reliance” (p. 533).
Lastly, Shaver and Brennan (1992) indicated that individuals with attachment anxiety have also demonstrated higher levels of impulsivity.
Attachment, Familial Harmony, and Ethnic Identity Exploration
According to Byng-Hall (1999), family is integral to attachment because it contributes to an individual’s attachment by serving as its secure base (Bowlby, 1969).
Planitz, Feeney, and Peterson (2009) studied attachment patterns in biological families and stepfamilies. Their results supported the hypothesis that individuals in stepfamilies would show more insecure attachment in their relationships than individuals in biological families. Individuals from stepfamilies who showed secure attachment had positive relationships with their (divorced) biological parents, which in turn led them to have positive relationships with their stepparents. Further, securely attached individuals from stepfamilies reported their (divorced) biological parents as having more frequent contact than those of insecurely attached individuals. Thus, an individual’s sense of secure attachment in his/her stepfamily is contingent upon his/her relationships with his/her parents, and their relationships with each other (Planitz et al., 2009).
In addition, Merz and Consedine (2009) examined adult attachment style, family support, and well-being later in life, and found that securely attached individuals reported more familial support and well being later in life than individuals experiencing anxious or avoidant attachment. Anxious individuals, however, reported greater well being in later life than avoidant individuals.

22
Hinnen, Sanderman and Springers (2009) also studied family, attachment, and life satisfaction in older age. Participants in this study were administered self-report measures based on familial experiences, adult attachment, childhood memories, and life satisfaction. Hinnen et al. (2009) reported that individuals with secure attachment experienced more familial warmth, harmony and parental support, and individuals with insecure attachment experienced more parental rejection and negative childhood experiences (such as abuse and parental psychopathy).
Further, securely attached individuals rated their lives as more satisfying than individuals with insecure attachment. Anxious individuals remembered their parents as
“critical” and their familial environments as “less warm” which caused them to “seek the approval and fear the rejection and abandonment of others” (Hinnen et al., 2009, p. 18).
However, avoidant individuals “learned to be self-reliant with a tendency to not seek support and care” as their families were unresponsive, and parents, either physically or emotionally absent (Hinnen et al., 2009, p. 18).
Familial and parental support is also seen as integral to ethnic identity exploration.
Wittrock’s (2007) studied ethnic identity exploration in 88 adolescents. He found that there was a correlation between family support and commitment and exploration of ethnic identity. The impact of maternal support on ethnic identity exploration and commitment was the strongest. When an individual is in an environment where his/her ethnicity is valued and supported, he/she develops a healthy ethnic identity. This environment is initially created by his/her parents and family (Wittrock, 2007).

23
Attachment and Fear of Negative Evaluation
Erozkan (2007) suggested that individuals learn their fear of rejection and negative evaluation early in childhood when their parents reject their attempts to find acceptance. Thus, they begin to feel anxious and anticipate rejection from their significant others (Erozkan, 2007). Erozkan (2009) studied rejection and fear of negative evaluation in 600 individuals. Erozkan (2009) discovered that individuals with avoidant and anxious attachment were more prone to perceiving rejection and fear of negative evaluation than individuals with secure attachment. Individuals with anxious attachment were the most likely to fear negative evaluation and rejection. Erozkan (2009) suggested that these individuals felt this way because they had a negative view of others and themselves.
Anhalt (2001) examined several variables including social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation in 434 students who experienced various parenting styles. The results showed that individuals with mothers who encouraged isolation (as measured by Parental
Attitude Toward Child Rearing Years Instrument) were more likely to exhibit social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. Further, individuals whose parents were labeled as showing affectionless control and affectionate constraint (scales measured by the
Parental Bonding Instrument) had higher levels of social anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, general anxiety, and depression.
Eng, Heimberg, Hart, Schneier, and Liebowitz (2001) also studied the effect of attachment styles on social anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction in 118 individuals.
Eng et al. (2001) discovered that individuals with anxious attachment showed higher

24 levels of social anxiety, depression, avoidance, and less life satisfaction. Van Buren and
Cooley (2002) examined attachment style, depression, negative affect, and social anxiety in 293 college students. Their findings indicated that individuals with attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety reported more negative affect and depression; however, only individuals with attachment anxiety reported increased social anxiety and depression.
The Present Study
The current study sought to examine the extent to which attachment to parents, significant others, and individuals in general manifests in the domains discussed (anxiety, locus of control, eating behavior, personality, fear of negative evaluation, and familial harmony). Participants also responded to items concerning their ethnic identity.
Expectations
First, it was expected that individuals with secure attachment would have a high locus of control, familial harmony, achievement, affiliation and connectedness to their ethnic background than individuals with attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance. In addition, they were expected to experience lower levels of anxiety, disorderly eating and fear of negative evaluation.
Second, it was expected that individuals with attachment anxiety would exhibit higher levels of trait anxiety, impulsivity, fear of negative evaluation, disorderly eating, and familial disharmony. It was also expected that they would experience a lower locus of control than individuals with secure attachment and attachment avoidance, and they would have a decreased drive to achieve when compared to secure individuals.

25
Third, it was expected that avoidant individuals would have a lesser need to affiliate with others than their anxious and secure counterparts. It was also expected that avoidant individuals would experience higher incidences of disorderly eating and familial disharmony than secure individuals, but not anxious individuals. Further, individuals with attachment avoidance were expected to experience a lower locus of control and fear of negative evaluation than anxious individuals, but not secure individuals. Lastly, avoidant individuals would have the least need to achieve when compared to both secure and anxious individuals.

26
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Two hundred and sixty nine participants were selected from the Psychology
Department’s human subject pool California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). The participants were enrolled as full time undergraduate students who were taking introductory courses in psychology at CSUS. In exchange for their participation, participants received one hour of credit. Of the 269 participants, 43 (16%) were male and
226 were female (84%). The sample was ethnically varied, consisting of 105 Caucasian
(39%), 34 African-American (12.6%), 64 Hispanic (23.8%), and 66 Asian/Pacific-
Islander (24.5) participants. The mean age of the participants was 21.15 and the standard deviation was 5.63. The minimum age of the participants was 17 and the maximum age was 64. The median age of the participants was 20 and the mode was 19.
Materials
Demographics
The participants responded to questions about their ethnicity, level of spirituality, age, and sex.
The Brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
The Brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (BFNE; Leary, 1983) which is a shorter version of the 30-item Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE;
Watson & Friend, 1969) was used. This scale measures a participant’s social anxiety as

27 well as his/her fear of receiving negative evaluation from another person. The BFNE consists of 12 items (e.g., “I worry about what other people will think of me even when I know it doesn’t make any difference”) and utilizes a 5-point scale (1 = not at all characteristic of me and 5 = extremely characteristic of me ). Higher scores on the BFNE indicate increased levels of fear of negative evaluation whereas lower scores on the
BFNE indicate lower levels of fear of negative evaluation (Leary, 1983). The internal consistency of the BFNE is high, with a coefficient of .90 (Leary, 1983). The test-retest correlation of the BFNE is .75 over a 4-week period (Leary, 1983). When it comes to validity, the BFNE has a correlation of .77 with the social-approval seeking scale on
Jackson’s Personality Research Form (Leary, 1983).
The Index of Family Relations
The Index of Family Relations (IFR; Hudson, 1993) was used to measure the magnitude of familial problems and functioning as perceived by the participant. The IFR consists of 25 items, (e.g., “There seems to be a lot of friction in my family”) and uses 5point scale ranging from 1 ( rarely or none of the time ) to 7 ( most or all of the time ). The
IFR has two cutting scores. Scores above 30 indicate the presence of a clinically significant problem and scores above 70 suggest that the test taker is suffering from serious stress and may be using violence to deal with the problem (Hudson, 1993). The internal consistency of the IFR as measured by coefficient
is .95 and the Standard
Error of Measurement is 3.65 (Hudson, 1993). According to Fischer and Corcoran (1994) the IFR is said to have good known-groups validity and good construct validity as it correlates highly with other parent-child and family relationship ratings (p.38).

28
Parental Attachment Questionnaire
A modified version of the Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1985) was used. Seven items were eliminated in order to shorten the questionnaire. Thus 48 of the original 55 items from the PAQ were used. The PAQ (e.g., “When I go to my parents for help, I am disappointed with their response”) measures how participants perceive their relationships with their parents. The PAQ consists of three scales (Parents as
Facilitators of Autonomy, Parents as Sources of Emotional Support, and Perceived
Affective Quality of Individuals’ Relationships with Their Parents). The PAQ uses a 5point scale which ranges from 1 ( Not at All 0-10% ) to 5 ( Very Much 91%-100% ); (Kenny,
1985).
The internal consistency of the three scales as measured by coefficient alpha ranges from .88 to .92, and the test-retest reliability after two weeks is .92 (Kenny & Donaldson,
1991). The PAQ scales have good predictive validity when correlated with the subscales of the Moos Family Environment Scale. Reportedly, there are significant correlations between the PAQ Affective quality of relationships and the FES Cohesion scales ( r =.51); the PAQ Parents as Sources of Emotional Support and the FES Cohesion have a significant correlation ( r =.45); also, the Parents as Facilitators of Autonomy scale is highly correlated with the FES Expressiveness scale ( r =.33), the FES Independence scale
( r =.33), and the FES Control scale ( r = -.40) (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991).
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Revised
The 6-item Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure Revised (MEIM-R; Phinney &
Ong, 2007) was used as well. The MEIM-R utilizes two subscales, Exploration and

29
Commitment. Exploration is defined by how often a subject has sought out experiences and information relevant to his/her ethnic identity. The Commitment scale assesses an individual’s attachment to and investment in his/her own ethnic identity. The MEIM-R makes use of a 5-point scale which ranges from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). The MEIM-R (e.g., “I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group” and “I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs”) was used in this study to determine if perceived connectedness to one’s ethnic identity correlates with secure relationships with parents and others
(Phinney & Ong, 2007). The original MEIM raised validity concerns; thus, the MEIM-R was created and tested against the Ethnic Identity Achievement Scale, which showed improved validity. The scale has GFI values above .96 on various occasions and a combined internal consistency of .81 as measured by coefficient alpha (Ponterotto &
Park-Taylor, 2007).
Eating Attitudes Test
Thirty nine items from the 40-item Eating Attitudes Test (EAT; Garner &
Garfinkel, 1979) were used in this study. One item was eliminated because it was not suitable for male participants. This instrument measures whether a participant has eating concerns, and if he/she shows symptoms of anorexia. The scoring for the EAT (e.g., “I think about burning calories when I exercise” and “I give too much time and thought to food”) is done on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 ( always ) to 6 ( never ) (Garner &
Garfinkel, 1979). A score above 30 on the instrument indicates anorectic eating concerns
(Fischer & Corcoran, 1994).

30
The internal consistency as measured by coefficient alpha for both anorexic and normal populations is .94 and .79 respectively (Garner & Garfinkel, 1979). The EAT was tested for known-groups validity, and scores varied significantly for anorexics and normal populations indicating that the instrument is able to differentiate between anorexic and normal populations. However, post-hoc analyses of scores from a group of recovered anorexics revealed that scores were in the normal range, suggesting that the scale is sensitive to change (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994).
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2 Self Report Questionnaire
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2 Self Report Questionnaire also known as the T-Anxiety scale (STAI-T; Spielberger, 1983) was used in this study. This
20-item questionnaire (e.g., “I feel inadequate and I get in a state of tension or turmoil as
I think over my recent concerns and interests”) measures how anxious a participant generally feels on a 4-point scale ranging from 1( almost never ) to 4 ( almost always ) .
The portion of the scale administered to the participants measured anxiety as a permanent trait rather than a temporary state. Scores on the STAI-T can vary from 20-80 where higher scores indicate elevated anxiety (Spielberger, 1983).
The T-anxiety scale has a test-retest reliability of .68 in males and .65 in females after
60 days. The internal consistency of the T-anxiety scale is .90 as measured by coefficient alpha (Spielberger, 1983). The concurrent validity of the STAI-T has been tested against
The Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) and The Manifest Anxiety Scales (MAS). The
STAI-T has a correlation of .73 with the ASQ and .85 with the MAS (Spielberger, 1983).

31
Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index
The study also utilized the Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index (DICI; Duttweiler,
1984) which consists of 28 items (e.g., “I stick to my opinions when someone disagrees with me”). The DICI measures a participant’s internal locus of control, autonomy, resistance to social influences, and self-confidence. The index uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( rarely less than 10% of the time ) to 5 ( usually more than 90% of the time ). The total scores obtained on the Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index should be between 28 and 140, where higher scores are equivalent to a higher internal locus of control (Duttweiler, 1984). The DICI has an internal consistency of .85 as measured by coefficient alpha (Duttweiler, 1984). The DICI has been tested for concurrent validity using the Mirels’ Factor I of the Rotter I-E Scale. Although the correlation between the two indices is low, it is significant (Duttweiler, 1984).
Personality Research Form E
The study made use of the 352-item Personality Research Form E (PRF; Jackson,
1974). However, only three of the instrument’s 22 scales were used. Thus, 45 items of the total 352 items were used for the purposes of this study. The participants responded to items from three scales (Affiliation, Achievement and Impulsivity). The 45 items (e.g.,
“People should be more involved with their work” and “I go out of my way to meet people”) were presented in the study mimic the order of the 352 items on the PRF-E
(Jackson, 1974).
The Achievement scale measures a subject’s ambition and desire to accomplish difficult tasks and compete with others, whereas the Affiliation scale measures a subject’s

32 desire to be around other people, maintain friendships and develop warm relationships.
The Impulsivity scale gauges the intensity of the subject’s uninhibited behavior and his/her tendency to act without deliberation (Jackson, 1974). Higher scores on each scale are equivalent to increased levels of achievement, affiliation, and impulsivity respectively.
The scales use a “True” and “False” scoring system where 1 ( true ) and 0 ( false ) or vice versa depending on if the statement is positively or negatively worded (Jackson, 1974).
The reliability coefficients for the psychiatric and normal samples on the
Achievement, Affiliation, Impulsivity scales on the PRF-E are: .66 and .57, .82 and .86, and .77 and .85, respectively (Jackson, 1974). The validity of the PRF has been tested against several instruments, i.e. Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI), Bentler
Psychological Inventory (BPI), Bentler Interactive Psychological Inventory (BIPI), and
Cattell’s High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) (Jackson, 1974).
Revised Adult Attachment Scale
The 18-item Revised Adult Attachment Scale (RAAS; Collins & Read, 1990) measured the participants’ feelings about close relationships in general. The subjects were asked to not think of their relationships with their family members or friends when responding to the items on this scale. Three subscales from this measure were used
(Close, Depend, and Anxious); (e.g., “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others” and “I am nervous when anyone gets too close;” Collins & Read, 1990). The
Close subscale determines how comfortable an individual feels with closeness in relationships. The Depend and Anxious subscales measure an individual’s capacity to depend on others and his/her fear of being abandoned respectively. Depending on how

33 the participants score within the aforementioned subscales, they will be classified as having an avoidant, anxious or secure attachment style (Collins & Read, 1990).
The RAAS uses a 5-point scale ranging from 1 ( not at all characteristic ) to 5
( very characteristic ). Each subscale is comprised of six items. The internal consistencies of the three scales range from .69 to .75, and the test-retest reliabilities for the subscales range from .52 to .71 (Collins & Read, 1990). The concurrent and discriminant validity of the RAAS has been tested against the Adult Relationship Questionnaire (ARQ) which showed that the scales from the RAAS and ARQ are highly correlated (Domingo &
Chambliss, 1998).
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised
The 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R; Fraley et al.,
2000) asked participants how they felt toward their current partner or how they would feel toward a partner if they don’t have one. The Anxiety and Avoidance scales from the
ECR-R inventory were used. Attachment related anxiety in this case refers to a participant’s fear that his/her partner will leave him, whereas attachment related
Avoidance refers to a participant’s difficulty to get close to their partner (e.g., “I’m afraid that I will lose my partner’s love” and “I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner”).
The ECR-R uses a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7
( strongly agree ) (Fraley et al., 2000). The internal consistency for both scales on the
ECR-R is above .91 as measured by coefficient alpha (Schwartz et al., 2007). The construct validity for the ECR-R is good and reportedly better than its predecessor, the
Relationships Questionnaire (Fraley et al., 2000).

34
Procedure
The participants were given a 16-page packet of 10 inventories. Each packet had a different random order of inventories. However, the researcher ensured that the RAAS,
PAQ, and the ECR-R inventories were not consecutively placed because they all measured aspects of attachment. The demographics page was the last page of each packet.
The researcher asked the participants to complete the packet in the order it was received.
After the participants finished, the researcher orally debriefed them and answered any questions. The researcher also gave them a handout explaining the debriefing information.
All participants were treated in accordance with APA ethics guidelines.

35
Chapter 3
RESULTS
A canonical correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between three measures of attachment and seven other measures. Scales from the three attachment-related inventories served as predictors, and scales from the other seven inventories served as the criterion variables. The predictors included scales from the
ECR-R, RAAS, and the PAQ. Two scales (Attachment Anxiety and Attachment
Avoidance) from the ECR-R were used, and three scales from the PAQ (Parents as
Facilitators of Autonomy, Parents as Sources of Emotional Support, and Perceived
Affective Quality of Individuals’ Relationships with Their Parents) were used. Three scales from the Revised RAAS (Anxious, Close, and Depend) were used.
The criterion variables used in the analysis were the Index of Family
Relationships, The Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale, Eating
Attitudes Test, Stait Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2, Duttweiler’s Internal Control
Index, the Personality Research Form-E (PRF-E), and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity
Measure Revised (MEIM-R). Three scales from the PRF-E (Affiliation, Achievement, and Impulsivity) and two scales from the MEIM-R (Exploration and Commitment) were used.

36
The means and standard deviations for the predictors and criterion variables in this study were similar to the means and standard deviations of the normative samples.
There was very little, if any deviation from the normative sample. The means and standard deviations for this study are presented in Table 1.

37
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
Scale
Attachment Anxiety (ECR-R)
Attachment Avoidance (ECR-R)
Attachment Close (RAAS)
Attachment Depend (RAAS)
Attachment Anxious (RAAS)
Parent Autonomy (PAQ)
Parent Support (PAQ)
Affective Quality of Relationships (PAQ)
Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale
The Index of Family Relations
Exploration (MEIM-R)
Mean
3.17
2.83
3.17
2.79
2.86
3.51
3.67
3.82
2.95
15.28
SD
1.15
1.07
.45
.36
.43
.72
.69
.61
.86
13.60
3.25
3.58
1.02
.99 Commitment (MEIM-R)
Eat Attitudes Test
State Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y)
Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index
Affiliation (PRF-E)
Impulsivity (PRF-E)
Achievement (PRF-E)
14.68
42.42
101.27
9.64
6.10
9.32
10.33
10.72
13.19
3.48
2.88
2.89
Note.
Parent Autonomy = Parents as Facilitators of Autonomy; Parent Support = Parents as Sources of Emotional Support.

38
The correlations for the predictors in this study are presented in Table 2. The scale
Affective Quality of Relationships, which was taken from the PAQ, was eliminated from further analyses because it correlated too highly with the other two scales (Parents as
Sources of Emotional Support and Parents as Facilitators of Autonomy) from the same questionnaire. As shown in Table 2, participants who experienced higher levels of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance in their relationships with significant others experienced lower quality relationships with their parents. In addition, participants with high attachment avoidance also experienced anxiousness, and the inability to feel close to individuals outside of their family, friends, and significant others. Further, participants who had the ability to depend on individuals outside of their family, friends, and significant others had an easier time feeling close to them as well.

39
Table 2
Intercorrelations Among the Predictors
Attachment
Anxiety
Attachment
Avoidance
Attachment
Depend
Attachment
Anxious
Attachment
Close
Parent
Autonomy
Parent
Support
Affective
Quality of
Relationships
1
-
.412**
-.06
.00
.02
-.20**
-.23**
-.35**
2
.412**
-
-.09
-.21**
-.33**
-.08
-.23**
-.29**
3
-.06
-.09
-
-.01
.13*
-.03
-.05
-.23**
4
.02
-.21**
-.01
-
.17*
-.16*
.00
.47**
5
.00
.13**
.17**
-
.07
.11
.37**
6
-.20**
-.33** -.08
-.03
-.16**
.07
-
.54**
.75**
7
-.23**
-.23**
-.05
.00
.11
.54**
-
.72**
8
-.35**
-.29**
-.23**
.47**
.37**
.75**
.72**
-

40
The correlations for the criterion variables are presented in Table 3. The variable
Multiethnic Commitment from the MEIM-R was eliminated from further analyses because it correlated too highly with Multiethnic Exploration, another variable from the same questionnaire. As shown in Table 3, participants who showed signs of anorexic behavior experienced high levels of fear of negative evaluation, trait anxiety, and impulsivity. These participants also showed low levels of familial harmony, internal locus of control, and a lesser desire to explore their ethnic identity. Participants who feared negative evaluation from others experienced familial disharmony, a low internal locus of control, and high trait anxiety. In addition, participants with problematic family relations experienced high trait anxiety, a low internal locus of control, lack of achievement, and a lesser need to explore their ethnic origins. Participants who wanted to explore their ethnic origins had a higher internal locus of control and experienced a greater need for affiliation and achievement. A higher internal locus of control was associated with a greater need to affiliate with others and a lack of impulsivity. High trait anxiety was associated with high impulsivity, and a lack of achievement and affiliation.
High achievement was associated with a greater need for affiliation and lower levels of impulsivity.

41
Table 3
Intercorrelations Among the Criterion Variables
Eat Disorder
Fear Negative
Index of Family
Relations
Exploration
Commitment
Locus of Control
Trait Anxiety
1
-
.48**
-.18**
-.19**
-.19**
-.26**
.42**
2
.48**
-
-.22*
-.11
-.11
-.45**
.62**
3
-.18**
-.22**
-
-.23**
-.29**
-.23**
-.39**
4
-.19**
-.11
-.23**
-
.64**
.24**
-.19**
5
-.19**
-.11
.-29**
.64**
-
.21**
-.17**
6
-26**
-.45**
-.23**
.24**
.21**
-
-.49**
7
.42**
.62**
-.39**
-.19**
-.17**
-.49**
-
8
-.03
-.12
-.14*
.13*
.16**
.38**
-.18**
9
-.02
.10
.13*
.01
.04
.05
-.22**
10
.14*
.09
.00
-.05
-.08
-.24**
.17**
Achievement
Affiliation
-.03
-.02
-.12*
-.10
-.14*
-.13*
.13*
.01
.16**
.04
.38**
.05
-.18**
-.22**
-
-.19** -
.19** -.16**
.10
Impulsivity .14* .09 .00 -.05 -.08 -.24** .17** -.16** .10 -
Note . **Correlation is significant at the .01 level. * Correlation is significant at the .05 level. Eat Disorder = Eating Attitudes Test; Fear of
Negative = Fear of Negative Evaluation; Locus of Control = Duttweiler’s Internal Control Index.

42
Table 4 shows the correlations between the predictor and criterion variables.
Attachment anxiety in relationships with significant others was associated with fear of negative evaluation, familial disharmony, trait anxiety, impulsivity, and low internal locus of control. Attachment avoidance was also related to familial disharmony, trait anxiety, low internal locus of a control, and a lack of affiliation with others. The ability to depend on others outside of family, friends and significant others was associated with a low internal locus of control. Further, participants who had the need to feel close to individuals outside of their family, friends and significant others had higher levels of trait anxiety and affiliation. Participants who perceived their parents as facilitators of autonomy had a higher internal locus of control, low trait anxiety, familial harmony, and lacked fear of negative evaluation. Lastly, participants who perceived their parents as a source of emotional support possessed a higher need for affiliation and exploration of their ethnic identity. These participants also experienced a higher internal locus of control, and lower levels of familial disharmony, trait anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation.

43
Table 4
Correlations Between Predictors and Criterion Variables
Attachment
Anxiety
Eat
Disorder
.27**
Fear
Negative
.48**
Index
Family
Relations
.29**
Multiethnic
Exploration
-.06
.05 .09 .19** -.06 Attachment
Avoidance
Attachment
Depend
-.03 -.09 .03 -.05
Attachment
Anxious
Attachment
Close
Parent
Autonomy
Parent
Support
-.03
-.04
-.08
-.08
.00
-.01
-.13**
-.17**
.06
-.08
-.47**
-.76**
.10
-.02
-.01
.21**
Locus of
Control
-.37**
-.18**
-.12*
.00
.03
.18**
.19**
Trait
Anxiety
.57**
.32**
-.07
-.11
.21**
-.30**
-.35**
Achievement Affiliation Impulsivity
-.05
-.07
.03
-.04
.11
.06
.11
.00
-.17**
.10
.07
.29**
.07
.14*
.22**
.07
-.06
.02
.00
-.01
.02
Note . **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

44
Table 5 presents the multivariate tests of the canonical relationship between the predictor and criterion variates. The full model was statistically significant across all functions using Wilk’s λ. Therefore, there was a statistically significant relationship between the predictor and criterion variates. Wilk’s λ represents variance that was not explained by the full model. As shown, Wilk’s λ = .18; thus, the full model explained
82% of the variance shared between the variable sets.
Table 5
Multivariate Tests of Significance
Test Name
Pillai’s
Hotelling’s
Wilk’s
Roy’s
Value
.63
1.28
2.56
.18
Approx F. Hypoth. DF Error DF
6.41 63 1813
10.20
8.17
63
63
1759
1431.02
Sig. of F
.00
.00
.00
The dimension reduction analysis was also conducted, and is presented in Table
6. The dimension reduction analysis is a step-down analysis of each of the roots. For example, the first row in Table 6 is identical to the results of the intial Wilk’s test because they test all roots combined for significance. Then, the second row tests roots 2 through 7 for significance. The third row tests roots 3 through 7 for significance, and so on. The last root (root 7) is tested in isolation. As shown, 4 of 7 roots were significant, accounting for
97% of the explained variance. Roots 5 through 7 did not explain a statistically significant amount of shared variance between the variable sets.

45
7 to 7
Table 6
Dimension Reduction Analysis
Roots
Wilk’s L.
F
1 to 7 .18 8.17
2 to 7 .48 4.18
.71 2.56 3 to 7
4 to 7
5 to 7
6 to 7
.84
.92
.98
.99
1.96
1.40
.50
.39
Hypoth. DF Error DF Sig. of F
63
48
35
24
15
8
3
1431.02
1253.8
1075.12
894.29
709.87
516
259
.00
.00
.00
.04
.14
.86
.76
The eigenvalues and canonical correlations are shown in Table 7. The eigenvalue is a measure of effect size; it explains how much of a particular root’s variance is attributable to the canonical function as opposed to error. In this analysis, the eigenvalue of the first root is 1.71, which indicates that more variance in root 1 is attributable to the canonical function rather than error. However, the eigenvalues of the subsequent roots (2 through 4) are below 1, which suggests that their interpretation may be less compelling. Although roots 2 and 3 only accounted for 19% and 7% of the explained variance, respectively, they were interpreted because this was an exploratory analysis. The fourth root, although statistically significant in the dimension reduction analysis, was not interpreted because it only had an eigenvalue of .10 and explained only
4% of the explained variance.

46
Table 7
Eigenvalues and Canonical Correlations
Roots
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Eigenvalue
1.71
.50
.17
.10
.07
.01
.00
%
67.16
18.87
6.96
4.05
2.63
.43
.18
Cum. %
64.16
86.02
92.71
96.76
98.39
99.82
100.00
Can. Cor
.79
.57
.38
.31
.25
.10
.07
Sq. cor
.63
.32
.15
.09
.06
.01
.00
The predictors and criterion variables for the first function are shown in Table 8.
The values in bold indicate the variables that define the first function. Results from the first canonical function suggest that individuals who feel secure in their relationships with their parents and significant others report having a higher sense of autonomy, self control, and low levels of anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, and familial disharmony.
The results for the first canonical function supported the first expectation.
Individuals with secure attachment had higher familial harmony and locus of control.
They also experienced lower levels of anxiety and fear of negative evaluation. However, secure individuals did not differ in connectedness to their ethnic background from anxious individuals.

47
Table 8
Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables Extracted for the First
Function
Predictors
Parent Support
Structure
Coefficients
.62
Criterion Variables Structure
Coefficients
Trait Anxiety -.66
Family Relations Parent Autonomy .92
Attachment Anxiety -.56
-.94
-.22 Eat Disorder
Fear of Negative Attachment Avoid -.34
Attachment Close .16
-.41
.21 Ethnic Identity
Locus of Control Attachment Anxious -.02
Attachment Depend .00 Achievement
.38
.15
Affiliation
Impulsivity
.17
-.09
Note. Family Relations = Index of Family Relations; Eat Disorder = Eating Attitudes Test;
Fear of Negative = Fear of Negative Evaluation; Attachment Anxious = Attachment anxiety in relationships outside of family and significant others.
The predictors and the criterion variables for the second function are shown in
Table 9. The values in bold indicate the variables that define the second function. Results from the second canonical function suggest that individuals who do not feel secure in relationships with their significant others and fear that their partners will leave them show elevated levels of anxiety, anorexic behavior, fear of negative evaluation, impulsive behavior, and lower levels of self confidence and sense of autonomy.

48
The results of the second canonical function mainly supported the second expectation. The results showed that individuals with high attachment anxiety experienced higher levels of trait anxiety, impulsivity, fear of negative evaluation, anorexic behavior, and perceived familial disharmony than individuals with secure attachment and attachment avoidance. The results did not support the prediction that anxious individuals would experience a decreased need to achieve when compared to secure individuals.
Table 9
Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables Extracted for the Second
Function
Predictors Structure
Coefficients
.37 Parent Support
Parent Autonomy -.01
Attachment Anxiety .
76
Attachment Avoid -.12
Attachment Close -.12
Attachment Anxious -.13
Attachment Depend -.15
Criterion Variables Structure
Coefficients
Trait Anxiety .66
Family Relations -.31
Eat Disorder
Fear of Negative
Ethnic Identity
.
.38
61
.19
Locus of Control
Achievement
Affiliation
Impulsivity
-.40
.00
.04
.38

49
The predictors and criterion variables for the third function are presented in Table
10. The values in bold indicate the variables that define the third function. Results for the third canonical function suggest that individuals who distance themselves from their partners and do not perceive their parents as sources of emotional support lack the ability to feel close to people in general and are introverted and uninterested in exploring their ethnic origins.
The results of the third canonical function supported the third expectation.
Avoidant individuals had a lesser need to affiliate with others than their anxious and secure counterparts. Avoidant individuals did experience higher familial disharmony and a lower locus of control than their secure counterparts, but less so than their anxious counterparts. However, when compared to secure individuals, avoidant individuals did not show any differences in anorexic behavior or fear of negative evaluation. Avoidant individuals also did not show differences in achievement when compared to secure and anxious individuals.

50
Table 10
Structure Coefficients of Predictors and Criterion Variables Extracted for the Third
Function
Predictors Structure
Coefficients
-.01 Parents Support
Parents Autonomy -.18
Attachment Anxiety -.22
Attachment Avoid .53
Attachment Close -.83
Attachment Anxious -.27
Attachment Depend -.18
Criterion Variables Structure
Coefficients
Trait Anxiety .20
Family Relations -.07
Eat Disorder
Fear of Negative
-.14
-.38
Ethnic Identity
Locus of Control
Achievement
Affiliation
Impulsivity
-.50
.10
-.19
-.71
-.11
Therefore, each of the three functions represents the three main attachment types.
The first function describes individuals who show secure attachment to their parents and significant others. The second function describes individuals with anxious attachment, and the third function describes individuals who show attachment avoidance.

51
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to gain a clearer understanding of how parental and adult attachments manifest in an individual’s emotional stability and sense of self. The concepts of emotional stability and sense of self are defined by the criterion variables in this study (fear of negative evaluation, locus of control, trait anxiety, impulsivity, affiliation, achievement, family functioning, eating behaviors, and ethnic identity exploration). Past research has focused on each or several of these variables in isolation.
The present research sought to examine these variables holistically.
The results of this study showed the emergence of three canonical functions that were descriptive of the three attachment styles (anxious, avoidant, and secure) delineated by Mary Ainsworth et al. (1978). The criterion variables extracted in the first canonical function were indicative of secure attachment. Past research supports that parental support and parental facilitation of autonomy is related to a lack of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance in relationships with significant others (Hinnen et al., 2009).
This is relevant to Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) point that individuals’ attachment styles are learned in childhood and perpetuated through relationships with significant others.
This may occur because individuals can only model their close relationships with others after their own experiences, and much of that experience comes from relationships with their parents.

52
Prior studies maintain that secure attachments with parents and significant others predict security in other domains such as locus of control (Hexel, 2003), trait anxiety
(Dilmac et al., 2009) fear of negative evaluation (Erozkan, 2009), and familial harmony
(Merz & Consedine, 2009). This occurs because as children, individuals tend to seek initial acceptance and guidance from their parents. Therefore, individuals who grow up with emotionally supportive parents have a higher chance of sustaining positive selfconcepts and healthy relationships with significant others (Erozkan, 2004).
Although it is seen in prior research (Wittrock, 2007), the idea that secure individuals would be more inclined to explore their ethnic identity did not emerge in the first canonical function. However, a significant relationship between parental support and ethnic identity exploration emerged when a bivariate correlation analysis was performed between the two. This concept may not have come forward in the first canonical function because parental support was examined in conjunction with secure attachment to significant others. It makes sense that ethnic identity exploration is fostered more by parental support rather than the support of significant others because an individual’s identity is somewhat contingent upon his/her parents’ identities. Furthermore, it may be difficult for significant others to encourage an individual to explore his/her identity if they belong to a different ethnic group.
The criterion variables extracted in the second function were related to the concept of anxious attachment. Prior research has maintained that attachment anxiety in significant others is associated with a higher incidence of eating disorders (Troisi et al.,
2005), trait anxiety (Dilmac et al., 2009), fear of negative evaluation (Eng et al., 2001),

53 impulsivity (Shaver & Brennan, 1992) and internal locus of control (Dilmac et al., 2009).
All of these variables are representative of a negative self-concept. This negative selfconcept is formed in early childhood due to harsh experiences with parents or caregivers.
If parents are experienced as callous and unsupportive, chances are that the child begins to view himself/herself as unworthy of their attention and love. This negative selfconcept is maintained in adulthood and manifests in relationships with significant others.
Once individuals form this idea of worthlessness, they overextend themselves to please everyone but themselves, which is characteristic of attachment anxiety (Erozkan, 2004).
Although prior research suggests that authoritarian parenting (Dumas et al., 1995) and a lack of parental support and warmth contribute to attachment anxiety, this was not supported by the canonical analysis in this study; no parental attachment related predictors were yielded in the second function. However, the relationship between attachment anxiety in relationships with significant others and parents who were not facilitators of autonomy was significant when a bivariate correlation analysis was performed. Prior research supported that individuals of such parents grew up to experience severe forms of anxiety (Dumas et al., 1995; Parker, 1983). Parent attachment variables, when examined in conjunction with adult attachment (to significant others), may not have emerged because their correlations with the criterion variables may have differed. Perhaps a larger and more varied sample size would have yielded different results. Also, the parent attachment questionnaire was shortened because it was significantly longer than the other measures. It was the only measure that did not fit on one page. It is possible that these factors may have contributed to unexpected results.

54
Furthermore, the results did not support the prediction that anxious individuals would have a lesser need to achieve than secure individuals. It is possible that this occurred because the sample was limited to college students, and most college students are more inclined to achieve than individuals who do not have a college education. If this study were replicated in a more varied sample, perhaps the results would have been different.
The criterion variables extracted in the third function supported prior research that a lack of parent facilitation of autonomy, attachment avoidance in relationships with significant others, and the inability to feel close to individuals in first-time interactions impacts affiliation (Roisman, 2006 Schwartz et al., 2007; Bartholomew, 1990). Perhaps these individuals do not feel comfortable affiliating with others because they were never encouraged to do so. Parents who are emotionally unresponsive, or do not encourage autonomy in their children force them to rely on themselves. Avoidant individuals learn to be self-sufficient and distance themselves from others, including significant others because they are in constant fear of rejection (Bartholomew, 1990; Hinnen et al., 2009).
Although it was not expected, the results also showed that avoidant individuals were significantly less inclined to explore their ethnic backgrounds. These results are unsurprising because individuals who are already avoidant in many aspects of their life are most likely avoidant when it comes to their ethnic identity. Also, parents who were already unresponsive to their children probably did not feel the need to teach them about their ethnic identity. It is possible that avoidant individuals do not perceive relationships

55 with their parents as positive, and want little or nothing to do them, including a shared ethnic identity.
In addition, past research maintains that avoidant individuals experience higher familial disharmony (Planitz el al., 2009) and a lower internal locus of control (Hexel,
2003) than their secure counterparts, but less so than their anxious counterparts. Avoidant individuals most likely report experiencing more familial disharmony and a lower internal locus of control than secure individuals because they do not have positive relationships with their parents (as discussed above). However, they do not report higher familial disharmony and a lower internal locus of control when compared to anxious individuals because they may be in denial or avoiding the negative feelings completely. It is possible that these variables did not emerge in the canonical function because avoidant individuals may not have reported their feelings as accurately as anxious individuals due to their avoidant natures. Thus, in this case, a prolonged observation or a longitudinal study may yield more accurate results than a self-report measure.
Past research supports that eating disorders (Evans & Wertheim, 2005), lack of achievement (Omivale, 2009), and fear of negative evaluation (Erozkan, 2009) are seen in avoidant individuals more frequently than in secure individuals. However, this part of the third hypothesis was not supported by the results of this study. No differences were seen between avoidant and secure individuals in respect to these variables. The presence of an eating disorder may not have materialized because the research did not utilize a clinical population. Perhaps differences in eating styles would be more evident if a clinical population was used. The effect of achievement also may not have materialized

56 due to the population that was studied. College students are more likely to show achievement than clinical or non-college educated populations regardless of their attachment styles. The effect of being a college student may have superseded the effect of achievement. Lastly, differences in fear of negative evaluation among avoidant individuals may not have emerged because such individuals may be too removed (and avoidant) from others to care what others think of them. Furthermore, they may be too embarrassed to accurately report their fear of others because they already see themselves as too removed from others to pay attention to their opinions.
Limitations
This study attempted to measure attachment in first-time interactions with individuals outside of family, friends, and significant others in conjunction with attachments to parents and significant others. This concept was measured by the close, depend, and anxious scales on the RAAS. The study did not show any results for the anxious and depend scales. This shows that the RAAS may not have been the best inventory to measure attachment in first-time interactions. Therefore, in future studies, a different scale could be created or utilized to study this concept. It is also possible that participants may not have understood how to respond to the measure. The directions should be made more clear in future studies.
The PAQ was shortened and modified for the purposes of this study. Several items were randomly eliminated, which may have affected the results. Further, participants were not asked about their parents separately, which may have caused some inaccuracies. In future studies, the participants should rate each of their parents separately.

57
Only 39 of the 40 items on the EAT were administered to the participants because one item was directed only toward women. The EAT is mostly designed for female participants, therefore, the results of this study may not be accurate for male participants. A different inventory should be employed in future versions of this study.
Further, the utilization of a more diversified sample may be helpful in the generalizability of these results. The current sample consisted largely of female college students. It would be interesting to acquire a larger male sample in a future replication of the study. It may be helpful to compare male and female samples for any differences.
Also, a larger sample may have strengthened some of the relationships that were not found to be significant. Moreover, there may be important personality differences between students who participated in the study at the beginning of the semester as opposed to students who participated at the end of the semester. The students at the end of the semester may not have responded to the measures as carefully. Furthermore, it may be productive to replicate this study in clinical populations or with individuals of different age groups to see how the results differ. Lastly, some of the older participants had a more difficult time responding to items about their parents due to memory constraints and/or deceased parents, and this may not have accurately assessed their sense of parental attachment.

58
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1963). The development of infant-mother interaction among the
Ganda. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (pp. 67-104). New
York: Wiley.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and growth of love . Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant mother relationship. Child Development , 40, 969-1025.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Bell, S.M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-old in a strange situation. Child
Development , 41, 49-67.
Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the Strange Situation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anhalt K., (2001). The relation between parenting factors and social anxiety: retrospective study.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, Vol 62(1-B), Jul, 2001. p. 534.
Aristotle. (1994). De Anima . (J.A. Smith, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.html
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: an attachment perspective. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7 , 147-148.

59
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), 226-242.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-Four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home lives.
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis XXV , 19-52.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Bulletin of the World Health
Organization, 3, 355-534.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother.
International Journal of
Psycho-Analysis , 39 , 350-373.
Bowlby, J. (1959). Separation anxiety. International Journal of Psycho-analysts, XLI,
1-25.
Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, VX, 3-39.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment, New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. & Parkes, C.M. (1970). Separation and loss within the family. In E.J.
Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: International
Yearbook of Child Psychology and Allied Professions (pp. 197-216), New
York: Wiley.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self report measure of adult romantic attachment. An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.A.
Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New
York: Guilford Press.

60
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origin of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary
Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology (1992), 28 , 759-775.
Byng-Hall, J. (1999). Family therapy and couple therapy: Toward greater security. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 625-645). New York: Guilford Press.
Campos, J.J., Barrett, K., Lamb, M.E., Goldsmith, H.H., & Sternberg, C. (1983).
Socioemotional development, In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.), Handbook
of child psychology, Vol. 2 Infancy and psychobiology (pp. 783-915). New
York: Wiley.
Chorpita, B.F. & Barlow, D.H. (1998). The development of anxiety: the role control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (1), 3-21.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58 (4),
644-663.
Corcoran, K. & Fischer, J. (1994). Measure for clinical practice: a sourcebook . New
York: The Free Press.
Dilmac, B., Hamarta, E., Arslan, C. (2009). Analyzing the trait anxiety and locus of control of undergraduates in terms of attachment style. Educational Sciences:
Theory & Practice , 9 (1), 143-159.
Domingo, M. & Chambliss, C. (1998). Concurrent validity of the adult attachment scale and the adolescent relationship questionnaire (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 226.

61
Dumas, J.E., La Freniere, J.P., & Serketich, W.J. (1995). Balance of power: a transactional analysis of control in mother-child dyads involving socially competent, aggressive, and anxious children.
104 , 104-113.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
Duttweiler, P. C. (1984). The internal control index: A newly developed measure of locus of control. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 44 (2), 209-221.
Eng, W., Heimberg, R.G., Hart, T.A., Schneier, F.R., & Liebowitz, M.R. (2001).
Attachment styles in individuals with social anxiety disorder: The relationship among adult attachment styles, social anxiety, and depression. Emotion, 1, 365-
380.
Erozkan, A. (2007). Rejection sensitivity and social anxiety level of university students.
Selcuk University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 17, 225-241.
Erozkan, A. (2009). The relationship between attachment styles and social anxiety: an investigation with Turkish university students. Social Behavior & Personality: An
International Journal , 37 (6), 835-844.
Evans, L. & Wertheim, E.H. (2005). Attachment styles in adult intimate relationships: comparing women with bulimia nervosa symptoms, women with depression, and women with no clinical symptoms. European Eating Disorders Review , 13 , 285-
293.

62
Feeney, B.C., Cassidy, J., & Ramos-Marcuse, F. (2008). The generalization of attachment representations to new social situations: predicting behavior during initial interactions with strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
95 (6), 1481-1498.
Fossati, A., Feeney, J.A., Caretta, I., Grazioli, F., Milesi, R., Leonardo, B. & Maffei, C.
(2005). Modeling the relationships between adult attachment patterns and borderline personality disorder: the role of impulsivity and aggressiveness.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24 (4), 520-537.
Fraley, R.C. & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: a test of the typological model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), relationships
Attachment theory and close
(pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R.C. & Shaver, P.R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of
General Psychology, 4, 132-154.
Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , 78 , 350–365.
Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In Gay, P. (Ed.), The Freud
reader (pp. 288). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Freud, S. (1927). The future of an illusion. In Gay, P. (Ed.), The Freud reader
(pp. 288). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

63
Garner D. M. & Garfinkel P.E. (1979). The Eating Attitudes Test: an index of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa. Psychol. Med,9, 273-9.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview . Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
George, R. (1977). The psychology of Aristotle: in particular his doctrine of the active intellect.
California: University of California Press.
Geyskens, T. & Van Haute, P. (2007). From death instinct to attachment theory . New
York: Other Press.
Grossmann, K.E. (1995). The evolution and history of attachment research and theory.
In
Goldberg, S., Muir, R., & Kerr, J. (Eds.), Attachment theory: social, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp.85-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press, Inc.
Harlow, H. F. & Zimmerman, R. R. (1958). Affectional responses in the infant monkeys.
Science , 130 , 421-432.
Harlow, H. F. & Mears, C. (1979). The human model: primate perspectives . New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 511-524.
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1-22.
Hexel, M. (2003). Alexithymia and attachment style in relation to locus of control.
Personality and Individual Differences , 35(6), 1261-1270.

64
Hinnen, C., Sanderman, R., Sprangers, M.A.G (2009). Adult attachment as mediator between recollections of childhood and satisfaction with life.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy. 16, 10–21.
Hudson, W.W. (1993) Index of Family Relations.
Walmyr Publishing Company.
Hull, C. (1943). Principles of Behavior.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.
Jackson, D.N. (1974). Personality Research Form Manual 3 rd
Edition.
Sigma
Assessment Systems, Inc.
Kenny, M.E. (1985). The parental attachment questionnaire.
(Available from M. Kenny,
Boston College).
Kenny, M.E. & Donaldson, G.A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479-486.
Lorenz, K.Z. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels (The Companion in the bird’s world.
Journal fur Orinthologie, 83, 137-213 (Abbreviated English translation published 1937 in Auk , 54 , 245-173)
Leary M. (1983) A Brief Version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale.
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 9(3), 371-75.
Main, M. (1996). Introduction to the special section on attachment and psychopathology:
2 overview of the field of attachment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 64 (2), 237-243.

65
Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M.T.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), years: Theory, research, and intervention.
Attachment in the preschool
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merz, E. & Consedine, N.S. (2009). The association of family support and well-being later in life depends on adult attachment style. Attachment and Human
Development, 11 (2), 203-221.
Omivale, M. (2009). The relationship between attachment and achievement.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
Vol 70(3-A), 2009. pp. 798.
Parker G. (1983). P arental overprotection: a risk factor in psychosocial development.
New York: Grune and Stratton.
Pendry, P. (1998). Ethological attachment theory: a great idea in personality? In G.S.
Acton (Ed.), Great ideas in personality (1997-2006). Retreived from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/pendry.html
Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 54, 271–281.
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books: New York.
Planitz, J.M, Feeney, J.A., & Peterson, C.C. (2009). Attachment patterns of young
adults in stepfamilies and biological families. Journal of Family Studies, 15 ,
67-81.

66
Plato. (1994). Phaedo.
(B. Jowett, Trans.). Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html
Ponterotto, J.G. & Park-Taylor, J. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity theory, measurement, and research in counseling psychology: present status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54 (3), 282-294.
Robertson, J. (1953b). Some responses of young children to loss of maternal care.
Nursing Care, 49 , 382-386.
Robertson, J. & Bowlby, J. (1952). Responses of young children to separation from their mothers.
Courrier of the International Children’s Centre
, Paris II , 131-
140.
Roisman, G.I. (2006). The role of adult attachment security in non-romantic, non- attachment-related first interactions between same-sex strangers.
Attachment &
Human Development, 8 (4), 341 – 352.
Schwartz, J.P., Lindley, L.D., Buboltz, W.C. (2007). Adult attachment orientations: relation to affiliation motivation. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 20 (3), 253–
265.
Shaver, P., & Brennan, K.A. (1992). Attachment styles and the “Big Five” personality traits: their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18 (5), 536-545.
Skinner, B.F. (1974). About Behaviorism .
New York: Random House.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI (Form Y).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

67
Troisi, A., Massaroni, P. & Cuzzolaro, M. (2005). Early separation anxiety and adult attachment style in women with eating disorders. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 44, 89-97.
Van Buren, A., & Cooley, E. L. (2002). Attachment styles, view of self and negative affect. North American Journal of Psychology , 4 , 417-430. van der Horst, F.C.P., LeRoy, H., & van der Veer, R. (2008). “When strangers meet”:
John Bowlby and Harry Harlow on attachment behavior. Integrative
Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42 , 370-388.
Watson, D. & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social evaluative anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 33 , 448-457.
Wittrock, D. (2007). Correlates of ethnic identity, family support, and academic self concept in adolescents (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Wittrock%20Don.pdf?miami1185820658