1
Title:
The Influence of Attachment Styles on Ethical Decision
Making:
“From the cradle to the grave”
Abstract
In this paper we focus on the link between attachment styles and ethical decision making.
We argue that an individual’s attachment style influences his or her moral awareness,
moral judgment, moral intentions, and moral behavior. Specifically, we theorize that
securely attached individuals, due to higher levels of empathy towards others and abilities
to cope with distress, will use higher levels of moral reasoning to make and follow
through on ethical decisions. Insecurely attached individuals will use lower levels of
moral reasoning to make ethical decision making, and follow through on ethical decisions
at lower rates that securely attached individuals do. Specifically, anxiously attached
individuals will have difficulties following through on their ethical decisions because of
the distress caused by ethical decision making processes, and avoidant individuals will
have difficulties following through because of lower levels of empathy towards others.
Keywords: Ethical Decision Making, Rest’s Model, Attachment Theory
2
Introduction
We believe that attachment theory, which has contributed to the general understanding of
basic ethical decision making at both a theoretical (Kohlberg & Diessner, 1991) and
empirical level (van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995), can inform and support
business ethics research, a subset of organization and management research, in powerful
ways. Attachment theory can be a new framework to use when uncovering individual
differences in the organization and management literatures, and can be a platform for
creating new knowledge and understanding in these literatures. In this paper we will
focus on the link between ethical decision making and attachment styles, which are
internalized representations of the self and other and have been referred to by the founder
of attachment theory, John Bowlby, as active ‘from the cradle to the grave’ (Bowlby,
1979: 129).
Attachment theory is well positioned to inform ethical decision making theories due to
attachment-based internal working models that influence interpersonal interactions.
Attachment theory is built around the concept of internal working models, which are
schemas that look at the self in relation to others and affect an individual’s thoughts,
feelings and behaviors during interactions with others (Bowlby, 1988; Pietromonaco &
Feldman-Barrett, 2000). This is important because others or interpersonal relations are
regarded as primary factors in models of ethical decision making (Brass, Butterfield, &
Skaggs, 1998; Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1986). Attachment based internal working models
also influence the level of empathy that an individual has when interacting with others
(Gillath, Shaver, Mikulincer, Nitzberg, Erez & van Ijzendoorn, 2005; Mikulincer, Shaver,
3
Gilliath & Nitzberg, 2005; Wayment, 2006), and empathy is also seen as an important
factor in making ethical decisions (Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 2001).
Intra-psychic processes and information processing that occurs during ethical decision
making will also influenced by attachment-based internal working models. Attachment
based internal working models are influential when an actor experiences conflict, fear or
distress (Bowlby, 1973; Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 2000), which are markers of
ethical decisions and inherent to ethical decision making situations (Badaracco, 1997,
1998; Molinsky & Margolis, 2005). Ethical decisions are also affected by level of stress
an individual experiences when in a conflicted situation (Molinsky & Margolis, 2005),
and attachment based internal working models cause individuals to differ in how well
they cope with stressors when in conflict (Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996).
Attachment-based internal working models have been shown to affect level of moral
development (van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995), which is an important factor
when individuals are faced with an ethical dilemma (Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1986;
Trevino, Weaver & Reynolds, 2006). Finally, an individual’s ability to recognize a moral
dilemma is based upon their ability to cope with stress and emotions and engage in active
information processing (Eisenberg, 2000; Gaudine & Thorne, 2001; Skoe, Eisenberg &
Cumberland 2002); attachment-based individual differences in information processing
exist (Fraley, Garner & Shaver, 2000; Mikulincer & Sheffi, 2000), and will affect ethical
decision making. In all, we believe that attachment-based internal working models will
not only be one of many active schemas during ethical decision making, but will be a
primary mechanism that will drive behavior throughout the ethical decision making
process.
4
In this paper, we aim to make several contributions to the broader understanding of
how individual differences influence ethical decision making in organizations. We use
attachment theory to expand Rest’s ethical decision making model (1986). Specifically,
we create a stronger overall theory by using a psychological understanding of individuals
to broaden and strengthen the literature’s understanding of Rest’s model. Research has
shown that Rest’s model is affected by level of moral development by the individual (see
Trevino et al., (2006) for review), and moral development of the individual has been
linked to an individual’s attachment-based internal working models (van Ijzendoorn &
Zwart-Woudstra, 1995). We will expand upon the literature that shows that attachmentbased individual differences affect the level moral development at one stage of Rest’s
(1986) model (moral judgment) to include the other three stages of Rest’s model (moral
awareness, moral intent and moral action).
Rest’s model (1986) has several mechanisms that are thought to be influential
throughout the ethical decision making process. Empathy and coping with distress are
seen as affecting ethical decision making processes (Eisenberg, 2000; Hoffman, 2001),
and these mechanisms are affected by an individual’s attachment-based internal working
models (Bowlby, 1973; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). Internal
processes are also viewed as important mechanisms used to evaluate ethical dilemmas
(Jones, 1991; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Trevino, 1986), and attachment-based
internal working models are an internal process used to direct thoughts, feelings and
behaviors in many situations (Bowlby, 1973;Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 2000),
including ethical decision making (van Ijzendoorn, 1997; van Ijzendoorn & ZwartWoudtra, 1995). Individual differences and their interaction with contextual
5
characteristics within ethical decision making processes are also seen as influential
mechanisms in ethical decision making (Reynolds, 2006), see Trevino et al., (2006) for
review), and attachment-based individual differences have been shown to be influential in
many different aspects in the evaluation of contextual influences on thought processes
(Mikulincer, Shaver, & Zanna, 2003c). As these mechanisms are important to ethical
decision making and fundamental to the literature’s understanding of attachment theory,
we believe that attachment based internal working models are causal mechanisms that
drive an individual’s interpretation and response to contextual cues within an ethical
decision making theory.
In the following sections, we first briefly review the literature on attachment theory.
Specifically, we focus on three distinct attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and anxious
(Bowlby, 1988). Next we discuss how differences in attachment styles or attachmentbased internal working models affect how an individual will go through the four
component’s of Rest’s model for ethical decision making (Rest, 1986). We will use three
different ethical dilemmas as templates for ways that individuals with prototypical
attachment styles may act: the case of the Tylenol recall by John Burke at Johnson and
Johnson, the case of Betty Vinson at WorldCom and finally the case of Jeff Skilling of
the Enron Corporation. Though we do not know the actual attachment styles of these
individuals, their behaviors are indicative of the attachment styles we discuss.
A Brief Review of Attachment Theory
6
The fundamental insight attachment theory offers can be summarized by the following
statement: an individual’s internal working models of the self and others are shaped and
driven by the availability and stability of support these individuals receive during times
of distress (Bowlby, 1973, 1988). While these models are derived primary through the
infant-caregiver relationship, they are plastic enough to adapt and accommodate
interactions with others throughout life (Bowlby, 1988). Specifically, within the context
of close relationships and distress, individuals learn to trust that others are readily
available, are intermittently available, or are regularly unavailable (Bowlby, 1988). The
availability of others to give support during times of conflict drives the individual’s
internal mental processes (Bowlby, 1973; Simpson et al., 1996), which in turn shape the
thoughts, feelings and behaviors of the individual (Bowlby, 1973; Pietromonaco &
Feldman-Barrett, 2000).
Internal processes driven by interactions with significant others create and shape
internal working models that reflect the individual’s understanding of the self and of
others as either positive or negative entities within contexts of interpersonal relationships
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). A positive or negative view of the self and other has
several implications. For instance, a positive or negative view of the self may influence
how an individual copes with distress (Florian, Mikulincer & Bucholtz, 1995; Mikulincer
& Florian, 1995), helps others in times of need (Mikulincer, et al., 2005; Wayment, 2006;
Westmaas & Silver, 2001) or the depth to which they process emotional material {Fraley
& Davis, 1997; Fraley, Garner & Shaver, 2000), all of which can often be seen as integral
to most ethical decisions.
7
Individuals have been found to have different internal working models of the self
and other {Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991; Mickelson, Kessler & Shaver, 1997). These
different internal working models have been conceptualized and researched as attachment
styles. There are three different, well-researched attachment styles: secure, anxious, and
avoidant. A majority of individuals (60% of the population (Mickelson et al., 1997)) have
a positive internal working model of others and of the self, or what is known as a secure
attachment style. These securely attached individuals believe that others are supportive
and available in times of distress, creating internal models where the individual feels
valued by others and others as positive entities when in social interactions (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991). Relative to the other attachment styles, secure individuals tend to
have higher levels of self-esteem, better mental health overall and are more open to new
experiences (Mickelson et al., 1997).
Individuals with an anxious attachment style make up about 15% of the population and
have a positive view of the others and a negative view of the self (Mickelson et al., 1997).
Anxiously attached individuals believe that others are intermittently available for support
in times of need (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). According to
research, anxiously attached individuals view support from others as a crucial component
of self-worth and self-esteem (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry & Kashy, 2005), and intense
distress is caused if they cannot receive such support (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Anxiously
attached individuals also view others as better than the self, and seek out support from
others to help with their individual self-concept (Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer,
2005).
8
Finally, about 25% of the population (Mickelson et al., 1997) has a positive view of
the self and a negative view of the others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). These
individuals have an avoidant attachment style. Avoidantly attached individuals believe
that others are unavailable during times of distress, and assume that self-reliance is
important when confronted with difficulties (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). These individuals
believe that others are not supportive when interacting with them, and that they
themselves are the only source of support available in times of distress (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). At the same time, their negative model of others creates a hostility
towards others and thoughts that others are not worthy of the avoidantly attached
individual’s care (Mikulincer et al., 2003c).
These three different attachment styles have been longitudinally linked to
developmental differences in infancy, adolescence and adulthood (Simpson, Collins, Tran
& Haydon, 2007), and Bowlby stated that attachment related internal working models
drive behavior ‘from the cradle to the grave’ (Bowlby, 1979: 129). We believe that these
internal working models will be crucial factors during ethical decision making processes.
We will discuss specific cases where individuals appear to act based upon their
attachment-based internal working models, and show specific instances where individuals
during ethical decision making processes made decisions that appear to reflect their
fundamental view of the self and of others.
Attachment Theory and Ethical Decision Making: The Role of
Stress
9
One of the cornerstones of attachment theory is how individuals with different
attachment styles respond to a stressful event. Stressful events are seen as unique,
ambiguous, consequential and in demand of responses from the individual (Bowlby,
1973). In looking at stressful situations, ethical decisions can be seen as a specific type
of stressful event that causes high levels of both cognitive and affective processing
(Gaudine & Thorne, 2001), something that research has shown by observing neural
images of the brain when the individual is faced with a moral dilemma (Greene,
Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley & Cohen, 2001). Stressful events such as initiating a
product recall that could cost the company millions of dollars or deciding to commit
fraud are unique in their nature, have several responses that could be considered the
‘right’ one, can lead to consequences such as potential harm to the self or other, financial
loss or legal actions, all of which demand some sort of response from the actor in the
situation, with even inaction itself being a response to a situation.
The stress that an ethical decision can cause activates internal working models, as
Bowlby (1973) notes the role that stressors play in working model activation (unfamiliar
threats, both real and imagined, threats to long-term safety, loss of potential resources and
punishment all activate internal working models based on attachment needs). According
to Bowlby (1973), stress signals that something is going wrong in the environment that
requires the attention of an individual. Stressors such as threats to potential resources and
long term safety that activate attachment-based internal working models are also roundly
present within ethical decision making models, with the varying degrees of each stressor
contributing to the potential activation of ethical decision making models. Factors such
as the magnitude of consequences, probability of event occurring or social consensus all
10
increase the moral intensity of a situation and contribute to the activation of ethical
decision making schemas (Jones, 1991). The moral intensity of a situation is
conceptualized as contextual factors that affect the recognition of and response to an
ethical dilemma (Jones, 1991). The moral intensity of a situation can also contribute to
the level of stress an individual experiences when dealing with an ethical dilemma, as the
higher the level of moral intensity usually the more powerful the ethical dilemma, which
can lead to higher levels of stress when thinking about the ethical dilemma. Thus, the
activation of internal working models by the moral intensity of a situation causes moral
decision making to be done within the framework of attachment-based thoughts, feelings
and behaviors.
Research shows that attachment based individual differences in response to
stressful events are found reliably across experimental and naturalistic conditions (see
Collins, Guichard, Ford & Feeney (2006), for review). Research also shows that not only
are these attachment based differences and attachment based internal working models
active during times of stress (Wayment, 2006; Westmaas & Silver, 2001), but that
attachment-based differences drive fundamental responses to a stressful situation. During
stressful situations individuals experience different level of distress and coping (Florian,
et al., 1995; Mikulincer, 1995 & Florian; Wayment, 2006; Westmaas & Silver, 2001),
and how an individual copes with stressors and individual distress is influential in ethical
decision making (Eisenberg, 2000; Gaudine & Thorne, 2001). In summary, we believe
that the stress that ethical decision causes the individual activates attachment based
internal working models, and that these models will drive behavior throughout the ethical
decision making process.
11
In the following sections we will discuss how individuals with different attachment
styles will make ethical or unethical decisions. In order to do so, we will use Rest’s four
components of ethical decision making. Rest’s (1986) model, which extends Kolhberg’s
theory of moral development (Kohlberg, 1969), is a fundamental building block for
ethical decision making models (Jones, 1991; Trevino, 1986; Trevino, et al., 2006).
Rest’s model of ethical decision making has four components or stages: recognizing the
moral issue, making moral judgment, establishing moral intention, and engaging in moral
action (Rest, 1986). Each stage requires an internal processing of information related to
the moral issue, and attachment based internal working models are active when
individuals process information regarding these types of issues (Kohlberg & Diessner,
1991; Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett 2000; van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995).
Recognizing the Moral Issue
The first component in ethical decision making requires ‘imagining what courses of
actions are possible and tracing the consequences of action in terms of how each action
would affect the welfare of each party involved’ (Rest, 1986: 5). When an individual is
confronted with a moral dilemma because of stress, conflict, uncertainty or potential
punishment, attachment-based internal working models are activated (Bowlby, 1973).
This activation of internal working models will drive recognition of the moral issue and
cause individuals to respond with thoughts, feelings and behaviors that are based on their
attachment style.
Individuals with a secure attachment style believe that they have the capabilities to
cope with difficulties and conflicts, see others as supportive in times of distress and the
12
level of support from others as stable (Bowlby, 1988). Research has shown that when in
stressful situations, secure individuals focus on mutually satisfying ways of solving
conflict (O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000), are more creative during conflict resolution
(Mikulincer & Arad, 1999) and show high levels of empathy towards others when others
are under duress (Mikulincer, Gillath, Halevy, Avihou, Avidan & Eshkoli, 2001;
Westmaas & Silver, 2001).
During the moral awareness stage or when recognizing a moral issue, creative conflict
resolution, empathy and a sense of competency will all create the context for a generative
process. When a moral issue activates the individual’s internal working models, secure
individuals will respond by formulating an appropriate number of responses that take into
account multiple factors. Specifically, due to their mutually focused problem solving
skills when in conflicted situations (O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Pistole & Frank,
2003) and their cognitive openness and curiosity (Aspelmeier & Kerns, 2003; Green &
Campbell, 2000; Mikulincer, 1997) securely attached individuals will engage in high
levels of moral imagination (Werhane, 1998) when faced with an ethical dilemma and
come up with a large number of interpretations of the moral issue. Moral imagination
‘entails ability to understand that context or set of activities from a number of different
perspectives, the actualizing of new possibilities that are not context - dependent, and the
instigation of the process of evaluating those possibilities from a moral point of view’
(Werhane, 1999: 5). Secure individuals will engage easily in this process because of their
fundamental regard for others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), cognitive openness
(Mikulincer, 1997) and their ability to regulate their own emotions when in a conflicted
situation (O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Mikulincer, Shaver & Pereg, 2003b). Thus,
13
these individuals will be aware of the moral dilemma, create multiple responses that are
appropriately moral in nature and take into account factors such as the impact on others,
social consensus and the magnitude of consequences when evaluating ethically driven
responses to an ethical dilemma, and how each response would affect the welfare of each
stakeholder involved.
In looking at how James Burke, then CEO of Johnson and Johnson, responded to the
Tylenol poisoning that left seven dead (Prokesch, 1986), behaviors that are reflective of a
secure attachment style can be seen. While the company as a whole responded to the
ethical decision of recalling a product that would cost the company 150 million dollars
(Prokesch, 1986) and a drop in stock price (Dowdell, Govindaraj & Jain, 1992), Mr.
Burke responded in ways that reflect a securely attached internal working model. Mr.
Burke recognized that an ethical dilemma was posed (good of the company profits versus
good of the consumer), generated a number of different solutions and responded in ways
that are different than most CEOs respond to the dilemma of profits versus stakeholders
(Guzzardi, 1985). Mr. Burke also came up with unique solutions to the dilemma, such as
going on major talk shows to discuss the dilemma and Johnson and Johnson’s solutions
to the dilemma (Guzzardi, 1985).
Individuals with an anxious attachment style see the world as unstable but others as
sources of support in times of distress (Bowlby, 1988). Research has shown that when in
stressful situations, anxiously attached individuals tend to have their internal working
models of the self and other ‘hyper-activated’ in times of stress and conflict (Cassidy &
Kobak, 1988). This hyper-activation of the internal working models leads to
exaggeration of the threat posed by the situation and engagement in a frantic search for
14
support from others (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988), for support and acceptance from others
are primary mechanisms to relieve distress (Campbell et al., 2005; Shaver et al., 2005).
When faced with a conflict-laden or ethical dilemma, an anxiously attached individual
will empathize with others within the ethical dilemma, but their emotions will be
overwhelming to the point where the actor will have both empathy and distress
(Mikulincer et al., 2001; Westmaas & Silver, 2001).
When faced with a moral dilemma, individuals with an anxious attachment will try to
imagine a number of ways to solve the moral issue, but their level of distress will also cooccur (Campbell et al., 2005; Mikulincer, Florian & Weller, 1993; Westmaas & Silver,
2001). This high level of emotional distress in turn creates a potential barrier for creative
problem solving and engaging in high levels of moral imagination, as they may be caught
up in what is called ‘empathetic accuracy’ (Simpson, Ickes & Grich, 1999). Empathetic
accuracy is when an individual is able to perceive the truth in a situation, and has been
show to cause distress to individuals, especially anxiously attached individuals (Simpson
et al., 1999). While the secure individual is able to pro-actively cope with the distress
associated with an ethical dilemma, an anxiously attached individual will have the
vividness of a situation become too salient (vividness and salience are factors in moral
awareness, according to Jones (1991)), which can inhibit their other cognitive processes
through distress (Westmaas & Silver, 2001) and rumination (Mikulincer et al., 2001).
Focusing on their own internal processes of distress and rumination will lower the
cognitive resources that can be directed at the ethical dilemma that is being faced.
Anxiously attached individuals tend to cope with a situation through ruminative
processes (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998), so they will create a number of solutions to the
15
moral dilemma, but their emotions may be too overwhelming to help them narrow down
their multiple solutions to a limited number of appropriate, solution-focused resolutions
to the dilemma.
In looking at Betty Vinson, an accountant and senior manager at WorldCom,
behaviors are seen that reflect an anxiously attached individual’s response to an ethical
dilemma. Ms. Vinson was asked to perform accounting practices that were irregular and
illegal, and was eventually found guilty of securities fraud and conspiracy for her actions
(Pulliam, 2003). Ms. Vinson’s initially said no when asked to engage in fraudulent
accounting. Thus, her level of moral awareness was made salient by the vividness and
salience (contextual factors of moral intensity (Jones, 1991)) of the amount of money that
she was asked to transfer. She saw several ways to deal with the request (she initially
refused, and then wanted to resign (Pulliam, 2003)), but eventually made the transfer. In
this situation, her behaviors show moral awareness, as she was able to recognize the
ethical dilemma, but that distress caused by pressure from others enabled her to weight
maintaining interpersonal relationships as well as doing what she thought was right while
making ethical decisions, reflecting an anxiously attached individual’s response to the
situation.
Avoidantly attached individuals are self-reliant, independent and create distance
within their relationships with others. During times of conflict, avoidantly attached
individuals engage in ‘deactivation’ strategies (Dozier & Kobak, 1992), which deemphasize their closeness towards others and emphasizes their self-reliance (Fraley,
Davis & Shaver, 1998; Mikulincer et al., 1993). These deactivation strategies depend on
a number of defense mechanisms that protect the individual from feeling intensively
16
about an ethical issue and affect the level of encoding and retrieval of information with
emotion-based content. Research has shown that avoidant individuals encode less
emotionally-laden material (Fraley et al., 2000) and suppress more emotionally-laden
material from consciousness than the other attachment styles (Fraley & Shaver, 1997).
This behavior leads to less information entering consciousness (Fraley et al., 2000), and if
it does enter consciousness, then avoidantly attached individuals can suppress emotive
material and keep it out of awareness (Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Avoidantly attached
individuals also display lower levels of curiosity and openness (Aspelmeier & Kerns,
2003; Mikulincer, 1997), further limiting moral imagination during the moral awareness
component of ethical decision making. Finally, when faced with situations where others
are distressed, avoidant individuals show lower levels of empathy and less altruism than
either secure or anxiously attached individuals (Mikulincer et al., 2001; Mikulincer et al.,
2005; Wayment, 2006; Westmaas & Silver, 2001).
When faced with a moral dilemma, the avoidant individual will have lower levels of
moral imagination, as they avoid processing content that could be distressing to them.
Deactivating strategies are ‘aimed at minimizing the appraised magnitude of threats and
the experience of distress’ (Mikulincer, Dolev & Shaver, 2004:941), which will impede
an individual’s moral awareness of a dilemma because a situation will require higher
levels of salience and vividness to even enter conscious awareness for activation of an
ethical decision making schema. At the same time, avoidantly attached individuals
distance themselves from conflict and attempt to control others during conflicting
situations (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001). This desire for
control and lack of empathy could create fewer options in the moral decision making
17
stage, as they will not regard the needs of others as important factors in moral dilemmas.
Their defense mechanisms and cognitive closure could also decrease the fund of
information needed for moral imagination, thus limiting the number of options generated
for moral decision making in this stage of the moral awareness process. These sorts of
defensive processes mirror what has been called ‘moral disengagement’ (Bandura,
1999:193), which is also based on defensive processes that distort others and degrades
their value as individuals. Finally, with a positive model of self and a negative model of
others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), avoidantly attached individuals act in their own
self-interest (Mikulincer et al., 2005), potentially decreasing their willingness to engage
in behaviors that do not benefit their own goals.
In looking at the behavior of Mr. Jeff Skilling while at Enron, which was involved in a
major accounting scandal and the eventual collapse of the company (Emshwiller, 2006),
behaviors that are reflective of an avoidant attachment style are seen. Mr. Skilling could
have engaged in defensive processes that did not allow him to attain moral awareness of
the ethical dilemma that he faced despite the vividness and salience of the context of the
situation. Mr. Skilling may have deliberated amongst several different decisions if he
was morally aware of the situation, though this is unknown. While he may he engaged in
some level of ethical decision making, it may have been limited in its scope due to his
unwillingness to explore the situation in depth and the moral disengagement he could
have experienced early in the process of the being morally aware. Mr. Skilling may also
have had a lack of concern for others during the moral awareness component of ethical
decision making, thus driving his options away from including options that benefited
18
others. All of these behaviors are reflective of an avoidantly attached individual’s
responses to an ethical dilemma.
In short, while secure individuals will be open to multiple options in an accepting
manner, anxiously attached individuals will be overwhelmed by the selection of moral
options and their own emotions and avoidant individuals will attempt to distance
themselves from the issue due to the potential needs of others that moral awareness can
bring with it.
Making Moral Judgments
The second stage in Rest’s model is how the individual makes a moral judgment,
which involves ‘deciding which course of action is morally right’ (Rest, 1986: 8).
Scholars suggest that the self’s making a moral judgment is linked with the self’s level of
moral development (Jones, 1991: 368, 383; Rest, 1986; Kohlberg, 1969), and involves
shaping the number of alternative courses of action to one moral decision that is
determined to be the ‘right’ decision (Jones & Ryan, 1997). During this stage, the
individual evaluates the courses of action and their consequences that were generated
during the moral awareness stage, and attachment style differences will again be seen
during this period due to the underlying relationship between attachment style and moral
development (van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995).
Moral development has been discussed as the platform from which moral decision
making is done (Jones, 1991; Trevino et al., 2006). Moral development is conceptualized
as a developmental process beginning in childhood through which an individual
19
assimilates and accommodates new information into his or her understanding of the
world, and that this assimilation and accommodation process progresses through stages
(Kohlberg, 1969). According to Kolhberg’s theory of moral development (Kohlberg,
1969), an individual’s moral development has three specific stages, with two sub-stages
within each stage. The first stage is pre-conventional decision making, where moral
decisions are made to avoid punishment and in the best interest of the self. During the
second stage, what is called conventional decision making, decisions are made with the
interest of others in mind, and with a respect for the laws and rules of a situation. The
final stage is the post-conventional stage, where individuals make decisions based upon
their own internal version of right and wrong decisions. As the individual develops
cognitively, he or she develops morally at the same time, progressing from preconventional to conventional to post-conventional, with most individuals achieving the
conventional stage of moral development.
Research has looked at the linkage between attachment theory and moral
development, and found that moral development is linked to the individual’s attachment
style (Kohlberg & Diessner, 1991; van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995; Matsuba &
Walker, 2004). Van Ijzendoorn and Zwart-Woudstra (1995) found that securely attached
individuals are more likely to take others into account when making more decisions. It
has also been found that insecurely attached individuals tend to be lower in their levels of
moral development overall (van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995), with anxiously
attached individuals showing higher levels of moral development relative to avoidant
individuals (Matsuba & Walker, 2004).
20
We believe that secure attachment style is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
achieving higher levels of moral development. Securely attached individuals should be
most likely to achieve higher level of moral development because of their positive regard
for both themselves and for others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Research has
shown that securely attached individuals are more likely to take others into account when
making moral decisions (van Ijzendoorn & Zwart-Woudstra, 1995). Secure individuals
also show higher levels of self-esteem (Roberts, Gotlib, & Kassel, 1996), more
confidence in their judgments overall (Corcoran & Mallinckrodt, 2000; O'Connell &
Mallinckrodt, 2000) and higher levels of self-transcendence (Mikulincer, Gillath, SapirLavid, Yaakobi, Arias, Tal-Aloni & Bor, 2003a), which can be seen as a higher level of
empathy (Wayment, 2006). These mechanisms of esteem, transcendence and selfefficacy that secure individuals should show allow more access to use of postconventional forms of moral reasoning.
When making moral judgments, securely attached individuals will take into account
multiple factors, see that these factors have inter-related principles and select the course
of behavior that achieves the interests of both the self and of others. These individuals
will have a larger pool of options because of stronger moral imagination abilities, and this
larger pool could enable them to choose the ‘right’ ethical decision. Thus, not only do
securely attached individuals generate more alternatives to the moral dilemma, but their
use of post-conventional forms of moral reasoning during the moral judgment component
will also enable them to make what are roundly seen as making a ‘right’ ethical decision.
Real world examples of making the ‘right’ ethical decision exist in stories from
whistleblowers to any number of pro-active solutions to ethical decisions faced within the
21
context of organizations, such as Mr. Burke’s decision to recall tampered Tylenol
products. Despite the millions of dollars that it would cost, Mr. Burke decided that a
recall would be better for the both the company and the consumer (Prokesch, 1986). Mr.
Burke appears to have evaluated several different alternatives (such as a limited recall of
the product, a full recall, a limited media response, a full media response, etc), and
engaged in what he thought was the ‘right’ decision. Mr. Burke’s management and
behavior during this time has been praised for being a positive response to an ethical
dilemma faced by organizations (Yang, 2007).
Anxiously attached individuals should most likely achieve higher levels of moral
development than avoidantly attached individuals, but lower levels than securely attached
individuals, thus making decisions from the conventional level of moral development.
Anxiously attached individuals have a low self-esteem (Roberts et al., 1996) and a selfconcept that is dependant on others (Shaver et al., 2005), which should drive them
towards making moral decisions that are based on the potential support of others when in
an ethical dilemma. At the same time, their dependence on others for self-regulation
should drive them towards following law and regulations, as ‘following the rules’ could
be a path towards being seen as positive by others and a strategy for getting support from
others. Both following the rules and support from others are seen at the conventional
level of moral development (Kohlberg, 1969). In addition, anxiously attached individuals
show empathy towards others (Britton & Fuendeling, 2005; Gillath, et al., 2005), which
should enable them to incorporate others in ethical decisions, allowing them to move
beyond egotistical decision making found in pre-conventional moral decision making into
conventional moral decision making processes.
22
In looking at Rest’s model for ethical decision making (1986), anxiously attached
individuals should have difficulties selecting from their pool of potential solutions to the
ethical dilemma as they may see several solutions as ‘right’, and may not be able to
commit to just one of these solutions. Anxiously attached individuals will take into
account multiple factors when making ethical decisions, but fail to see that these factors
have inter-related principles that can potentially conflict with each other due to
difficulties with self-other differentiation (Lopez, 2001; Pietromonaco & FeldmanBarrett, 1997; see Mikulincer & Shaver, (2007a:184) for review). This differentiation
difficulty, in conjunction with level of co-occurring empathy and distress towards others
(Westmaas & Silver, 2001), can also be to such an extent that selecting a single behavior
can be difficult (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b). These difficulties arise as they can
empathize with all of the individuals that will be affected by only selecting one ethical
solution to the ethical dilemma, thus making the selection of just one solution difficult,
due to the potential harm caused to others by selecting only one solution. Thus, they will
engage in selecting multiple solutions to the ethical dilemma, and these solutions will
take into account the good of others over the good of the self.
Real world examples of anxiously attached decision making have been discussed by
Jones and Ryan (1997), where individuals knew what the right decision to make is but
fail to act on this right solution to the ethical dilemma. A specific example of an
anxiously attached individual’s response would be Ms. Vinson’s at WorldCom. She had
several different solutions that she evaluated, yet did not select amongst these disparate
solutions to her ethical dilemma. She wanted to keep her colleagues happy by engaging
in behaviors that they wanted her to do, but she also wanted to do what she thought was
23
right at the same time, which was to not engage in illegal accounting practices (Pulliam,
2003). She repeatedly considered leaving her job as a solution, and kept it as an option,
yet she also continued to engage in inappropriate accounting maneuvers for her
supervisor (Pulliam, 2003). Thus, she engaged in several behaviors that she thought were
‘right’, appearing to do so because she had difficulties judging which action was her best
morally intended action.
Avoidantly attached individuals should most likely make moral decisions from a preconventional stage of moral development. Avoidantly attached individuals have a high
self-esteem but are not dependant upon others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), which
should drive them towards making moral decisions that are based on their own self
interest when making moral decisions. In addition, avoidantly attached individuals show
a negative regard for others (Wayment, 2006; Westmaas & Silver, 2001), and this lack of
empathy towards others, which is caused by intra-psychic defensive processes, should
again allow them to make moral decisions that are based on their own self-interest. This
lack of empathy towards others and positive model of the self should create the context
for moral development to remain in lower, pre-conventional decision making where the
needs of the individual are most relevant when making moral decisions.
In looking at Rest’s model for moral decision making, avoidantly attached individuals
should select from their limited pool of potential solutions to the ethical dilemma the one
that is seen as being in the best interest of the actor making the decision. As avoidantly
attached individuals limit the processing of information (Fraley et al., 2000), are not open
minded (Aspelmeier & Kerns, 2003; Mikulincer, 1997) and are able to suppress
unwanted thoughts (Fraley & Shaver, 1997), they will make the ethical decision based
24
upon their own interests and wants. This decision making process can lead to unethical
behaviors, but does not necessarily have to. If an anxiously attached individual sees that
his or her self-interest may conflict with his or her well-being, he or she may make
ethical decisions based on what appears to be a greater good but is instead based upon
avoidance of punishment. Avoidantly attached individuals, when not motivated by
punishment, are predicted to be the group that is most likely to engage in unethical
behaviors. As their moral development is focused on egotistical interests and their moral
judgment will follow these self-focused thoughts, behaviors and feelings, avoidantly
attached individuals seem likely to drop out of ethical decision making at this stage of the
ethical decision making model and follow through with other forms of decision making.
Real world examples of avoidant behavior can be seen as reflective of Mr. Skilling’s
behavior, as he publicly lauded the company, but sold the stock shortly after encouraging
others to maintain investments in the company (Barrioneuvo, 2006). His behaviors at
Enron are such that he apparently acted not only in his self-interest, but also attempted to
hide his fraud in an effort to avoid punishment, both examples of pre-conventional moral
development. His behavior was also one of the limited number of moral options that he
generated when he was engaging in the moral awareness process. His defensive
processes may have been the mechanism that allowed him to morally disengage from the
ethical decision making processes using his defensive infrastructure stemming from his
avoidantly-attached style.
25
Establishing Intent
The third stage in Rest’s model involves established intent. In this stage the self may
have made a moral judgment regarding which course of action is morally superior to
others but moral values are not the only values that guide behavior (Rest, 1986: 13).
Thus, establishing moral intent involves placing the moral value and the associated
course of moral action ahead of other values and associated courses of action (Rest, 1986:
13-14; Jones & Ryan, 1997: 665). In this stage attachment based internal working
models will again be active due to conflict and stress, as individuals now have conflicting
needs and goals that interact with their moral decision about the ethical dilemma.
Secure individuals will be driven towards maximizing both their own good and the
good of others based upon their positive model of both the self and of others
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). A positive model of the self and others has been
shown to allow individuals to stay focused on their goals and resist being distracted by
issues such as fear of failure (Elliot & Reis, 2003; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000), potential loss
of self-esteem (Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000) and competing needs (Elliot & Reis, 2003).
Competing needs will also not influence an individual who has a stable and accurate
sense of the self away from a decision (see Mikulincer & Shaver (2007a: 224), for
review), which secure individuals do (Mikulincer, 1998; Pietromonaco & FeldmanBarrett, 1997). Secure individual’s stable sense of self will also lead to a need to be
consistent in both their beliefs and actions, and this will affect their movement from
moral judgment to moral intent without distractions from competing interests. Also, the
level of empathy and help towards others that securely attached individuals display in
26
stressful situations shows them to be the most likely to engage in altruistic behaviors
(Mikulincer et al., 2001; Mikulincer et al., 2005; Wayment, 2006; Westmaas & Silver,
2001), even when there is no reward or a potential cost for their behavior. This drive
towards helping others will enable them to maintain a consistency between a moral
judgment and moral intent.
When looking at Mr. Burke’s behavior during the Tylenol in crisis, there were
competing demands and threats to be addresses that were both moral and practical in
nature. Threats to resources, social consensus and fear of disrupting social networks
could all be sources of resistance that can impede moral behaviors and were present
during this ethical dilemma (Prokesch, 1986). Yet, Mr. Burke was able to focus on him
primary motivation to do right and exercise moral behaviors due to his positive sense and
self and self-concept, which for purpose of this article, is seen as stable. Mr. Burke
displayed empathy towards victims of the poisoning, supporting customers through
outreach and initiating a recall of his product, all of which cost the company millions of
dollars (Prokesch, 1986; Yang, 2007). His commitment towards his values (which he
promoted throughout the company that he worked for, which put customers first and
profits last (Prokesch, 1986)) and towards his customers could be a reflection of a
positive sense of both the self and others.
Anxiously attached individuals will be driven towards maximizing the good of others
based upon their model of self and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). A positive
model of others will enable anxiously attached individuals to engage in making moral
decisions and maintain moral intent, but will also cause several distractions towards
engaging in moral behavior. One of these distractions will be that not only did they have
27
difficulties in narrowing down the number of behaviors that are considerer ‘right’ in the
moral judgment phase, but they now have to engage in additional decision making based
upon more alternatives that are available to the individual actor. Adding additional
considerations will only make deciding on one course of action even more difficult
(preliminary research has supported these statements; see (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b)
for review of anxiously attached individual’s difficulties in making decisions). These
multiple demands will make decision making difficult as their own internal processes,
which are seen as scattered and overlapping due to their self-concept being fluid and
unstable (Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 1997; Shaver et al., 2005), are not stable
enough to select just one option to follow through on. At the same time, their experience
of empathy co-occurs with the distress caused by the situation (Mikulincer et al., 2005;
Westmaas & Silver, 2001), creating more impediments to making a single ethical
decision actionable. While anxiously attached individuals maintain moral motivation
during this period due to their level of empathy, their experience of distress points
towards derailment during this phase of ethical decision making, as they cannot narrow
down their decisions to just one actionable decision because of potential harm to others
and the loss of support from others. Instead, anxiously attached individuals will engage
in multiple solutions, some of which can be contradictory to each other, and attempt to
please as many others as possible in order to maintain their interpersonal relationships
with others and gain their approval.
When looking at Ms. Vinson’s behavior during the WorldCom scandal, there were
competing demands and threats to be addresses that were both moral and practical in
nature. Ms. Vinson at WorldCom had decided that she would not alter the companies’
28
earnings, as it would break legal rules (Pulliam, 2003). She was influenced to break the
rules by her supervisor, who had been a former supervisor at a previous company. Here,
she was potentially influenced by non-moral factors (as her friendship was more powerful
than the social consensus formed around misrepresenting earnings and rules about
accounting) that can affect decision making. This behavior is reflective of individuals
that have an anxious attachment style, as they want others to think of them well, to the
point where they are willing to put their own needs second to others (Shi, 2003).
Potentially, she knew what the correct decision was, but her desire to be liked by the
individuals around her was more powerful than her desire to act morally. This conflict,
and its repeated occurrence, point to instances where internal working models were
activated and she had a negative sense of her internal morality, thus allowing her positive
sense of others to affect her behavior during these moments where her follow-through on
her moral judgment did not occur.
Avoidantly attached individuals will be driven towards maximizing their own good
without regards to others based upon their positive model of the self and the negative
model of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Mikulincer et al., 2003c). Avoidantly
attached individual’s internal working models defend the self against intrusion from
negative and competing information (Fraley et al., 2000; Fraley & Shaver, 1997), which
will drive concerns to continue to be focused on the individual’s well-being and interests.
Their positive model of self and strong drive towards self-reliance will enable them to
continue to engage in what behaviors they had selected previously. At the same time,
avoidantly attached individuals do not process new information at the depth that other
attachment styles do (Fraley et al., 2000), so they may not even be aware of other
29
potential influences on their behavior. Finally, a lack of empathy towards others will
allow them to continue on with their initial decision, as they will not have to take in the
effects of their behaviors on other individuals.
When looking at Mr. Skilling during the Enron scandal, there were competing
demands and threats to be addresses that were both moral and practical in nature. Yet,
Mr. Skilling not only acted in his own self-interest, but did not take influences on his
behavior, such as legal limits or potential punishments into his initial appraisal of the
moral decision. All of these behaviors point towards an individual who thought that the
right thing to do was to maximize his profits through maximizing share price, irrespective
of the means that he accomplished this behavior (McLean & Elkind, 2004). As noted
earlier, it would require an issue with strong contextual cues to engage an individual with
an avoidant attachment style into an ethical decision making schema.
Moral Action
The final stage in Rest’s model is how the individual engages in moral action, which
involves ‘Executing and implementing a pla[nl of action . . . involves . . . working
around impediments and unexpected difficulties, overcoming fatigue and frustration,
resisting distractions and allurements, and keeping sight of the original goal’ (Jones,
1991; Rest, 1986: 15). Moral action looks at how an individual will persevere in the face
of challenges and threats to that individual’s moral actions. Again, differences in
attachment styles will be discussed in the context of how an individual engages in moral
action.
30
Securely attached individuals show commitment to decisions, and their positive model
of the self and other will help them persevere in the face of difficulties. Difficulties and
obstacles are found in ethical decisions, and securely attached individuals, who have a
strong sense of self-worth (Roberts et al., 1996) and high empathy for others (Westmaas
& Silver, 2001), will act in ways that persevere during times of conflict. In looking at
perseverance, secure individuals are seen as persevering longer in conflicts (Kobak, Cole,
Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming & Gamble, 1993) and in goal-directed situations as well (Elliot
& Reis, 2003; Rice & Mirzadeh, 2000). Securely attached individuals also engage in
behaviors that shows empathy and altruism towards others who are in need based upon
their desire to be helpful towards others (Erez, Mikulincer, van Ijzendoorn &
Kroonenberg, 2008; Gillath et al., 2005; Wayment, 2006). This desire to help others
encourages securely attached individuals to engage in behaviors that are for the
betterment of humanity, or what has been called self-transcendence, a perspective that
securely attached individuals endorse (Mikulincer et al., 2003a). The motivation for
self-transcendence, in conjunction with persevering during conflicts, will enable securely
attached individuals to engage in overcoming obstacles to moral behaviors.
Mr. Burke’s behaviors could again be seen as reflective of a secure attachment
towards others when it comes to the Tylenol poisoning crisis. Mr. Burke was able to
effectively deal with potential threats from customers by disseminating information about
the product and encouraging a reformulation of the capsule, something that could prevent
future poisonings (Prokesch, 1986). He also appeared on talk shows and opened up
strategy meetings to the public (Prokesch, 1986), showing that he was confident in his
decisions and considerate of others, both traits of securely attached individuals. Finally,
31
Mr. Burke put the value of others over the economic interest of the company, a firm
belief that he had instilled prior to the Tylenol crisis at Johnson and Johnson (Yang,
2007).
Anxiously attached individuals will have difficulties persevering in the face of
obstacles unless perceived benefits are seen in executing ethical behaviors. Tangible
benefits for the self, such as recognition or praise for their behavior, are motivators for
anxiously attached individuals (Erez et al., 2008; Gillath et al., 2005), especially when it
comes to acting in altruistic ways (Erez et al., 2008; Gillath et al., 2005; Mikulincer et al.,
2005). Anxiously attached individuals also show contingent commitment to decisions
(Elliot & Reis, 2003; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b), engaging in behaviors that are seen
as easily attained and giving up when they are not, which could derail ethical behavior
during the moral action component of ethical decision making. Finally, anxiously
attached individual’s levels of distress about disappointing some important others can
lead to more distress and overwhelming affect, which can cloud judgment and ability to
maneuver towards a desired goal. In all, anxiously attached individuals will have
difficulty in pursuing their moral action because of threats to self-esteem, difficulty in
executing one singular plan because of potential harm to neglected others and difficulties
in persevering in the face of threats.
Ms. Vinson’s behaviors could again be seen as reflective of an anxious attachment
towards others when it came to the accounting scandal at WorldCom. Ms. Vinson at first
wanted to quit the company as opposed to engaging in unethical accounting, but
maintained employment after discussing the matter with her supervisors (Pulliam, 2003).
While she showed moral awareness (she knew that an ethical dilemma was being faced),
32
moral judgment (she decided that fraudulent accounting was ‘wrong’), moral intent (she
decided to quit her job), she was able to be derailed from making an ethical decision
during both the moral intent and moral action components of ethical decision making,
and decided to exercise multiple strategies for coping with the ethical dilemma. While
she maintained a desire to quit, she also continued to engage in unethical behaviors.
These two behaviors are conflicting, and caused her to not act in the ethical way that she
wanted to. She was not able to overcome obstacles to her ethical behavior, and gave into
the competing demands. Once non-moral influences became involved (friendships and
her income), she derailed from making the ethical decision, yet still debated a different
course of action throughout the ethical dilemma, displaying behaviors that an anxiously
attached individual would display during ethical decision making.
Avoidantly attached individuals show low commitment to decisions, and their positive
models of self and negative model of others will help them persevere in the face of
difficulties if they feel that there is a reward for themselves. Avoidantly attached
individuals tend to want control during conflicted situations (Kobak et al., 1993), and also
attempt to engage in ways that limit information processing (Fraley, et al., 1997; Fraley,
et al., 2000). At the same time, an avoidantly attached individual may not persist and
persevere in executing moral behavior if that behavior has benefits for others but not for
the self. Research has shown that avoidantly attached individuals do not persist in goal
directed behaviors, as fear of failure that could affect their positive version of the self will
drive them to disengage in goal-directed behavior unless the goal is readily available
(Elliot & Reis, 2003; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b). Thus, if an avoidantly attached
33
individual expects positive rewards for their behavior, they may persist, but mostly likely
will not do so if they do not benefit from moral behavior.
Mr. Skilling’s behaviors could again be seen as reflective of an avoidant attachment
towards others when it came to the accounting scandal at Enron. If at some point he had
decided to make ethical decisions, he was derailed by self-interest and profit
maximization. While we are uncertain about his ability to overcome threats to his ethical
dilemma, it appears that he persevered in engaging in unethical behavior. At one point
during his tenure, Mr. Skilling was confronted by an individual who saw his behavior as
unorthodox, and he cursed at this person in an open forum for evaluators of the company
(Pasha, 2006). Even after this confrontation about his unethical behavior, he continued to
engage in behaviors that were eventually seen as illegal. Thus, if he had made an ethical
decision at some point, he did not overcome obstacles to this ethical decision and
followed his more economic self-interest during ethical decision making.
Discussion
The previous article looked at the ways that individual differences in attachment style
can affect ethical decision making. In each stage, individual attachment style was
integrated into the framework of Rest’s (1986) ethical decision making model, and the
differences between the attachment styles were discussed. This paper attempted to
integrate an individual’s perception of an ethical dilemma with factors from the context
of ethical decision making using attachment theory. While individual differences
research has shown that individuals differentially respond to ethical dilemmas (Trevino,
et al., 2006), this paper hopes to extend theorizing about individual differences to a wellresearched platform like attachment theory. Attachment theory could add to the
34
literature’s understanding of how the context of a situation is interpreted by the individual
and how the stages of Rest’s model can be understood from the platform of a personality
theory.
In summary, we believe that the different attachment styles will affect level of moral
awareness, moral judgment, moral intent and moral behavior. Securely attached
individuals will proceed through all of the stages from moral awareness to moral
behavior, making them the most likely to make ethical decisions of the three basic
attachment styles. Anxiously attached individuals will show moral awareness and moral
judgment, but will be derailed away from executing their decisions by overwhelming
distress and an inability to narrow multiple options down to one executable moral action.
Avoidantly attached individuals will be the least likely to move from moral awareness to
moral behavior due to defensive mechanisms that limit their selection of moral behaviors
to those that serve the avoidantly attached individual’s best interests during the moral
judgment component of ethical decision making.
One of the main points that we wanted to make with our case studies is that the
behaviors of the individuals within the examples used are illustrative, and may not reflect
these individual’s actual attachment style. Also, while securely attached individuals may
have the opportunity to exercise higher levels of ethical decision making and engage in
the process more, there is no guarantee that they will do so in all cases. We have made
an argument that they are the most likely of the three attachment styles to engage in and
follow through on an ethical decision made during an ethical dilemma, but in no way are
we stating that they will do so in all cases.
35
There are also several areas that this paper did not explore that could be of interest for
future research. Issues such as moral referent groups, social consensus and moral
development could all benefit from further study using the lens of attachment theory.
The history and constructs of psychoanalysis has been fraught with non-accountability
and difficulties with researching the underlying principles of past theories. Attachment
theory is a novel perspective for these original constructs, and it’s concrete and confirmed
predictions about human behavior in interpersonal relationships has led to fruitful study
of individual differences in many contexts. This paper is a bridge between the context of
ethical decision making and personality differences that we believe will lead to fruitful
research endeavors in the future.
36
References
Aspelmeier, J. E., & Kerns, K. A. (2003). Love and school: Attachment/exploration
dynamics in college. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(1), 5-30.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities.
Perspectives on Evil and Violence: A Special Issue of Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3(3), 193-209.
Barrioneuvo, A. (2006, February 15). Ex-enron chief lied often about web unit, witness
says. New York Times, p. C3.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment style among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 226-244.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock
Publications.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical
behavior: A social network perspective. The Academy of Management Review,
23(1), 14-31.
Britton, P. C., & Fuendeling, J. M. (2005). The relations among varieties of adult
attachment and the components of empathy. Journal of Social Psychology,
145(5), 519-530.
Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict
and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defensive
processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of
attachment. Hillsade, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Feeney, B. C. (2006). Responding to need in
intimate relationships: Normative processes and individual differences. In M.
mikulincer, Goodman, G. S. (Ed.), Dyanmics of romantic love: Attachment
caregiving and sex (pp. 149-189). New York: The Guilford Press.
Corcoran, K. O. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy,
perspective taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 78(4), 473-483.
Dowdell, T. D., Govindaraj, S., & Jain, P. C. (1992). The Tylenol incident, ensuing
regulation, and stock prices. The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,
27(2), 283-301.
Dozier, M., & Kobak, R. R. (1992). Psychophysiology in attachment interviews:
Converging evidence for deactivating strategies. Child Development, 63(6), 14731480.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 317-331.
37
Emshwiller, J. (2006, October 24). Skilling gets 24 years in prison; enron ex-ceo faced
longer term for fraud, conspiracy conviction; victims fund to get $45 million.
Wall Street Journal, p. C.1.
Erez, A., Mikulincer, M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (2008).
Attachment, personality, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an
attachment-theoretical framework. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1),
64-74.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(6), 972-994.
Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the
defensive organization of emotion, cognition and behavior. In J. A. Simpson; &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 249-279).
New York: Guliford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the defensive
regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and
postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(5), 816-826.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted
thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 1080-1091.
Gaudine, A., & Thorne, L. (2001). Emotion and ethical decision-making in organizations.
Journal of Business Ethics, 31(2), 175-187.
Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R. E., Erez, A., & van Ijzendoorn,
M. H. (2005). Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in
an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12(4), 425-446.
Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic
and contextual accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4),
452.
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001,
September, 14). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral
judgment. Science, 293, 2105-2108).
Guzzardi, W., McFadden, M. (1985, March 10). How much should companies talk?
Fortune 111(4), 64.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. Cambridge: University Press.
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issuecontingent model The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
Jones, T. M., & Ryan, L. V. (1997). The link between ethical judgment and action in
organizations: A moral approbation approach. Organization Science, 8(6), 663680.
Kobak, R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. S. (1993).
Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A
control theory analysis. Child Development, 64(1), 231-245.
38
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research (pp. 347-380). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L., & Diessner, R. (1991). A cognitive-developmental approach to moral
attachment. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with
attachment (pp. 229-246). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lopez, F. G. (2001). Adult attachment orientations, self-other boundary regulation, and
splitting tendencies in a college sample. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4),
440-446.
Matsuba, M. K., & Walker, L. J. (2004). Extraordinary moral commitment: Young adults
involved in social organizations. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 413-436.
McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2004). Now it's skilling's turn. Fortune, 149(5), 37.
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(5), 1092-1106.
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual
differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(5), 1217-1230.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations
in self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 420-435.
Mikulincer, M., & Arad, D. (1999). Attachment working models and cognitive openness
in close relationships: A test of chronic and temporary accessibility effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 710-725.
Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during
thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940-956.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful
situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 406-414.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles
and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W.
S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 143-165). New
York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies,
and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the gulf war in Israel.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 817-826.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001).
Attachment theory and reactions to others' needs: Evidence that activation of the
sense of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1205-1224.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Sapir-Lavid, Y., Yaakobi, E., Arias, K., Tal-Aloni, L., &
Bor, G. (2003a). Attachment theory and concern for others' welfare: Evidence that
activation of the sense of secure base promotes endorsement of self-transcendence
values. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(4), 299-312.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Attachment in adulthood. New York: The
Guilford Press.
39
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Contributions of attachment theory and
research to motivation science. In J. Shah, W. Gardner (Ed.), Handbook of
motivation science. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Gillath, O., & Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment,
caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and
helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 817-839.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003b). Attachment theory and affect
regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of
attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77-102.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Zanna, M. P. (2003c). The attachment behavioral
system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In
M. Zanna(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Volume 36 (pp. 53152). New York: Academic Press.
Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in
organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245-268.
O'Connell, K. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective
taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(4),
473.
Pasha, S. (2006, April 10). Skilling comes out swinging. CNN/Money.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman-Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models
concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of
General Psychology, 4(2), 155-175.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman-Barrett, L. (1997). Working models of attachment and
daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6),
1409-1423.
Pistole, M. C., & Frank, A. (2003). Understanding attachments: Beliefs about conflict.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(3), 318-328.
Prokesch, S. (1986, February 23). Tylenol: Despite sharp disputes, managers coped. The
New York Times.
Pulliam, S. (2003, June 23). Over the line: A staffer ordered to commit fraud balked, then
caved --- pushed by worldcom bosses, accountant betty vinson helped cook the
books --- a confession at the marriott. Wall Street Journal.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory: New York:
Praeger.
Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Moral awareness and ethical predispositions: Investigating the
role of individual differences in the recognition of moral issues. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91(1), 233-243.
Rice, K. G., & Mirzadeh, S. (2000). Perfectionism, attachment, and adjustment. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 238-250.
Roberts, J. E., Gotlib, I. H., & Kassel, J. D. (1996). Adult attachment security and
symptoms of depression: The mediating role of dysfunctional attitudes and low
self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 310-320.
Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive
reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 343-359.
40
Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in
romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 143-157.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the
experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A
developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2),
355-367.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of
anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 754-769.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5),
899-914.
Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617.
Trevino, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in
organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951-990.
van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Attachment, Emergent Morality, and Aggression: Toward
a Developmental Socioemotional Model of Antisocial Behaviour. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 21(4), 703-728.
van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Zwart-Woudstra, H. A. (1995). Adolescents' attachment
representations and moral reasoning. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 156(3),
359-372.
Wayment, H. A. (2006). Attachment style, empathy, and helping following a collective
loss: Evidence from the september 11 terrorist attacks. Attachment & Human
Development, 8(1), 1-9.
Werhane, P. H. (1998). Moral imagination and the search for ethical decision-making in
management. Business Ethics Quarterly,(Ruffin Series: Special Issue # 1), 75–98.
Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral Imagination and Management Decision-Making: Oxford:
University Press.
Westmaas, J. L., & Silver, R. C. (2001). The role of attachment in responses to victims of
life crises. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 425-438.
Yang, J. L. (2007). Getting a handle on a scandal. Fortune, 155(10), 26.