Introduction
Attachment theory has often attempted to explain the
link between the quality of close relationships and exploration
of the social and physical environment. A variety of studies
have related the lack of a secure base to inhibition of
exploration in several different contexts. Insecure attachment
has been linked to lower curiosity scores (including less time
spent exploring, manipulating fewer objects, and engaging in
fewer repeated manipulations; Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979);
shorter bouts of exploration, less intense exploration, less
positive affect while exploring, and interacting with a puzzle
box for shorter periods of time (Main, 1983); and a decrease in
time engaged in self initiated locomotor exploration of a play
house (Hazen & Durrett, 1982).
However, only recently has attention been directed
toward attachment/exploration dynamics in older populations.
Attachment in adulthood has been associated with approach to
work activities (Hazan & Shaver, 1990); individual difference
in curiosity and cognitive closure (Mikulincer, 1997); and with
novelty seeking and impulsivity (Johnston, 1999). The present
paper reports two studies that extend previous work by
evaluating attachment/exploration dynamics in a college setting
and evaluating exploration with a behavior based observational
measure. It was hypothesized that secure attachment would be
associated with fewer academic worries and more exploration
of the physical environment, dismissing/avoidant attachment
would be associated with less comfort collaborating on
academic tasks, preoccupied attachment would be associated
with difficulty focusing on academic tasks, and fearful
attachment would be associated with having more worries
about academic performance.
Method
Study 1
In Study 1, 200 psychology students (113 females and
87 males) completed the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)
four item measure of attachment, which provides magnitude
indices of security, dismissing avoidance, preoccupied
attachment, and fearful avoidance. Also participants completed
Simpon’s (1990) 13 item measure, which assesses two
dimensions of Avoidant vs. Secure, where a high score
indicates greater avoidance, and Anxious vs. Non-anxious,
where a higher score indicates greater anxiousness. Further, to
tap exploration, participants completed a 52 item author
constructed measure of college exploration assessing four areas
of exploration (academic performance anxiety, unfocused
academic approach, social approach to tasks, and curiosity).
Study 2
In Study 2, 69 psychology students (36 female and 33
male) completed the same measures as in study 1, with the
inclusion of two observational behavior based measures of
exploration. The first task (ostensibly unrelated to the study)
provided participants an opportunity to explore challenging
puzzle games which was unobtrusively videotaped. Video data
was coded for total manipulation time, tempo of exploration,
perseverance, and involvement (See Table 1) . Inter-rater
reliability was high. The second task measured information
search by assessing the number of descriptions of potential
dating partners that participants exposed themselves to.
Results
As shown in Table 2, the results of both studies support
our hypothesis that different attachment styles foster differences
in exploration at college. Security ratings were associated with
having a positive view of working with others and seeking
assistance from others on academic tasks and reporting greater
curiosity. Preoccupation ratings were associated with having
more anxiety about performing academic activities. Fearfulness
ratings were associated with reports of having more worries
about one's current academic performance, having a negative
view of working with others and asking others for assistance,
and reporting less curiosity (though only for Study 1).
Interestingly, dismissiveness ratings were not associated with
any of the exploration scales. With respect to the Simpson
(1990) attachment scales, greater
Love and School: Attachment/Exploration Dynamics in College
Jeffery E. Aspelmeier
Table 1
Coding Schemes for Puzzle Manipulation Observations
Tempo
Radford University
Rate of moving from toy to toy (Total
Contact Time with objects) / (# of Act
Changes).
Department of Psychology
Perseverance
security was associated with a more positive view of working
with others and asking others for assistance, and reporting more
curiosity. Greater anxiety was associated with more worries
about academic performance, a more unfocussed approach to
academic work, and a negative view of assistance seeking and
working with others.
In Study 2, a significant interaction between sex and the
main variables of interest was found, analyses for males and
females were performed separately. Table 3 displays the partial
correlations between the observational exploration measures,
the RQ attachment ratings and the attachment scales
(avoidant/secure and anxious/non-anxious) with age as a
covariate. Of the RQ ratings, only dismissiveness was
associated with the exploration observations. For males, greater
dismissing ratings were associated with spending less time
manipulating the puzzles, a faster tempo of manipulation, less
perseverace in manipulating the puzzles, showing less
sophisticated interactions with the puzzles, and looking at fewer
descriptions of potential dating partners. For females, greater
dismissiveness was associated with looking at fewer
descriptions of potential dating partners. With respect to the
attachment scales (Avoidant/Secure and Anxious/Non-anxious),
correlations were only significant for males. Greater
Avoidance/Security scores were associated with a faster tempo
of manipulation and less perseverance on manipulation of the
puzzles. Also, avoidance was marginally associated spending
less time manipulating the puzzles and showing less
sophisticated interactions with the puzzles. For the
Anxious/non-Anxious scale, greater anxiety was associated
with a faster tempo of exploration and looking at more
descriptions of potential dating partners.
Conclusion
In conclusion, most of the literature on adult
attachment styles has focused on documenting the
implications of attachment for romantic
relationships. The present studies, along with
Hazan & Shaver (1990) and Mikulincer (1997),
are important for demonstrating that attachment
theory can aid in understanding how attachment
style plays a role in facilitating exploratory
behavior in non-relationship contexts. Further
investigation of this aspect of adult attachment
theory is clearly warranted and could greatly
improve our understanding of how love shapes our
perceptions of the social and physical world. This
line of research could be extended by identifying
more specific mechanisms (e.g. esteemmaintenance processes and affect regulation
strategies) that explain why and how insecure
attachment leads to less exploration of the social
and physical world.
ABSTRACT
Two studies tested the hypothesis that secure attachment facilitates exploration
at college. In Study 1, 200 undergraduates completed self-report measures of
attachment and exploration. In Study 2, 69 undergraduates completed these
same measures, and two tasks that measured exploratory behavior. Attachment
styles were differentially related to self-reports of exploration (e.g. secure
attachment was related to curiosity and information search, while preoccupied
attachment was related to anxiety about academic performance). Gender
differences were found in exploratory behavior. For males, dismissiveness and
general insecurity were correlated with low levels of exploration of novel
objects and relationship information. Anxiousness was correlated with low
levels of exploration of novel objects and high levels of exploration of
relationship information. For females, dismissiveness was correlated with low
levels of exploration of relationship information.
.27***
Dismiss.
.03
Fearful
.26***
Avoid/Secure
Anx/Non-Anx
Study 2
Secure
Preoccup.
Dismiss.
Fearful
Avoid/Secure
.14
.05
-.11
.08
.04
.16*
2. Visual Inspection : Sustained Looking & no
touching
3. Minimal Contact : Looking & brief touching of few
items (3 or less) gross motor manipulation only.
4. Contact with Minimal Involvement : Look at &
touch 4 + items, for purpose of identification (Gross motor
activities: marked by changing the proximity of the object) .
5. Contact with High Involvement : Look at & touch
items, manipulate to identify function (e.g identify solution
to puzzle: marked by Fine motor Manipulation) &/or
extended manipulation of puzzle in effort to solve puzzle.
(Employing multiple fine and gross motor strategies)
-.05
.30*
.36**
.19
.16
-.37*
.20
-.10
-.36^
-.11
Tempo
.23
-.47
.07
.04
-.46**
-.38*
-.16*
-.18**
Perseverance
.14
-.53**
.08
-.05
-.53**
-.22
Involvement.
.07
-.46*
.12
-.09
-.30
-.18
Information Search
-.01
-.38*
.20
.04
-.09
.52**
Females
Total Manipulation
.04
-..08
.00
-.08
.04
.03
Tempo
-.21
.25
-.19
.12
.21
-.05
Perseverance
-.05
.07
-.07
.04
.11
-.01
Involvement.
.03
.10
-.03
-.04
.16
.12
Information Search
.07
-.39*
-.01
-.04
-.02
-.20
-.26***
-.18*
-.11
.41***
.20
-.29*
-.23^
-.01
.19
Males
Total Manipulation
-.01
-.11
.32**
.08
Table 3
RQ Attachment Rating and Attachment Scale Partial Correlations with Exploration Observation
Measures, Separate by Gender
_
RQ Ratings
Simpson Scales
_
Exploration
Measures
Secure Dismissing Preoccupied Fearful
Avoidant/Secure Anxious/Non-anx._
-.05
-.30***
.30***
-.31*
-.13^
Estimated using mean of two longest
uninterrupted object contacts.
Curiosity : Qualitative Coding
(inter-rater reliabilities, r = .99)
1. No Inspection: Minimal looking & no touching
Table 2
Correlations Between RQ Ratings and Exploration Factors (For Study 1 and Study 2) Controlling
for Age and Sex.
_
Academic
Unfocused
Social
_
Perform. Anxiety Academ. Appr.
Approach
Curiosity
_
Study 1
Secure
-.13^
-.06
.36***
.22**
Preoccup.
References
Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. M. (1991),
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 226-244.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love
conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. R.(1990). Love and work: An
attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280.
Hazen, N. L., & Durrett, M. E. (1982). Relationship of
security of attachment to exploration and cognitive mapping
abilities in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 18, 751759.
Johnston, M. A. (1999). Influences of Adult Attachment
in Exploration. Psychological Reports, 84, 31-34.
Main, M. (1983). Exploration, play, and cognitive
functioning related to infant-mother attachment. Infant
Behavior and Development, 6, 167-174.
Matas, L., Arend, R. A. and Sroufe, L. A. (1978).
Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship
between quality of attachment and later competence. Child
Development, 49, 547-556.
Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and
information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and
cognitive closure, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72(2), 1217-1290.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59(5), 971-980.
.23^
-.17
.23^
-.34**
-.32*
-.12
-.12
Anx/Non-Anx
.50***
.27
-.52***
-.17
_
Note: Study 1 df = 196. Study 2 df = 67. ^ = p < .10; * = p < .05; ** = p < .01; *** = p < .001
_
Note: For males df = 30. For Females df = 33. Age included as a covariate for all analyses.
_