Attachment as an Organizational Construct for Affect ... - Springer Link

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 28, No. 5, 1999

Attachment as an Organizational Construct for Affect, Appraisals, and Coping of Late Adolescent Females Julia C. Torquati1 and Alexander T. Vazsonyi2 Received October 14, 1998: accepted March 3, 1999

The purpose of this study was to 1) compare general affective dispositions (depression and anxiety) and negative affect during interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment security, 2) examine appraisals as a function of attachment style and as predictors of coping, 3) compare strategies of coping with interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment style, and 4) investigate the roles of attachment style, affect, and appraisals in predicting coping in the context of interpersonal conflict. Seventy-three late adolescent females participated. Insecure participants reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and negative affect during interpersonal conflicts. Insecure participants were more likely to cope with interpersonal conflicts through support seeking or avoidance. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that general and specific attachment style, affect, and appraisals significantly predict coping strategies. Implications for general and specific models of attachment as organizational constructs and attachment as a predictor of coping with interpersonal and non-interpersonal stressors are discussed. INTRODUCTION This investigation examined the influence of attachment style, affect, and appraisals as predictors of coping strategies in the context of conflict with significant others. First, attachment will be described as an organizational construct. Research examining the relationship between attachment style and affect will be reviewed Portions of this paper were presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, San Diego, CA, February 1994. 1 Assistant professor, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Research interests include developmental risk and competence. To whom correspondence should be addressed at 137 Child Development Lab, Lincoln, NE 68583-0830. 2 Assistant professor, Auburn University. Research interests include delinquency and adolescence.

545

0047-2891/99/1000-0545$16.00/0 C 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

546

Torquati and Vazsonyi

to provide a context for the first objective of this study: to examine mental health (depression and anxiety) and negative affect during conflict as a function of attachment style. Next, studies are described to provide a context for the second objective: examination of stressor appraisals both as a function of attachment style and as predictors of coping. The third objective is to examine strategies of coping with interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment style. The fourth objective of this study is to test a multivariate model including attachment style, relationshipspecific attachment models, negative affect (depression, anxiety, and contextual negative affect), and appraisals as predictors of coping with interpersonal conflict. Attachment as an Organizational Construct Attachment theory has provided a framework for a great deal of research on the coherence and organization of affect, cognition, and behavior in interpersonal relationships. According to attachment theory, internal working models of relationships, including representations of self, relationship, other, and the social world in general, develop from an amalgam of early relationship experiences. Internal working models serve as interpretive schemata in social contexts, organizing and guiding behavior, affect, and cognition. Attachment models are hypothesized to be dynamic, and individuals are capable of actively constructing and revising them based on new experience (Bowlby, 1988). However, attachment models are also hypothesized to be a mechanism of continuity in social development (Sroufe and Waters, 1977). Working models of the social world in general and of specific attachment figures provide an organizational construct for the development of strategies for regulating attachment behavior and emotions. General models of attachment comprise expectations about the social world in general and provide a heuristic for the development and revision of relationship-specific models of attachment. Relationshipspecific models of attachment include expectations about the behavior of the self in the context of a specific relationship and of specific significant others. Internal working models are activated in the context of a perceived threat, and therefore function as an organizational construct for affect, appraisals, coping behavior, and conflict resolution styles. Attachment Style and Affect Secure attachment style is characterized by expectations about efficacious behavior on the part of the self and sensitive responding on the part of the attachment figure. Individuals with a secure attachment style anticipate sensitive responding on the part of the attachment figure, and typically employ primary strategies involving proximity seeking in response to activation of the attachment system. Insecure

Attachment and Coping

547

attachment style is characterized by anticipation of insensitive or inconsistent responding on the part of the attachment figure, and is associated with secondary strategies that involve relative "hyperactivation" (referred to as preoccupied) or "deactivation" (referred to as dismissing) of the attachment system (Kobak et al., 1993). These strategies are attempts to regulate negative emotion and/or monitor availability of the attachment figure. Investigations of the experience, expression, and regulation of emotion as a function of attachment style have documented an association between insecure attachment styles and negative affect. For example, spouses with secure working models demonstrated more constructive modulation of emotion than insecure spouses (Kobak and Hazan, 1991). Dismissing and preoccupied late adolescents report more negative affect in their romantic relationships while those with a secure attachment style report more positive affect, trust, and commitment (Simpson, 1990). Feeney and Kirkpatrick (1996) reported higher levels of autonomic arousal in preoccupied and dismissing college women (compared to secure) during a laboratory separation, suggesting that the salience of the separation and the level of distress both differed as a function of attachment style. Clinical studies of attachment style and psychopathology in adolescents and adults provide evidence of the association between insecure attachment style and emotion dysregulation. Hospitalized adolescents had higher rates of insecure attachment style than a community sample, and substance abuse and delinquency were associated with dismissing attachment style (Allen et al., 1996). Dismissing attachment style was associated with conduct disorder and substance abuse, and preoccupied attachment style was associated with affective disorders (Rosenstein and Horowitz, 1996). Preoccupied attachment style of adolescents was associated with depressive symptoms (Kobak et al., 1991) and secure attachment with parents was associated with less depression and anxiety (Papini and Roggman, 1992). Depressed college women reported greater preoccupation and fearful avoidance in romantic relationships in comparison to those who were non-depressed. Adult women recovering from depression also reported greater fearful avoidance (Carnelley et al., 1994). The emotional traits investigated in the studies reviewed above primarily describe the relationship between mental health and attachment style. Fewer studies have examined affect experienced in the context of a stressful event as a function of attachment style. The first objective of this study is to replicate and extend previous research comparing mental health (depression and anxiety) as a function of attachment style, by comparing negative affect in the context of interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment style. The following hypotheses will be tested: 1) insecure participants will report greater depression and anxiety and 2) participants with insecure attachment styles will report greater distress (negative affect) in the context of interpersonal conflicts with mothers, fathers, and dating partners.


548

Emotion and Coping Coping has been defined as the process of addressing internal or external demands and is conceptualized as an active, purposeful process of responding to stimuli perceived as threatening or requiring resources (e.g., Billings and Moos, 1981; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The functions of coping are to directly address the stressor(s) and/or to regulate associated emotions. Conceptual and empirical efforts to define styles of coping parallel these distinct functions: problem-focused coping refers to efforts to specifically address the stressor, while emotion-focused coping refers to efforts to regulate emotions associated with the stressor (e.g., Band and Weisz, 1988; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). There are several ways in which emotions may influence coping processes. For example, distinct types of emotions (e.g., sad, scared, angry) may predict different coping strategies. Intensity of negative emotion may interfere with problem solving or motivate decisive action. Alternatively, positive emotion may facilitate problem solving. For example, Greene and Noice (1988) reported a linear relationship between positive emotion and problem solving in adolescents. Perhaps most importantly, emotion and cognition are integrated systems in the appraisal process, simultaneously regulating perceptions of threat and behavioral response choices. Appraisals and Coping The attachment system is activated in the context of perceived threat. Perceptions of threat and degree of distress vary as a function of attachment style. Insecure attachment style has been associated with appraisal of greater threat and psychological distress in the context of both interpersonal and non-interpersonal stressors. For example, anxious attachment style predicted emotional distress, which in turn predicted increased probability of interpersonal conflict in romantic relationships of late adolescent females (Collins, 1996). Mikulincer and Florian (1995) reported that dismissing miliary recruits perceived the training as more threatening, and perceptions of threat were associated with emotion focused and distancing coping strategies. No differences in problem focused coping as a function of attachment style were observed. Dismissing recruits were less likely to use support seeking than those who were secure or preoccupied. An investigation of attachment styles, distress, and coping strategies of Israeli college students in high- and low-danger areas during the Gulf War also revealed patterns consistent with attachment theory (Mikulincer et al., 1993). Preoccupied students reported more distress and used more emotion focused coping strategies, and dismissing students displayed more somatization, hostility, and trauma-related avoidance, and used more distancing coping strategies in high-danger situations. Secure students reported more support seeking in both low- and high-danger areas.

549


There were no differences in problem focused coping as a function of attachment style. Moreover, problem focused coping was inversely correlated with psychological symptoms, and emotion focused coping was positively correlated with psychological symptoms. Support seeking was not correlated with symptoms, but was positively correlated with problem focused coping. Similarly, Armsden and Greenberg (1988) reported that stressful events were more strongly related to symptomatology for insecurely attached adolescents than for securely attached adolescents. The influence of stable affective dispositions such as depression and anxiety on coping has also been examined. Endler and Parker (1990) reported a direct relationship between depression, anxiety, and emotion focused coping, a direct relationship between depression and avoidant coping for males only, and an inverse relationship between depression and problem focused coping for females only. Evidence for an inverse relationship between depression and problem focused coping and a direct relationship between depression and emotion focused coping has also been found with adult samples (Billings and Moos, 1984; Rosenberg et al., 1987). Attachment, Appraisals and Coping Coping responses vary systematically with appraisals of stressors. Appraisals of stressors include evaluations of event controllability, desirability, magnitude of threat, whether the event is expected, and the expected outcome of the event. Differential coping strategies as a function of appraisals have been examined with child, adolescent, and adult samples (e.g., Compas et al., 1991; Compas et al., 1988b; Forsythe and Compas, 1987; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). For example, attributions of internal control are consistently related to problem focused coping, especially in the context of interpersonal stressors in school aged children and adolescents (Compas et al., 1988b, 1991; Gamble, 1993). Interpersonal stressors demand both coping and conflict resolution strategies. Styles of resolving interpersonal conflict vary as a function of attachment style. Adolescents with a secure attachment style demonstrate less anger, less avoidance of problem solving, and more constructive engagement during interactions with their mothers (Kobak et al., 1993). Pistole (1989) compared conflict resolution styles as a function of attachment style and found that securely attached adults were (1) most likely to use integrating strategies in which a resolution is reached allowing each partner to benefit (a "win/win" resolution) and (2) more likely than adults with a preoccupied attachment style to compromise, reaching a resolution in which each individual concedes something to preserve the relationship (a "win/lose win/lose" resolution). Moreover, preoccupied adults were more likely than dismissing adults to oblige the partner by making a concession without the partner reciprocating.

550


Simpson et al. (1996) examined distress and changes in perception of partner after discussing a major or minor problem and found differences as a function of attachment style. Preoccupied men and women perceived their partner and relationship less positively, and reported greater distress, while less ambivalent men and women had more positive perceptions after discussing a major problem. Together these results suggest that preoccupied adults appraise the conflict as a greater threat to the relationship and are therefore reluctant to request that the partner compromise, instead putting the relationship before their personal interests and goals. Coping strategies have been examined as moderators of the relationship between attachment and marital adjustment (Lussier et al., 1997). Secure attachment predicted problem focused coping, and insecure attachment predicted emotion focused coping. However, problem focused coping attenuated the relationship between insecure attachment and marital satisfaction, while emotion focused coping amplified the relationship. Support seeking as a coping strategy can be both emotion and problem focused because individuals can receive both emotional and informational support. Simpson et al. (1992) found that secure women were more likely than avoidant women to seek support under stress. Secure attachment models are characterized by a sense of social self-efficacy and a generally positive perception of the social world in general and of attachment figures in particular. It is plausible that the self-efficacy characteristic of secure attachment style will be associated with a greater sense of control over the outcome of a conflict situation. Similarly, a secure, positive perception of attachment figures is expected to be associated with minimal perceived threat to the relationship in the context of conflict. The second objective of this research is to examine appraisals as a function of attachment style and as predictors of coping. The following hypotheses will be tested: (1) Insecure participants will perceive the conflict as a greater threat; (2) secure participants will appraise greater control over outcome; and (3) appraisals of control (over outcome) will be associated with problem focused coping. The third objective of this research is to examine coping strategies as a function of attachment style. It is hypothesized that insecure participants will rely more on emotion focused coping in comparison to secure participants, and that secure participants will be more likely to engage in problem focused coping. The research summarized above describes attachment style as an organizational construct for emotion, appraisals, and coping. The fourth objective of this study is to integrate the previously described findings by testing a multivariate model including attachment style, relationship-specific attachment models, negative affect (depression, anxiety, and contextual negative affect), and appraisals as predictors of coping with interpersonal conflict. The following hypotheses will be tested: (1) Insecure attachment to a specific other will predict emotion focused coping and (2) secure attachment to a specific other will predict problem focused coping.

551


METHODS Sample and Procedures Seventy-three females ranging in age from 18-22 years (mean = 20.6 years) participated. The sample was predominantly Caucasian (83.6%; Hispanic, 13.7%; African American, 2.7%). Participants completed questionnaires during a 75minute social science class. Each participant completed her own questionnaire and marked responses on a computer scan sheet. Graduate research assistants gave instructions and were available for questions during the entire class period. This sample is restricted to females because the class enrollment was predominantly female, and there were too few males who completed the survey (n = 7) to justify analyzing the data separately or together.

Measures Attachment Style General attachment style was assessed using the 18-item self-report measure developed by Collins and Read (1990). This measure assesses three dimensions of attachment: (1) comfort with closeness (Close), (2) comfort depending on others and having others depend on the respondent (Depend), and (3) Anxiety. Participants rated each statement on a scale from 1 (not at all true for me) to 4 (very true for me). Three additional items were developed by the authors for the present research to assess "activation" of the attachment system (Kobak et al., 1993): (1) "Relationships with others are important to me" (indicates valuing attachment characteristic of security); (2) "Sometimes I spend so much time thinking about my relationships with others that I have a hard time getting things done" (activation); and (3) "I don't have time to be concerned about close relationships" (deactivation). The hypotheses for the present research were based on the conceptualization of attachment categories. Collins (1996) developed a system for assigning individuals to categories based on the continuous scores on the dimensions Close (a = .71), Depend (a = .69), and Anxiety (a = .70). Individuals scoring at or above scale midpoint on each dimension are considered to be "high" on that dimension, and those scoring below the midpoint are considered "low." Close and Depend were combined into a single mean score, and in this sample they were significantly correlated in the expected direction (r = .29; p < .05). This score is similar to the Secure-Dismissing dimension constructed by Simpson et al. (1992), except that higher scores indicate greater security rather than greater avoidance. The items described above for valuing attachment (#1) and dismissing (#3, reverse coded) were included in the Close/Depend score. The preoccupation item (#2)

552


was included in the Anxiety score. Close and Anxiety were significantly correlated in the expected direction (r = —.32, p < .01) as were Depend and Anxiety (r = —.44, p < .01). Categories were assigned as follows: 1) secure = high Close/Depend, low Anxiety; 2) preoccupied = high Close/Depend, high Anxiety; 3) dismissing = low Close/Depend, low Anxiety; 4) fearful = low Close/Depend, high Anxiety. Proportions of the sample were not large enough in each of the separate insecure categories to examine variation as a function of type of insecure attachment. Therefore, all insecure types were combined into a single category for comparison of means (insecure: n = 29; secure: n = 44). Dimensional scores (Close/Depend, Anxiety) were used in parametric analyses. Items from the same measure were adapted to represent specific attachment style with mother, father, and dating partner; all subscales demonstrated good reliability (a range = .69-.88). Participants only completed measures relevant to current relationships. For example, participants only completed the section of the survey describing relationships with their dating partner if they were "currently dating." There was no minimum length of time required to define "currently dating." All 73 participants reported on dating relationships and relationships with mothers. Seventy participants reported on relationships with fathers. Coping Style Fifteen items of the Child and Adolescent Problem Solving Inventory (Gamble, 1993) were used to assess three styles of coping: (1) problem solving (a: Mom = .79; Dad = .81; Partner = .69); (2) support seeking (a: Mom = .69; Dad = .69; Partner = .80); and (3) avoidance (A: Mom = .71; Dad = .71; Partner = .71). Participants described the topic of a recent conflict with each relationship partner (mother, father, dating partner), then rated the frequency of using three different coping strategies during each conflict on a 4-point response scale ranging from never (1) to always (4). Five items comprise each of three subscales. Sample items for each type of coping include: (1) problem solving: "I try to figure out what is wrong and do something about it"; "I think about the problem and try to fix it"; (2) support seeking: "I talked to a friend about what happened"; "I asked someone I respected for advice"; and (3) avoidance: "I did something else and tried to forget about it"; "I went on as if nothing had happened." Appraisals Participants rated appraisals of control ("When you have a conflict with , how much control do you have over the way things will turn out?") and threat ("When you have a disagreement with , how much of a problem is it for you?") on a 3-point scale. Higher scores on the threat question indicated that the

553


conflict was a "big problem," and higher scores on the control question indicated that the participant had "little or no control" over the way things turn out. Negative

Affectivity

Participants separately rated each of eight specific emotions (angry/mad, sad, jealous, afraid/scared, happy (reverse coded), guilty, lonely, disappointed, rejected, worried) according to how they felt during the conflict they described with mother, father, and dating partner on a scale ranging from 1 (did not feel at all) to 3 (really felt). A negative affect intensity score was comprised of the mean of the eight emotion ratings for each conflict (Mom A = .71; Dad A = .68; Dating Partner a = .63). The trait subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, 1983) and the 13-item short form of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck et al., 1961) were indicators of general negative affectivity. The STAI includes 20 items describing symptoms of anxiety, which participants rated on a scale from 1 (least anxious) to 4 (most anxious) (a = .79). For each item of the BDI, participants chose 1 of 4 statements describing affective, cognitive, physical, and behavioral symptoms of depression. Scores for each item ranged from 0 (not depressive) to 3 (most depressive symptom) for a total possible score of 39 (A = .90). RESULTS The first objective of this study was to examine variation in both mental health (depression and anxiety) and negative affect in the context of interpersonal conflict as a function of attachment style. Mean scores on depression and anxiety were compared using one-tailed t-tests. Consistent with hypotheses, participants with an insecure attachment style rated themselves higher on both depression and anxiety. Mean scores on negative affect in the context of conflict were also compared using one-tailed t-tests. Insecure participants scored higher than secure participants on negative affect during conflict with mother, father, and dating partner, confirming the second hypothesis (Table I). The second objective of this study was to compare appraisals of control and threat as a function of attachment style, and appraisals as predictors of coping. Onetailed t -tests were used to compare means of appraisals for secure and insecure participants (Table I). Hypotheses regarding appraisals of control were partially supported: Insecure participants rated themselves lower on control over how the conflict with father will turn out (F(2,68) = 4.8; p < .05) (higher scores reflect less control). Comparisons of control appraisals for mother and dating partner were not significant. Hypotheses regarding appraisals of threat as a function of attachment security were partially supported: Insecure participants regarded conflict with dating partner as a greater threat (F ( 2 , 7 1 ) = 17.7; p < .001). Comparisons of appraisal


554

Table I. Negative Affect and Appraisals as a Function of Attachment Style Secure (n = 44) M (SD) General negative affect Depression 12.5 (2.8) Anxiety 12.6(3.4) Negative affect during conflict Mom conflict 1.4 (0.3) Dad conflict 1.4 (0.3) Partner conflict 1.7 (0.3) Appraisals Control-Mom 2.0 (0.7) Control-Dad 2.0 (0.7) Control-Partner 1.8 (0.5) Threat-Mom 1.5 (0.6) Threat-Dad 1.4 (0.6) Threat-Partner 1.8 (0.6)

Insecure (n = 29) M (SD)

F

17.0 (6.7) 14.6 (3.4)

16.1c 5.2a

1.7 (0.4) 1.7 (0.5) 1.9 (0.4)

10.8b 7.3a 7.5b

2.2 (0.8) 2.3 (0.6) 1.9 (0.7) 1.8 (0.8) 1.8 (0.9) 2.3 (0.5)

2.5 4.8a 0.2 2.7 3.3 17.7c

a

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

b

c

of threat during conflict with mother and father as a function of attachment security were not significant. Hypotheses regarding appraisals as predictors of coping strategies were partially supported. Appraisals of control were significantly correlated with problem solving in conflicts with father and dating partner, but not mother. Control was also significantly correlated with support seeking during father conflict. Higher control scores reflect lower appraisals of control, so the relationship is actually inverse: appraisals of lower control were associated with problem solving with fathers and dating partners, and with support seeking in response to conflict with mothers. Appraisals of threat were significantly correlated with support seeking and problem focused coping during conflicts with mother and dating partner, and with problem focused coping during conflict with father (Table II). The third objective of this study was to compare coping strategies as a function of attachment style. One-tailed t-tests partially supported hypotheses. Insecure participants were more likely to use avoidance in all three relationships and to use support seeking in response to conflict with mother and dating partner. However, secure and insecure participants did not significantly differ on their endorsement of problem focused strategies (Table III). The fourth purpose of this research was to test a multivariate model including attachment style, relationship-specific attachment models, negative affect (depression, anxiety, and contextual negative emotion), and appraisals to predict three types of coping strategies: problem solving, support seeking, and avoidance.


555

Table II. Correlations Between Negative Affect, Appraisals, and Coping Styles Mother

Depression Anxiety Negative affect Control Magnitude (threat)

Father

Dating Partner

Sup

Avoid

Prob

Sup

Avoid

Prob

Sup

Avoid

Prob

.37b .21 .61b .20 .37b

.46b .18 .53b .15 .23

.19 .15 .33b .19 .44b

.02 .13 .15 .26a .16

.30a .06 .36b -.10 -.11

-.18 .07 -.18 .33b .26a

.44b .24 .40b .04 .45b

.29a .20 .21 .01 .06

-.07 .15 .21 .28a .41b

a

p < .05. p < .01.

b

Table III. Coping Strategies as a Function of Attachment Style Coping Strategies Conflict with mother Support seeking Problem solving Avoidance Conflict with father Support seeking Problem solving Avoidance Conflict with dating partner Support seeking Problem solving Avoidance

Secure (n = 44) M (SD)

Insecure (n = 29) M (SD)

F

1.8 (0.4) 2.2 (0.6) 2.1 (0.4)

2.1 (0.6) 2.5 (0.7) 2.4 (0.5)

8.9b 2.9 13.0c

2.1 (0.6) 2.6 (0.9) 1.9 (0.6)

2.4 (0.6) 2.7 (0.7) 2.1 (0.5)

3.1 0.1 4.1"

1.9 (0.3) 2.5 (0.6) 2.2 (0.3)

2.2 (0.4) 2.5 (0.6) 2.5 (0.4)

14.9c 0.4 12.5b

a

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

b c

Stepwise set hierarchical regression analysis was used, entering variables in the following order: Step (1), general attachment style; Step (2), specific attachment style; Step (3), affect (depression and negative affect in the context of conflict); Step (4), appraisals of control and threat; Step (5), control x threat interaction term. Variables were entered as a set, so the R 2 T , F, and p values presented in the tables are estimates for the step, rather than for individual variables. Anxiety was omitted from regression analysis because it was not significantly correlated with coping styles. The dimensional scores for general and specific attachment style (Close/Depend, Anxiety) were entered in the regressions. Attachment variables were entered first because they were conceptualized for this research as an organizational construct for emotions and appraisals, which are proximal predictors of coping.


556

Table IV. Set Hierarchical Regressions of Attachment, Affect, and Appraisals as Predictors of Coping With Mother Conflict a Problem Solving

Step 1: General attachment Close/Depend Anxiety Step 2: Specific attachment Close/Depend Anxiety Step 3: Affect Conflict emotions Depression Step 4: Appraisals Threat Control Step 5: Interaction effect Threat x Control

Beta

R2T

F

.08

.02

0.7

.13 .03 .25

.05

.35 .10

.06

.16

.02

R2T

F

.23 .33

.16

6.4c

-.06

1.6

.59

.09

5.6c

1.4

.25

.00

1.2

-.42

.15

F

.05

.11

4.3b

.02

2.5b

-.07

.20

8.5"

.56 .32

.21

5.7d

.03

7.3"

.34 .02

.12

5.8d

.02 .50

7.0d

.04 .44

5.4d

-.00

.14

R2T

.16

.23

.09

Beta

.33

.35

Total R2 a

1.2

Avoidance

Support Seeking Beta

-.96

2

Variables are entered as a set; K T's and F-'s are for the step. p < .05. p < .01. d p < .001.

b

c

Conflict With Mother All three regression equations significantly predicted coping strategies during conflict with mother (Table IV). All five steps significantly predicted support seeking and avoidance. Women who were more anxious in their general and specific attachment, who were more depressed and experienced greater intensity of negative emotions in the conflict, and who perceived the conflict as a greater threat were more likely to seek support and to avoid their mothers. Only the affect x appraisal interaction predicted problem solving. Conflict With Father Regression equations predicting problem solving and avoidance during conflict with fathers were significant (Table V). All five steps were significant in each equation. Standardized regression coefficients for attachment and emotion variables indicated relationships in the expected direction: General attachment security was positively associated with problem solving and inversely associated with avoidance. Depression was positively associated with avoidance, and negatively associated with problem solving.


557

Table V. Set Hierarchical Regressions of Attachment, Affect, and Appraisals as Predictors of Coping With Father Conflict a Problem Solving

Step 1: General attachment Close/Depend Anxiety Step 2: Specific attachment Close/Depend Anxiety Step 3: Affect Conflict emotions Depression Step 4: Appraisals Threat Control Step 5: Interaction effect Threat x Control 2

Total R

Beta

2

RT

F

.35 .06

.11

4.0b

.20 -.21

.05

-.06 -.20

.03

-.04 .33

.09

-.10

.00 .28

3.2b

Support Seeking Beta

RT

F

Beta

R2T

F

.21 .13

.05

1.8

-.27

.14

5.4b

.14

.03

.25

10.3d

.06 .10

.01

6.9d

.06

.02

5.3d

.00 .42

4.7d

.28 1.4

.34

07

1.9

.14 .13

.02

1.6

.02

.00 .18

-.02

2.9c

2.6b

-.53

.16

-.15

2.5b

Avoidance

2

-.13

1.5

-.37

a

Variables are entered as a set; TR2's and F's are for the step. p < .05. c p < .01. d p < .001. b

Conflict With Dating Partner None of the predictors were significantly correlated with problem solving during conflict with a dating partner, so the multivariate model was not tested for problem solving. General and specific attachment, affect, appraisals, and the affect x appraisal interaction predicted support seeking and avoidance. Results are presented in Table VI. DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to examine attachment style as an organizational construct for affect, appraisal, and coping. Results largely supported hypotheses. Insecure general attachment was significantly correlated with all indices of negative affect, and insecure specific attachment was significantly correlated with depression and with negative affect in the context of interpersonal conflict. Similarly, all five comparisons of affect as a function of attachment security were significant, indicating that participants with an insecure attachment style reported more negative affect in the context of interpersonal conflict, and higher levels of

558

Torquati and Vazsonyi Table VI. Set Hierarchical Regressions of Attachment, Affect, and Appraisals as Predictors of Coping With Dating Partner Conflict Support Seeking Beta Step 1: General attachment Close/Depend .12 .38 Anxiety Step 2: Specific attachment Close/Depend -.09 .24 Anxiety Step 3: Affect .29 Conflict emotions Depression .29 Step 4: Appraisals Threat .27 -.08 Control Step 5: Interaction effect Threat x Control .95 2

Total R

Avoidance

2

RT

F

Beta

R2T

F

.16

6.4b

-.00 .30

.09

3.4a

.03

3.9b

.24 .10

.04

2.5a

.13

5.1c

.14

.05

2.4a

.09

2.9b

.03 .30

3.0b

.22 .06

4.8c

.24

.24 .01 .39

4.5c

.13

a

p < .05. p < .01. c p < .001. b

depression and anxiety. This replicates previous work linking attachment style with affective disorder (e.g., Carnelley et al., 1994). Affective disorder and situational emotions are qualitatively different constructs. Investigation of reported emotions during conflict with mother, father, and dating partner represents a unique contribution to understanding attachment as an organizational construct for affect. Attachment was also examined as an organizational construct for appraisals. Results partially supported hypotheses. Secure attachment style is associated with efficacious perceptions of the self in social situations and is analogous to greater perceived control. Secure participants perceived greater control in conflicts with fathers, but comparisons of perceived control in conflicts with mothers and dating partners were nonsignificant. Participants with an insecure attachment style perceived conflict with their dating partners as a greater threat than did secure participants. Appraisals of threat and control were examined as predictors of coping. Appraisals of threat were positively associated with problem solving in all three relationships, and positively associated with support seeking with mother and dating partner. It appears that perception of threat in the context of conflict can be a motivator for problem focused action. Appraisals of control significantly predicted problem solving with father and dating partner, and support seeking with father. Results also largely supported hypotheses regarding attachment as an organizational construct for coping: Insecure participants were more likely to use avoidant


559

strategies to cope with conflict in all three relationships and were more likely to seek support in response to conflict with mothers and dating partners. These results are consistent with previous research indicating that insecure attachment is associated with more emotion focused coping (Lussier et al., 1997). However, it should be noted that seeking emotional and informational support from others can be both emotion and problem focused. Comparison of problem solving as a function of attachment security yielded no significant differences; however, both general and specific attachment predicted problem solving with fathers in the multivariate model. This is also consistent with findings of Lussier et al. (1997), who reported an association between secure attachment style and problem focused coping in the context of interpersonal conflict. Previous research has not documented an association between attachment and problem focused coping in response to non-interpersonal stressors (e.g. Mikulincer and Florian, 1995), underscoring the importance of attachment as an organizational construct for appraisals specific to relational stressors. General affective dispositions and situational emotions were examined as predictors of coping. It appears from these data that state anxiety is not significantly related to coping. Conversely, depression was associated with avoidance in all three relationships and with support seeking in response to conflict with mothers and dating partners. Consistent with hypotheses, negative affect in the context of conflict was positively related to avoidance in conflicts with mothers and fathers, and positively associated with support seeking during conflicts with mothers and dating partners. Contrary to hypotheses, negative emotion was positively associated with problem solving in conflicts with mother and with dating partner. This is inconsistent with previous research (e.g., Greene and Noice, 1988). However, this finding raises an interesting question: Why invest effort in solving a problem if it is not distressing for you or your relationship partner? Negative emotion can serve an adaptive function in relationships. Just as love and protectiveness function to motivate adults to care for children and security needs promote proximity seeking, anger and fear can signal disequilibrium in the relationship and motivate action to regain equilibrium. Anger preceding aggression in abusive relationships should be avoided, and can be a signal to flee. Avoidance is an appropriate response in high danger situations, or situations in which there is little or no control over outcomes. Avoidance is problematic if it is inappropriately generalized across stressor situations. Similarly, negative affect can be adaptive if it motivates action that moves a relationship to equilibrium, and can be maladaptive if it is disruptive to the relationship and/or to the health and development of individuals in the relationship. Cognitive appraisals have been extensively examined in coping literature. Emphasis on cognitive appraisals reflects a rational bias in models of behavior. Results of this research indicate that the role of emotions in predicting coping should be examined more closely. Contextual emotions were as important as cognitive appraisals in these analyses. Moreover, negative emotions predicted problem solving

560


with mothers—indicating that negative emotion can be a motivator for action. Negative emotion is typically viewed as maladaptive. However, negative emotion can serve an adaptive function in relationships. Results reported here are consistent with those of Simpson (1990) and Collins (1996), in which both preoccupied and dismissing participants reported greater distress in their romantic relationships, and with those of Feeney and Kirkpatrick (1996) in which both preoccupied and dismissing college women experienced greater autonomic arousal during a laboratory separation than secure participants. It is noteworthy that similar results have been obtained in each of the studies using dissimilar methods. However, findings differ from those of Simpson et al. (1992), possibly because in this research the origin of the threat is within the relationship, and in the Simpson research the locus of the threat was in the research context—making the dating partner a potential source of support in the context of perceived threat. This raises an interesting question regarding attachment as an organizational construct for coping. Attachment theory suggests that internal working models of relationships provide a heuristic for processing social information. To what extent do attachment style and patterns of appraisal, emotion, and coping within relationships generalize to non-interpersonal stressors? The influence of attachment style on coping with interpersonal (Lussier et al., 1997) and non-interpersonal stressors has been examined (e.g., Mikulincer and Florian, 1995). Investigating attachment as an organizational construct for coping with both types of stressors in the same sample is an important question for future research. This research tested the direct contributions of attachment, affect, and appraisals in the prediction of coping with conflict. However, results suggest that a mediating model in which attachment predicts affect and appraisals, which in turn predict coping is also plausible, and would be consistent with the conceptualization of attachment as an organizational construct. Limitations of the present research should be noted. Proportions of the sample in each of the insecure attachment style categories were not sufficient to test differential hypotheses as a function of type of insecure attachment. It will be important for future research to delineate variability in coping strategies as a function of type of insecure attachment because, for example, relative activation and deactivation can be considered strategies to regulate attachment related emotions and cognitions. The current sample was limited to females. Including males in future research is important for several reasons, including delineation of the differential influence of attachment style with mothers and fathers on attachment and coping with dating partners. Finally, there is potential for significant method variance as all data are self-report, although items describing attachment style are primarily cognitive and affective, and items describing coping are behavioral. Appraisals of threat and control were each measured by a single item, so reliability estimated could not be computed. There was potential for multicollinearity because of the significant correlations between negative affect and attachment styles. Replication


561

and refinement should include a larger, more diverse sample, and employ multiple, dissimilar measures of constructs. REFERENCES Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., and Borman-Spurrell, E. (1996). Attachment theory as a framework for understanding sequelae of severe adolescent psychopathology: An 11-year follow-up study. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 64: 254-263. Armsden, G.C., and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. J. Youth Adoles. 16(5): 427-454. Baldwin, M. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychol. Bull. 112: 461-484. Band, E. B., and Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children's perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Develop. Psychol. 24(2): 247-253. Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., and Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory measuring depression. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 4: 53-63. Billings, A. G., and Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. J. Behav. Med. 4: 139-157. Billings, A. G., and Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social resources among adults with unipolar depression. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 46: 877-891. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Loss, Sadness, and Depression. BasicBooks, New York. Bowlby, J, (1988). A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books, New York. Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., and Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working models of others, and relationship functioning. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 66: 127-140. Cavell, T. A., and Constantin, L. (1991). Attachment and social competence in early adolescence. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA. Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71: 810-832. Collins, N. L., and Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58: 644—663. Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychol. Bull. 101: 393-403. Compas, B. E., Forsythe, C. J., and Wagner, B. M. (I988a). Consistency and variability in causal attributions and coping with stress. Cog. Therapy Res. 12: 305-320. Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., and Fondacaro, K. M. (1988b). Coping with stressful events in older children and young adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 56: 405-411. Compas, B. E., Banez, G. A., Malcarne, V., and Worsham, N. (1991). Perceived control and coping with stress: A developmental perspective. J. Soc. Issues 47: 23-34. Dodge, K. A. (1991). Emotion and social information processing. In Dodge, K. A., and Garber, J. (eds.), The Development of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation. Cambridge University Press, Boston, pp. 159-181. Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effects of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 66: 183-201. Elicker, J. G. (1991). Attachment history, interpersonal sensitivity, and peer competence in preadolescence. Poster presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA. Endler, N. S., and Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 58: 844-854. Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and Arousal. Springer-Verlag, New York. Feeney, B. C., and Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1996). The effects of adult attachment and presence of romantic partners on physiological responses to stress. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70: 255-270. Forsythe, C. J., and Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive appraisals of stressful events and coping: Testing the goodness of fit hypothesis. Cog. Therapy Res. 11: 473-485.

562


Gamble, W. C. (1993). Perceptions of controllability and other stressor event characteristics as determinants of coping among young adolescents and young adults. J. Youth Adolesc, 23: 65-84. George, C., Kaplan, N., and Main, M. (1985). The Attachment Interview for Adults. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Psychology. Greene, T. R., and Noice, N. (1988). Influence of positive affect upon creative thinking and problem solving in children. Psychol. Rep. 63: 895-899. Griffin, D., and Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 67: 430-445, Hazan, C., and Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 52: 511-524. Kobak, R. R., and Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of working models. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 60: 861-869. Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., and Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Develop. Psychopathol. 3: 461-474. Kobak, R., Cole, H., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W., and Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Develop. 64: 231-245. Kwakman, A. M., Zuiker, J. M., Schippers, G. M., and Wuffel, F. J. (1988). Drinking behavior, drinking attitudes, and attachment relationship of adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 17: 247-253. Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer, New York. Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., and Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 14: 777-791. Main, M., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In Bretherton, I., and Waters, E. (eds.), Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research. Serial No. 209. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and Emotion. Wiley, London. Mikulincer, M., and Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21:406—414. Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., and Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64: 817-826. Moss, R. H., and Billings, A. G. (1982). Conceptualizing and measuring coping resources and processes. In Goldberger, L., and Breznitz, S. (eds.), Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects. Macmillan, New York. Papini, D. R., and Roggman, L. A. (1992). Adolescent perceived attachment to parents in relation to competence, depression, and anxiety: A longitudinal study. J, Early Adolesc. 12: 420-440. Patterson, J. M., and McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. J. Adolesc. 10: 163-186. Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict resolution and relationship satisfaction. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 6: 505-510. Rosenberg, S. J., Peterson, R. Z., and Hayes, J. R. (1987). Coping behaviors among depressed and nondepressed medical inpatients. J. Psychosom. Res. 31: 653-658. Rosenstein, D. S., and Horowitz, H. A. (1996), Adolescent attachment and psychopathology. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 64: 244-253. Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 59: 971-980. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., and Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 62: 434-446. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., and Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An attachment perspective. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 71: 899-914. Speilberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA. Sroufe, L., and Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Develop. 48: 1184-1199.