How deep is your love? Theoretical considerations of adult attachment systems, activation of attachment processes through primes, and their influence on social evaluations.

Sara Graham

23002858

Level 6 Research Project - BSc Psychology Hons

Dissertation supervisor: Dr. David Bowles

Contents

Description Page number

Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………… 3

Abstract ………………………………………………………………….. 4

Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 4

Background literature & Theoretical discussion 4

Attachment and Priming: State vs. Trait 9

Attachment and Social Evaluations 10

The Current Study 12

Design and Method……………………………………………………….. 14

Materials 14

Design 14

Participants & Procedure 15

Ethical considerations 16

Results and Analysis………………………………………………………. 16

T-tests 16

Correlations 17

Moderation Regression analysis 18

Discussion………………………………………………………………… 20

References………………………………………………………………… 31

Appendices………………………………………………………………… 37

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has helped me in executing this research

project. Firstly, I would like to thank my project supervisor Dr. David Bowles for all of the

guidance and support he has given me throughout the production of this dissertation; without

his theoretical and practical expertise I would not have been able to complete this project to

its final level.

I would like to thank my family and friends who helped me with the mammoth task of data

collection and getting through the multiple nervous breakdowns.

I would also like to thank the other university staff including the tutors and the Technical

resources team Daniel Addy and Lee Wallace who helped, not only myself, but the hundreds

of other final year psychology students in completing their dissertations.

3

Abstract

Adult attachment orientation can be primed by using cues to activate the attachment system

(Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007a). Also our attachment system plays a

crucial role in processing social information in turn effecting our vigilance to cues in social

interactions in order to evaluate and monitor the availability and receptiveness of security

bases (Bowles & Meyer, 2008). This study gives insight into the theoretical discussions of

adult attachment with a review of the existing literature drawing conclusions on the most

appropriate methods of gestating adult attachment, explores attachment primes, attachment

states, and interactions between them in attempt to explain individual differences in social

evaluations, and finds support for the chosen suitable theoretical position with implications

for this field of research. 121 participants took part in one of two attachment priming

conditions (secure or insecure), participants completed a State Adult Attachment Measure

(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) and a social evaluation task to measure if primed attachment

orientation effects attachment state and social evaluations. Initial analysis found that the

secure prime increased security and positive social evaluation, decreasing anxiety, avoidance

and negative social evaluation; the insecure prime increased anxiety, avoidance, negative

social evaluations, decreasing security and positive social evaluation, in line with literature

and accepting the predicted hypotheses (H1). Exploratory hierarchical regression and

moderation analyses also found the prime conditions moderated the relationship between

avoidant attachment and negative evaluations, and secure attachment and negative

evaluations. Findings are discussed in relevance of adult attachment theory in predicting

individuals’ social evaluations.

4

Introduction

Background literature & Theoretical discussion – Hazan & Shaver’s (1987) study was one

of the first to examine the likelihood of romantic love being an attachment process and noting

the similarities between how the bonds between mother and infant translates to the bonds

formed in adulthood; this was based on the notion that continuity of attachment style may be

explained by inner mental models of the ‘self’ and ‘others’ developed as an infant (Bowlby,

1973; Cassidy, 2000). Hazen & Shaver (1987) used the primary elements of attachment

theory, applying them to the development of adult romantic relationships including the use of

the three major attachment styles - secure, avoidant and ambivalent - by using questionnaires.

It’s main findings were that attachment orientation between infancy and adulthood were

relatively correlated, the adults varied predictably in their relationship behaviours and

experiences, and that theoretical inner working models of the self and others were implicitly

related to attachment orientations. This study was problematic on multiple issues; the data of

childhood attachment style was collected in a retrospective, self-report manner considering

that parental relationships may not be remembered, reported or represented accurately

especially when these memories were from infancy. Also, the researchers attempted to create

three trait adult-attachment groups based on their visualisations of how adults of each of the

infant groupings would behave in the dimension of romantic relationships, which seems

problematic as the infancy-type dimension does not directly translate into the adult-types.

Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) challenged the existing three-type

approach due to concerns about the merging of the two theoretically discrete forms of

avoidant attachment which Bartholomew labelled as fearful-avoidance – a preventative

orientation to being hurt by partners – and dismissive-avoidance – an orientation to

defensively affirm independence and self-reliance. Therefore, by building a model around

Bowlby’s work (1973) of internal working models, they formed a four type categorical

5

model; secure, pre-occupied, fearful, and dismissive. However, while these models are still

frequently used and referred to in literature, the restrictive weaknesses became quickly

apparent as many individuals did not fit easily into just one category.

Rather than dichotomous categories, adult attachment researchers (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,

1998) began to refine the theory by reducing the

descriptions of each orientation down to

agree/disagree items, factor-analysing and converting

the results into a two dimensional model, the first

dimension anxiety – the fear that one has about

rejection or abandonment from the significant other –

and the second avoidance – the extent to which one

seeks emotional distance and independence from the

significant other. Those scoring low on both dimensions were considered to be secure, those

scoring high on both considered fearful (see figure 1 for an illustrative model). It was found

that this model consistently and accurately displays inter-correlations with attachment

valuations in that each attachment-type encompassed a certain profile of attachment traits

(Fraley & Waller, 1998) validated by self-report measures, agreeance between family, and

peers. This model can be accurately evaluated with reliable and valid self-report

questionnaires and align with the theoretical framework allowing for accurate predictions of

future relationship conditions and personal adaptation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a).

Fraley, Hudson, Heffernan & Segal (2015) recently revised the literature in this debate with

an empirically strong study finding that although continuous scales were established as most

appropriate, categorical models are still widespread across the research to deliberate and

assess empirical findings around attachment. Sampling was internet-based and analysis was

carried out over two levels with two large, diverse samples; exploratory analysis of 2,399

6

individuals and inferential analysis with 2,300 other individuals. Results in this study found

that the dimensional models of attachment were much more suitable for conceptualising,

evaluating and assessing adult attachment research in both general and specific attachments

(e.g. familial, romantic, peer). Brennan, Clark & Shaver (1998) further supported this

dimensional model with a large-scale factor-analysis of all attachment self-report scales; this

took data from 1,086 participants ranging from 16 to 50 and the two major dimensions of

avoidance and anxiety clearly transpired. From this the Experiences in Close Relationships

(ECR), a 36-item attachment measure, was made with four attachment orientation categories

from the two dimensions with much higher construct validity than prior attachment scales.

However, a major issue with conceptualising adult attachment in the above models are the

repeated findings of within-person variation. For example, Baldwin et al. (1996) found that

while some individuals see their spouse as warm and affectionate they can see their mother as

rejecting. Klohnen, Weller, Luo & Choe.

(2005) expanded on this in their paper

discussing the literature of general vs.

relationship specific attachment models;

using hierarchical regression only a small,

average correlation between security in

parental relationships and romantic

relationships of 0.2 was found. Therefore,

these findings require a more complex model

to account for the relationship specific

within-person variations.

Mikulincer & Shaver (2003) also carried out

a summary of adult attachment research and put forward a connectionist model with appraisal

7

and behavioural modules (see figure 2; Model of Attachment-system Functioning and

Dynamics) to best demonstrate their conclusions of the complex interplay of the attachment

system. Drawing back on Bowbly’s (1988) ideas around attachment representations/internal

working models and also past literature, Mikulincer and Shaver (2003; 2007a) integrated the

working attachment model within a semantic associative network of information processing.

Their ideas around attachment leave the categorical and two dimensional models as over

simplified and reductionist; instead the anxiety and avoidance dimensions are found to be

separate, independent components, with a third independent dimension of security (as

opposed to this being the result of low presence of the other two). This results in three major

attachment dimensions that make up some of the cognitive-affective model, a) attachment

security, the seeking of proximity to the source of support when threatened, b) attachment

anxiety, the fear of rejection or abandonment by attachment figures and c) attachment

avoidance, the lack of desire for closeness with the attachment figure (Mikulincer & Shaver,

2007a). As this is a working model it also incorporates episodic, context-related, specific

relationship and generic relationship attachment representations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).

This means that the order, excitatory strength, and outcome of activation of the nodes and

units depend on the individual’s past and recent attachment experiences, and current context.

From the nature of this model we can account for the plethora of data that has found trends of

within-person variations that was a problematic finding for the reliability of the global,

dimensional models (figure1). This model allows for a more precise demonstrating of the

cognitive-affective processing of attachment representations to fit within a working model of

attachment made up by a combination of memorable interactions throughout the life span –

not only as an infant but (Bowlby, 1988) simultaneously being dynamic due to context-

dependency (Fraley, 2007). Fraley’s (2007) astute theoretical article on using connectionist

models (like Mikulincer and Shaver’s 2003) for understanding adult attachment highlights

8

that the attachment information is distributed across a network, and that the system functions

via activation of certain units, as opposed to a unit for the mother, a unit for the romantic

partner etc. Differing patterns of activation generate differing attachment representations.

Attachment and Priming: State vs. Trait – As research has found that individual’s attachment

orientation can fluctuate (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995) due to current relationship experiences and

situational context (Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer & Shaver 2007b), this within-person

variation challenges the earlier paradigm of trait attachment style by indicating the existence

of state-dependent properties of adult attachment. For example, Zhang (2009) followed 30

participants for 4 weeks through semi-weekly reports of interpersonal experiences and

attachment dispositions finding specifically that state anxiety elevated when higher numbers

of negative interpersonal experiences or ‘perceived interpersonal losses’ were reported; when

these events were less reported, state security elevated. The study had a methodologically

sound design – other than the smaller than ideal sample size – and while not referring directly

to Mikulincer & Shaver’s model (2003, 2007a) the attempt to explain the findings are

theoretically analogous (e.g. “ongoing appraisal process” and “feedback from recent

interpersonal experiences”). These findings give clear support for the research findings of

state attachment orientation and also theoretical support for Mikulincer & Shaver’s working

model of adult attachment. Thus, it is viable to observe the effects of experimentally primed

states of security, anxiety, and avoidance by temporarily manipulating accessibility to certain

attachment related information in the individual’s attachment framework.

Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias & Gillath. (2001) demonstrated contextual activation of

the attachment system over five studies with an Israeli student sample by measuring empathy

and reactions to other’s needs (a by-product of secure attachment) and personal distress (a by-

product of anxious attachment). When the state of attachment security was primed using a

number of different techniques (recollecting warm memories, security vignettes, images,

9

exposure to security-related words) empathy was stronger and personal distress was impeded.

However, while attachment-security primes had effect, they were unsuccessful in restricting

the cognitive access to specific personal-distress memories suggesting the existence of a more

strongly enduring link that cannot be overridden by experimental primes. Also, while findings

of fluctuations in adult attachment are prominent, there are further findings providing support

for a stable long-term attachment orientation underlying the temporary variation patterns

(Buist, Reitz, Dekovic 2008; Fraley Vicary, Brumbaugh & Roisman, 2011).

Fraley (2007) uses the theoretical implications of connectionist models to account for these

juxtaposing findings; similar patterns of fluctuation and stability in personality has been

demonstrated and explained by another connectionist model - Mischel & Shoda’s (1995;

2008) Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) model. A number of established and

unique ‘if… then…’ situation-behaviour profiles coded within the individual’s CAPS can

account for fluctuations in behaviour while also giving consistency in how individuals’

behaviour fluctuates between different contexts. Therefore, while on the surface the

individual’s behaviour may not seem to have any apparent patterns, there is a higher-order

regularity in terms of these situation-behaviour profiles. This means that context dependent

attachment representations (state attachment) can coexist with global attachment

representations conceived in infancy and up (trait attachment) both exercising their control

over behaviour when the individual is in new circumstances (Fraley, 2007; Davila & Sargent,

2003). This reasoning corresponds with Bowlby’s (1969; 1982) original ideas that the mental

representations of the self and other are reworked and updated with every novel experience

and relationship while the mental working models fabricated in infancy tend to persist

throughout.

Attachment and Social evaluations – As it was found that as these working attachment

systems were deeply ingrained, underlying systems, functioning at multiple levels of global

10

and specific representations, it would seem logical that they also play a crucial role in

attending to social material, actively handling social evaluations and judgements

(Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000) – despite the individual’s sense of subjective

autonomy (Ferguson, Bargh & Nayak, 2005) – in order to constantly appraise and monitor the

availability and receptiveness of security bases (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer,

2002). Since each individual has unique attachment representations as a product of their past

experiences each person’s attachment system will vary in levels of vigilance to certain social

cues (Zayas, Ayduk & Shoda, 2002; Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver, 2002). Bowles & Meyer

(2008) explored this notion using hierarchical regression. 169 undergraduates with varying

levels of Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD) features were assigned to three attachment

priming conditions (positive, negative, neutral) and asked to appraise vignettes. Results

showed significantly that more avoidant individuals consistently appraised the emotionally

ambiguous vignettes more negatively despite the priming condition. Also, unless placed in the

negative prime condition, those with less APD features did not display negative appraisals.

The findings aligned with the assumption that individuals with more APD features tend to be

insensitive to context and highly inflexible in their negative-information processing

tendencies due to their constant state of insecurity. Fraley, Niedenthal, Marks, Brumbaugh &

Vicary. (2006) also demonstrated the function of attachment systems in social evaluations,

recording the perceived offset (study1) and onset (study2-4) of expressions through morph

movies. Anxiously attached participants were found to be hyper-vigilant in these tasks as they

had higher tendencies to report offset and onset of expressions earlier than other participants

(Niedenthal, Brauer, Robin & Innes-Ker, 2002). This seemed to be the case regardless of the

type of expression being appraised (positive or negative) paradoxically suggesting that

hypervigilance from anxious attachment can lead to less precision in determining facial

expression; instead it seems that the proverbial ‘Goldilocks’ balance of ‘just right’ vigilance is

11

needed for accurate expression appraisal.

The findings of linkage between attachment and social appraisal fits nicely into the

evolutionary foundations within attachment theory. Infants bond with maternal figures in

order to survive (Bowlby, 1969); it is in this same system that feelings of trust, anxiety, and

avoidance develop for evolutionary reasons of survival to enable automatic judgment of

situations (Fraley, Brumbaugh & Marks, 2005), and new people (Brumbaugh & Fraley,

2007). For example, Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) observed a direct link between secure base

priming and positive outgroup appraisal throughout a number of studies due to the primed

secure base functioning as a cognitive-affective protection; those with a chronic sense of

security maintained this positive appraisal while those higher in anxious attachment were

inclined to evaluate the outgroup more negatively. This displays the tendencies of anxious

individuals’ models of the self when they encounter a threat (outgroup member) to invoke

prevention motivation (Förster, Higgins & Strack, 2000) in order to avoid negative outcomes

from interpersonal relationships, e.g. rejection (Smith, Murphy & Coats, 1999). This inherent

mental attachment system, therefore, enables individuals to build our interpersonal

expectations in infancy and adapt them throughout life, suitably equipping the individual with

the ability to process social information and make informed evaluations (Shaver &

Mikulincer, 2002). This results in an attachment system that has a higher-level consistency

like the CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 2008); contextual activation of the attachment

system corresponds with other aspects of the individual’s psyche, such as personality (Bowles

& Meyer, 2008), to determine a complex series of ‘if… then…’ behavioural patterns

(Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). This means that a lot of behaviour is governed by reactions to

social situations that confront individuals in everyday life (Zayas, Ayduk & Shoda, 2002).

The current study – After discussing the categorical or continuous construction of models on

which we methodize adult attachment, the nature of scales on which we can most accurately

12

measure and capture attachment orientations, the capacity of attachment orientation to be

characteristically state or trait, and its genuine degree of influence on other aspects of our

behaviour, this study’s primary goals are to explore and consolidate the relationship between

primed state orientations on neutral facial expressions after either a secure or insecure prime

using t-tests, hierarchical regression analysis, and moderation. The effects of these primes will

be measured by the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009 – appendix

1) and social evaluations of neutral faces both with likert-type scales. This study will adapt the

original study of Gillath et al. (study 4; 2009) by using an insecure prime as opposed to

neutral, and additionally further examine the effects attachment orientations have on social

information processing i.e. neutral facial expressions. This study also aims to provide support

for the SAAM (Gillath et al., 2009) which is still an underused measure in adult attachment

literature (Bosmans, Bowles, Dewitte, De Winter & Braet, 2014) even after the existence of

state attachment has been securely established (Zhang, 2009; Davila & Sargent, 2003) and for

Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2003) connectionist model of adult attachment.

Based on prior literature, it is hypothesised that participants in the secure prime condition will

show higher levels of secure attachment and lower levels of avoidant and anxious attachment

and that, in line with connectionist theory, both the prime and secure attachment style will

predict the neutral expressions being appraised more positively or accurately (neutral). The

insecure prime condition should show higher levels avoidance and anxiety and lower levels of

secure, and that both will account for negative attributions to the neutral faces giving low

positive social evaluation and high negative social evaluation (Fraley et al., 2006). Anxious

individuals are expected to be hypervigilant meaning that this prediction may be stronger

across anxious groups. Since findings around avoidant attachment behaviours are still

irresolute a definite prediction cannot be pinned; however, it is expected that they may either

follow a similar pattern to anxious individuals being hypervigilant to interpersonal cues in

13

order to readily become guarded (Fraley et al., 2006) or defence strategies, such as numbing

of social perceptive abilities, may be enforced, in which case results may indicate a lack of

reactivity to neutral expression by assigning neither consistently positive or negative

properties (Niedenthal et al., 2002). Findings of moderation will give support to connectionist

models.

Design and method

Materials: The study was completed via an online data collection program called Qualtrics

which meaning the only materials the participant needed to complete the study was a

computer with internet connection. The study itself – including primes – were made by the

researcher. The SAAM (Gillath et al., 2009; appendix 1) – a 21- item questionnaire made up

of a number of statements that have been found to determine oscillations in adult attachment

orientation in the three scales of security, anxiety, and avoidance (following Mikulincer &

Shaver’s model; 2007) – was used to measure momentary attachment orientation. Though this

measure is fairly new, it has been found to be a robust psychometric assessment (Bosmans et

al., 2014) with Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores of .87 for security, .84 for anxiety, and .83

for avoidance, Gillath et al.; 2009) and high test-retest reliability (.59, .51, .53, ps < .01).

Images of the neutral faces (3 female, 3 male; appendix 12) were collected from the free

source http://pics.psych.stir.ac.uk/ - “Stirling_faces” database on the University of Sterling,

Department of psychology website – evaluation terms ascribed to faces were unfriendly,

hostile, dishonest, and helpful, trustworthy, approachable.

Design: While the design of this study is primarily experimental – using t-tests to look at the

effect of the prime conditions (secure and insecure) on the mean scores of attachment state

(anxious, avoidant and secure) and social evaluation task (positive and negative) in between-

participant conditions – correlational tests have also been used to determine the relationships

14

between the three attachment variables and the social evaluation variables. Finally, the

correlational analysis will be experimentally explored with hierarchical regression to

determine the existence of any moderating effects of the prime between attachment states and

social evaluations. By using this design, one can gain a deeper insight of the relatability and

predictability between variables and the forms of these relationships.

Participants & Procedure: 121 participants (64 female, 54 male, 3 transgender) were

recruited using opportunity volunteer sampling methods of advertising the study on social

media websites. Due to the electronic nature of the data collection a range of individuals from

17 nationalities (54% English/UK, 16% New Zealand, 7% American, 7% German, French,

Swedish, and Australian, 2% each, Russian, Finnish, Slovenian, Canadian, Italian, Spanish,

Romanian, Dutch, and Asian <1% each), alternative ages (19-68, M=29), sexual orientation

(109 straight, 7 gay, 5 bisexual), and relationship status (26 married, 46 non-married, 47

single, 1 separated) participated. After providing demographic data, participants were

randomly assigned to one of the two priming conditions asking them to recall a specific type

of relationship that could be either familial, peer, or romantic. In the secure prime condition

(SPC), participants were asked to recall specifically a warm relationship in which they felt

close and that this closeness formed easily. They felt comfortable to depend on the person and

the person to depend on them. They did not feel worried that the person would abandon them,

or become too close to them; overall, a positive relationship. In this condition there were 61

participants (31 male, 30 female), with an age range of 49 (mean 29), sexual orientation (58

straight, 2 gay, 1 bisexual) relationship status (27 non-married, 13 married, 20 single, 1

separated). In the insecure prime condition (IPC), participants were asked to recall a fairly

uncomfortable relationship in which levels of interest, effort, or intimacy put into the

relationship were unequal between them and the other person and there were concerns about

strife or friction that arose frequently. In this condition there were 60 participants (24 male, 33

15

female, 3 transgender), with an age range of 42 (mean 29), sexual orientation (51 straight, 5

gay, 4 bisexual), relationship status (19 non-married, 13 married, 27 single, 1 separated).

After recalling this memory for a moment, they were asked to give a short description of this

memory and then move onto the next task. Immediately after the prime, each participant

carried out the SAAM (Gilliath et al., 2009). After the SAAM, participants were asked to

revisit the memory they highlighted in the priming task for a moment and then they were

shown a series of neutral (expressionless) images of faces and to indicate a number between 1

- ‘strongly agree’ to 7 - ‘strongly disagree’ in the layout of a likert-type scale to the extent to

which they agreed with the statement given (e.g. to what extent do you agree that this person

looks unfriendly?).

Ethical considerations: Following the Code of Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2009), participants

were provided with a participant information sheet (appendix 2) outlining the research

question, and what their participation in the study would entail. This involved necessary

deception as participants were not told about the prime condition they would be randomly

assigned to as to not eradicate the efficacy of the prime. The participants were fully

understanding of the nature of their participation before consenting to take part, apart from the

prime aspect which was informed and explained in the debrief (appendix 3) Participants were

told about their rights to withhold any information they did not wish to share however as their

data was totally anonymous and collected via Qualtrics data could not be withdrawn once

submitted. Sheffield Hallam University approved the study (ethics proforma; appendix 4).

Results

T-tests: Primarily, Independent samples t-test analysis (appendix 5) aligned with findings in

the literature and theory demonstrating that the prime condition significantly affected each of

the attachment variables and social evaluation variables in the hypothesised directions (see

16

Table 1: t-tests of mean differences of attachment styles and social evaluations between secure

prime condition and insecure prime condition

SPC  IPCM SD M SD t-test df

Attachment security 5.85 0.84 3.86 0.91 9.14** 119Attachment avoidance 2.71 0.94 3.15 1.07 -2.45* 119Attachment anxiety 3.86 0.98 4.69 1.12 -4.32* 119Positive social evaluation 4.67 0.65 3.46 0.80 9.14** 119Negative social evaluation 2.99 0.77 4.21 1.06 -7.22** 119**p<.01, * p<.05 – Note. M=Mean. SD=Standard Deviation

table 1).

It was found that the SPC increased attachment security and positive social evaluation, and

decreased attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and negative social evaluation; the IPC

increased attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and negative social evaluations, and

decreased attachment security and positive social evaluation. Since these findings were all

significant at <0.01, correlational analysis and multiple regression analyses were used to

explore how the attachment dimensions each correlated with positive and negative social

evaluation, and how these relationships were moderated by the priming condition.

Table 2: Zero order correlation coefficients among prime conditions and state attachments.

Coefficients from the SPC are shown in the upper section and from IPC in the lower.

1 2 3 4 51. Secure attachment – -.25 -.479** -.001 .132. Anxious attachment -.24 – .13 .05 .063. Avoidant attachment -.28* -.14 – -.05 -.074. Positive social evaluation .21 -.001 -.16 – -.33*5. Negative social evaluation -.43** .16 .45** -.41** –** Correlation significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), * Correlation significant at 0.02 level (1-tailed)

Correlation matrix: As the prime was carried out initially before other variables, presenting

an overall correlation matrix for the whole data set would not demonstrate any meaningful

relationships; therefore the matrix (table 2) is arranged by the two conditions separately.

17

As expected some coefficients differ according to the prime condition; avoidant attachment

noticeably correlates differently in that it did not significantly correlate with negative social

evaluation in the SPC (r=-.07), but in the IPC avoidant attachment shows a strong positive

correlation with negative social evaluation (r=.45). Secure attachment also shows differences

across primes, correlating at 0.13 in the SPC and at 0.45 significantly in the ISP. These

differences in correlation suggest the prime condition had a moderating effect on results.

Table 3: Hierarchical regression analysis examining interaction effects of prime condition and

secure attachment state in predicting Negative social evaluation.

Independent variables  Negative social evaluation

  R2-∆ F-∆ df

Step one .34** 29.69** 2,118  Prime condition (PC)       -1.86**Secure Attachment (Secatt)       -.52**

Step two .06** 11.38** 1, 117  Secatt*PC interaction     1.67**

 p = .06, * p < .05, ** p < .01  values shown at final step

Moderation Regression analysis: In order to test for the prime condition as a moderator of

the relationship between attachment security and negative social evaluation, and attachment

avoidance and negative social evaluation, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted

separately for both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. In the first step of analysis,

attachment and prime condition were entered into SPSS; in the second step, the interaction

variable was entered, created by multiplying two existing independent variables (prime

condition X attachment). Collinearity statistics were within respectable range (tolerance at .06

and .09). Tables 3 and 4 display the two-step regression models and the significant interaction

of attachment and prime in accounting for variance in negative social evaluation. A

significant F- change value in table 3, step two indicated an effect of moderation by the prime

condition in the relationship between secure attachment and negative social evaluation with

18

both predictor variables accounting for 34% of variance (adjusted R2) and the interaction

accounting for a further 6% – ΔR2 = 0.06, F(1,117) = 29.69, p = 0.001 (appendix 6).

Table 4: Hierarchical regression analysis examining interaction effects of prime condition and

avoidant attachment state in predicting negative social evaluation

Independent variablesNegative social Evaluation

  R2-∆ F-∆ df

Step one .35** 31.40** 2,118  Prime condition (PC)       .16Avoidant Attachment (Avoatt)       .42**

Step two .05** 10.12** 1, 117  Avoatt*PC interaction       .69**

 p = .06, * p < .05, ** p < .01  values shown at final step

19

A significant F-change value in

table 4, step two was also showed

the prime condition moderated the

relationship between avoidant

attachment and negative social

evaluation with both predictor

variables accounting for 35% of

variance (adjusted R2) and the

interaction accounting for a further

5%– ΔR2 = 0.05, F(1,117) = 29.69, p = 0.001 (appendix 7). Figures 3 and 4 more clearly

represent the interaction to help interpretation. Results showed the expected pattern that when

participants were low in secure

attachment they gave very strong

negative social evaluations in the

insecure prime compared to those in

the secure prime; this prime

condition difference was also found

in participants with high secure

attachment. However, the

interaction shows participants

with high security gave less negative evaluations in the insecure prime compared to those

with low security (figure 3). Figure 4 showed that participants with low avoidant attachment

gave much less negative evaluations than those with high attachment in. Given that the scale

in figure 4 is much smaller than figure 3, the degree of difference between groups is also

smaller than the difference in figure 3. While the participants across both attachment styles in

20

Figure 3: Interaction effect of prime condition and

attachment security on negative social evaluation (scale is

negative).

Figure 4: Interaction effect of prime condition and

attachment avoidance on negative social evaluation.

Low avoidant at-tachment

High avoidant at-tachment

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Inse-cure primeSecure prime

Neg

ativ

e so

cial

eva

luat

ion

Low Secure at-tachment

High Secure at-tachment

2

3

4

5

6

7

Inse-cure prime

Neg

ativ

e so

cial

eva

luat

ion

the secure prime varied in negative social evaluations, the insecure prime seemed to amplify

the effects of the disposed attachment styles in that those with low security and high

avoidance gave higher negative evaluations than those in the insecure prime with high

security and low avoidance.

Discussion

This study set out to discuss the theoretical conceptualisations within adult attachment and

used attachment primes, attachment measures, and social evaluation tasks to explore the

influences of state attachment orientations and attachment priming conditions on social

information processing. Since the regression moderation analysis was exploratory, established

predictions of how these interactions would result were tentative giving only general

direction; it was hypothesised that the secure prime and secure attachment orientation would

both contribute, and possibly interact, in predicting positive evaluations and weakening of

negative evaluations; the insecure prime, anxious, and avoidant attachment styles would

contribute, and possibly interact to predict negative evaluations and restrict positive

evaluations. Specifically, anxious individuals’ hypervigilance would cause effects from the

insecure prime to be enhanced, and avoidance would either follow a similar pattern due to

vigilant appraisal in preparation for emotional cessation, or be unpredictable in behaviour due

to instant numbing of perceptive ability causing no consistent pattern of response (Fraley et

al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2002). T-tests initially found the primes effected the attachment

states and social evaluations respectively via expectations deduced from the literature – the

SPC increasing security, decreasing avoidance and anxiety, and predicting positive social

evaluation; the IPC increasing avoidance and anxiety, decreasing security, and increasing

negativity in social evaluations. These results were in line with theory and literature findings

similar patterns as other studies examining primes effecting attachment (Bosmans et al., 2014;

Gillath et al., 2009; Zhang, 2009) and social evaluations (Bowles & Meyer, 2008; Niedenthal,

21

et al., 2002; Fraley et al., 2006; Sugden, 1999).

Initial hypotheses of the effects of prime conditions were accepted, further strengthening these

robust findings throughout literature. Since the moderation hypothesis was exploratory, only

tentative hypotheses were made about interactions. Moderation analysis discovered that the

secure prime condition moderated the relationship between avoidance and negative social

evaluations, and security and negative social evaluations. Out of the six possible moderations

that could have arose from this study, the two that were found in this study (tables 3 & 4) and

lack of others (i.e. anxiety and negative social evaluation) suggest some interesting

implications for adult attachment theory and challenges some past findings from the literature.

It was found that when securely primed, individuals with low security were temporarily

alleviated from negative evaluation bringing the average score to a similar level to that of

highly secure individuals under the same prime; this effect was expected as seen in prior

literature (study 6 &7; Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer et al., 2001; Rowe & Carnelley, 2003).

However, while individuals with low secure attachment (thus, likely higher in anxiety or

avoidance) seemed to be most heavily affected by the IPC (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003;

Banse, 2004), participants in the same prime condition with high security did not give much

lower negative social evaluations (figure 3; see appendix 14 figure 4 for interpretive graph

comparing magnitudes of both moderations on same scale); this finding was contrary to

current literature where high security consistently leads to less negative social processing than

avoidant and anxious individuals when insecurely primed (Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer &

Shaver 2007b; Niedenthal et al, 2001; 2002). This suggests the presence of a feature of

attachment security that is distinct to attachment avoidance and anxiety that has not yet been

considered in the literature, or the existence of an extraneous variable contributing to this

unexpected result.

One factor that could have acted as an extraneous variable in this study, and effecting this

22

result, was the close relationship between attachment processes and emotional state. Research

has found a mediating relationship of secure attachment by the amygdala (Lemche et al.,

2006), which is also involved in numerous processes such as fear and anxiety regulation

(Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio & Tranel, 2011; Ziabreva, Poeggel, Schnabel & Braun, 2003)

and also social cognition (Bzdok et al., 2011). Influences of these regulatory processes may

have impacted results of those higher in secure attachment in the IPC, thus failing to control

for positive and negative mood valance in this study may have resulted in an extraneous

variable. Although, since the adult attachment system incorporates emotion regulation in

attachment processes, controlling for emotional fluctuations may be reductionist as not

considering these factors in influencing attachment cognition may not accurately represent the

connectionist structure of attachment processes (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007).

Another explanation for these results comes from relevant literature drawing attention to the

finding that securely attached individuals are more readily disposed to process (attachment

related) threatening information, whereas anxious and avoidant individuals were both found

to attend away from it (Zeijlmans Van Emmichoven, Van Ijzendoorn, de Ruiter, & Brosschot,

2003); also, Dewitte, Koster, Houwer & Buysse (2007) found a moderation effect between

anxiety and avoidance dimensions in attending away from attachment threats, supporting the

overall blunted effect of the insecure prime on avoidance and anxiety compared to high

security. Further supporting this point, consistent findings of securely attached participants

tending to disclose more personal, emotionally charged information in face-to-face contexts

(Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991) and habitually rely on partners for more support when under

threatening conditions compared to avoidant and anxious individuals (Simpson, Rholes, and

Nelligan, 1992; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Birnbaum,

Orr, Mikulincer, & Florian, 1997; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). This suggests that while secure

individuals have a metaphorical attachment ‘safety net’, they may also have higher

23

reception/deeper emotional processing levels of attachment related threats (i.e. the IPC), and

as support-seeking was not an option through the duration of the study, it seems logical that

the IPC may have had a bigger impact on highly secure participants, and this distress was

temporarily manifested through negative social evaluation.

While the security dimension interacted with the prime conditions, so too did the avoidance

dimension. Two opposing hypotheses were made about the direction of avoidant individuals,

either hypervigilance in preparation for defence thus displaying similar patterns to anxious

individuals, or instant numbing of perceptive ability of interpersonal cues thus causing no

consistent pattern of response (Fraley et al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2002). While these gave

directional predictions of the effect of the IPC on avoidance, it was assumed from the

literature that the SPC would reduce negative evaluation across the board. However the

findings seemed to contradict patterns of secure priming effects in literature; specifically the

low avoidant participants giving more negative evaluations in the SPC, compared to the low

avoidant participants in the IPC. Although this difference was relatively smaller than the

moderation found with the primes on secure attachment, the direction of the interaction still

seems strange (appendix 14). Theoretically the IPC acts in line with literature, in that those

high in avoidant attachment gave more negative evaluations compared to those with low

avoidant attachment (Mikulincer et al., 2002; Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001; Birnbaum

et al., 1997). However, due to the complex nature of avoidant attachment, patterns in results

can be unpredictable; it seems that the findings in this study may be accounted for by either

other factors that may interact with and moderate avoidance, or inappropriate methods of

measuring avoidance.

Social evaluations of neutral faces may not be suitable for expressing avoidant attachment

processes (Fraley et al., 2006). Contemporary attachment theory suggests that social

24

evaluation tasks – involving expression perception – are appropriate when considering certain

attachment dimensions such as anxiety as they yield accurate reflections of the perceptual

hypervigilance that is a defining feature of anxiety (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Fraley &

Shaver 2000; Fraley & Spieker, 2003), however, individual differences in avoidant

attachment tend to be characterised by the complex interaction between differing levels of

emotional perception and factors of the attachment system that effect acknowledgement and

response to interpersonal cues. Support comes from Simpson, Rholes, Oriña & Gritch (2002)

who found avoidant individuals to be less reactive to partners’ needs, suggesting that, if

avoidant participants do have the equal ability to observe emotional cues, the habitual rigidity

in processing this information causes their behavioural responses to their partners to be

disproportionate (Birnbaum et al., 1997; Kafetsios, Andriopoulos & Papachiou, 2014). Also

supporting that anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions within the attachment system can

manifest differently in social situations are findings from Fraley & Shaver (1998) who found

individuals differences in internal separation anxiety to be predicted by the anxious

attachment dimension, but individual differences in external behavioural practices were

predicted by the avoidance attachment dimension i.e. separation anxiety was only explicitly

known if individuals were content with the intimacy of expressing their feelings (low

avoidance). Using a perceptual method of social evaluation may not have captured fully the

variations in individual differences of avoidant attachment and this may account for the

unexpected interaction that emerged in this study; an implication for future research may be

that using other forms of social evaluation, such as responses to vignettes, may more

accurately capture the relationship between avoidant attachment and social cognition, and

how these effect social behaviours.

Although the findings of this interaction seemed unexpected, it still seems reasonable to

accept the second of the two hypothesis, as avoidant participants have been consistently found

25

to initially avoid attachment and threat related information in encoding processes from the

moment of exposure (Fraley, Garner, and Shaver, 2000), and so this inhibiting processing of

attachment information which may account for the lack of difference across primes in highly

avoidant participants (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Birnbaum et al., 1997;

Niedenthal et al., 2002; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Dewitte, et al., 2007).

As mentioned above, another finding that may contribute in explaining the results of this

study, Dewitte et al. (2007) suggests a moderation effect of attachment anxiety and avoidance

and that the best predictor for attentional bias away from attachment information was the

interaction between the two dimensions. This research conceptualised adult attachment

through the same theoretical framework as the current study, (3 attachment dimensions) using

Mikulincer & Shavers (2003) dynamic working model to account for these relationships,

leaving many open questions about individual differences in interactions of attachment

dimensions that have not yet been thoroughly explored in the literature; these complex

interactions may account for inconsistency throughout findings across the field of adult

attachment.

No moderation was found by the prime on anxious attachment when predicting social

evaluation. This was most likely due to the consistent findings of hyperactivating strategies

used in attachment anxiety (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Fraley et al., 2006). Mikulincer,

Gillath et al. (2001) found that while attachment primes had an effect, they were unable to

override the enduring link of cognitive access to personal distress memories. Given that, the

anxious participants tend to increase in anxiety with attempts to subdue stimulation of

negative attachment thoughts (Fraley & Shaver, 1997), it seems that the highly anxious

participants tended to give more negative evaluations than low anxious in the IPC; the SPC

results almost parallel to these, but 0.5 – 1 point lower (figure 6; appendix 15). The finding

26

that the SPC did not reduce negative social evaluation of highly anxious individuals enough to

the point of interaction could be ascribed to these characteristics of the anxious state itself;

however, this may be due to that the negative terms given in the statements of the social

evaluation tasks were threat-charged (e.g. “dishonest,” “unfriendly,” “hostile,”); anxious

individuals’ hypervigilance may have caused these terms to act as possible secondary primes,

dampening the effect of the SPC and causing higher negative evaluations (Fraley et al., 2006).

In the above discussion, two limitations are mentioned of this study; the possible extraneous

variables of the lack of control for mood valance due to the link between security and the

amygdala (Lemche et al., 2006) possibly affecting the moderation findings of the prime

condition over security, and the unsuitable use of expression perception when measuring

social cognition in avoidant participants. The other short comings throughout this paper were

few and mainly methodological but if improved upon could gain richer, holistic data. Firstly,

the online data collection method may have effected engagement levels in the tasks due to the

unknown setting of the participant at the time; face-to-face data collection may have given

more control over extraneous variables such as distractions. However due to constraints of

time and collection of voluntary participants within this project the researcher felt that this

was the most effective and efficient method of data collection.

The use of Likert scales and self-report methods, although a popular technique in large data

collection, can be subjectively interpreted and, therefore, fails to provide data based on an

objective scale. While the SAAM is was found to be robust, and provide three accurate scores

for the considered attachment dimensions (Gillath et al., 2009, Bosmans, Bowles, et al.,

2014), non-likert scale attachment measures, such as the qualitative Adult Attachment

Interview (AAI; Batholomew & Horowitz, 1991), may gain more detailed, and thus richer

data giving novel insights and perceptions into adult attachment systems and the underlying

27

processes. While there is a theoretical gap between these measures in their approaches to adult

attachment – attachment dimensions versus attachment types – associations between AAI

coding and self-report scales have been found with multiple Rs of around 0.5 (Shaver, Belsky

et al., 2000). This relationship does not infer the measurements are equivalent, but it does

suggest the existence of some common fundamental concepts throughout adult attachment

literature that could be applied across attachment models. Future research should consider the

limitations of self-report data collection and due to the development of state attachment

literature, alternatives to self-report measures need to be established.

Although the rating of neutral faces is a popular measure, there is a lack of ecological validity

in this variable operationalised to measure social evaluation as the task carried out is unlikely

in a realistic setting. In future research, using morphs to measure specific onset or offset of

facial expressions may offer more accurate and valid findings as offset and onset judgement

can specifically determine the strength of sensitivity that individuals are able to process

emotional expression. Individuals encountering a particular emotional state, e.g. anxiety, will

be more receptive to state-congruent signals and so perceive these signals as persisting as

opposed to individuals in a different emotional state (Niedenthal, et al., 2000; 2001).

While this method may give more accuracy to social evaluation abilities, it runs into the same

problems as the neutral face method as it is still one-way in interaction and does not account

for other cognitive processes and behavioural responses in real-life situations. As face-to face

social exchange between two people is never one way, the technology constraints of this study

may have not accounted for other processes in real-life situations such as impression

management that consume cognitive resources (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). While

the neutral face method still allows for measuring of social evaluation, it may be found that

these effects in real-life situations may be much lower than the ones found in this study. In

future research using face-to-face experimentation may give more realistic results of

28

individuals’ processing of social evaluations in two-way interactions.

If repeated, this study should also allow participants to complete a Whoto assessment (asking

participants who is their current attachment figure; Fraley & Davis, 1997) before any given

primes, in order to detect any trends between attachment figures and orientations.

Despite drawbacks with the methods of data collection used, the online distribution of the

study did allow for a wide range of participants to take part across 17 nationalities, 3 genders,

3 sexual orientations, an age range of 49, and 4 relationship statuses. Although there were no

apparent trends in accordance to these groups, this range of individuals credits the study with

good generalisability and gives credit to the theory, accounting well for individual

circumstances; this also supports the theory of attachment to be conceptualised as an adaptive

evolutionary process within psychology (Sugden, 1999; Bowlby, 1969; 1958) in that all

human infants –and other animals (Seay & Harlow, 1965) – automatically seek an attachment

figure, normally the mother, as a survival enhancement mechanism (Bowlby, 1958); the

responsiveness of the attachment figure allows the individual to make prototypical predictions

about the plausible environment they will inhabit in the future and the nature of the social

interactions within this environment (Simpson & Belsky, 2008).

Further credit of this study comes from the priming method used; asking participants to reflect

on past relationships was a particularly influential, ecologically valid prime as the individual

was required to reflect upon a specific personal, experiential relationship, being a more

organic prime than that of an auxiliary prime such as an attachment-related image or word.

Overall it is concluded that these findings show social cognition can depend on multiple

interacting factors of the attachment system – especially within the security and avoidance

dimensions of attachment – including flexible state attachment orientations, robust trait

attachment styles, and situational context, thus supporting the connectionist, dynamic, “if…

29

then…” model of adult attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) accounting for individual’s

temporal fluctuating, general consistent, and context-responsive attachment behaviours

(Fraley, 2007).

As a theory, adult attachment gives a unified foundation for conceptualising the development,

preservation, and termination of adult relationships while additionally providing insights into

individual differences in personality, social cognition, and emotional regulation. Adult

attachment theories combine findings and insights from a range of various disciplines,

including ethology (Poindron, Lévy, & Keller, 2007; Bowlby, 1973; 1969; Seay & Harlow,

1965), physiological psychology (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013;

Lemche et al, 2006; Cunningham, Johnson, Gatenby, Gore & Banaji, 2003) control systems

theory (Mikunlincer & Shaver, 2003; Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming & Gamble, 1993;

Bretherton, 1992), cognitive psychology (Fraley et al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2000; Fraley,

Davis & Shaver, 1998), developmental psychology (Davila & Sargent, 2003; Cook, 2000;

Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell & Albersheim, 2000), and clinical psychology and

psychotherapy (Lee & Hankin, 2009; Bowles & Meyer, 2008; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Russell &

Abraham, 2004).

Further study in the field adult attachment should focus on multiple distinctions within the

theory; MRI findings from Cunningham et al. (2003) show the existence of two distinct

evaluative processes, automatically activated and consciously regulated evaluations, which

should also be considered more thoroughly in relation to attachment systems. Also how

attachment styles may also influence the processing of emotional, non-social information

compared to social information (Vrtička, Sander & Vuilleumier, 2012). Research should also

consider these factors in relation to evaluations given when interacting with familiar vs. novel

others. Further consideration is needed for non-self-report measures of attachment and

30

qualitative, or mixed methods data collection should be conducted in this area in order to

expand upon the complex nuances of the individual differences within attachment systems.

Contemporary findings suggest the possibility of long term priming effects to manipulate

permanent changes in attachment systems to improve mental health stability and promote

healthy future attachments (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007c; Gillath. Selcuk & Shaver, 2008).

31

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American psychologist, 46(4), 333.

Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2(3), 247-261.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71(1), 94.

Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273-282.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 7(2), 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four category model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 226

Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). The association of mothers’ attachment style and their reactions to the diagnosis of infant’s congenital heart disease. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 208–232

Birnbaum, G. E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks up-does attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 643-654.

Bosmans, G., Bowles, D. P., Dewitte, M., De Winter, S., & Braet, C. (2014). An experimental evaluation of the State Adult Attachment Measure: The influence of attachment primes on the content of state attachment representations. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 5(2), 134-150.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. The International journal of psycho-analysis, 39, 350.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.

Bowles, D. P. & Meyer, B. (2008). Attachment priming and avoidant personality features as predictors of social-evaluation biases. Journal of personality disorder, 22 72-88.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental psychology, 28(5), 759.

32

British Psychological Society. (2009) Code of Ethics and Conduct. Leicester: The British Psychological Society

Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Transference of attachment patterns: How important relationships influence feelings toward novel people. Personal Relationships, 14(4), 513-530.

Buist, K. L., Reitz, E., & Deković, M. (2008). Attachment stability and change during adolescence: A longitudinal application of the social relations model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(3), 429-444.

Bzdok, D., Langner, R., Caspers, S., Kurth, F., Habel, U., Zilles, K., Laird, A., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2011). ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness. Brain Structure and Function, 215(3-4), 209-223.

Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A developmental perspective on individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 111.

Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 285.

Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Neural components of social evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(4), 639.

Davila, J., & Sargent, E. (2003). The meaning of life (events) predicts changes in attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11), 1383-1395.

Dewitte, M., Koster, E. H., De Houwer, J., & Buysse, A. (2007). Attentive processing of threat and adult attachment: A dot-probe study. Behaviour research and therapy, 45(6), 1307-1317.

Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear. Current biology, 21(1), 34-38.

Ferguson, M. J., Bargh, J. A., & Nayak, D. A. (2005). After-affects: How automatic evaluations influence the interpretation of subsequent, unrelated stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 182-191.

Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Strack, F. (2000). When stereotype disconfirmation is a personal threat: How prejudice and prevention focus moderate incongruency effects. Social Cognition, 18(2), 178.

Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models of attachment. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1157-1180.

Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(5), 731.

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. Simpson, Jeffry A. (Eds). Attachment theory and close relationships. (pp. 249-279). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press

Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 109(2), 354-368.

33

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.

Fraley, R. C., Niedenthal, P. M., Marks, M., Brumbaugh, C., & Vicary, A. (2006). Adult attachment and the perception of emotional expressions: Probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying anxious attachment. Journal of personality, 74(4), 1163-1190.

Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., & Holland, A. S. (2013). Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104(5), 817.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(5), 1080.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1198.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154

Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). What are the differences between dimensional and categorical models of individual differences in attachment? Reply to Cassidy (2003), Cummings (2003), Sroufe (2003), and Waters and Beauchaine (2003). Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 423-429

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 974-992.

Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 362-373.

Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1651-1666.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(3), 511.

Kafetsios, K., Andriopoulos, P., & Papachiou, A. (2014). Relationship status moderates avoidant attachment differences in positive emotion decoding accuracy. Personal Relationships, 21(2), 191-205.

Klohnen, E. V., Weller, J. A., Luo, S., & Choe, M. (2005). Organization and predictive power of general and relationship-specific attachment models: One for all, and all for one? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1665–1682

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child development, 231-245.

34

Lee, A., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Insecure attachment, dysfunctional attitudes, and low self-esteem predicting prospective symptoms of depression and anxiety during adolescence. Journal of clinical child & Adolescent Psychology,38(2), 219-231.

Lemche, E., Giampietro, V. P., Surguladze, S. A., Amaro, E. J., Andrew, C. M., Williams, S. C., Brammer, M. J., Lawrence, N., Maier, M.A., Russell, T.A., Simmons, A., Ecker, C., Joraschky, P., & Phillips, M.L. (2006). Human attachment security is mediated by the amygdala: Evidence from combined fMRI and psychophysiological measures. Human brain mapping, 27(8), 623-635.

Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P. A., & Beevers, C. G. (2004). What's in a (neutral) face? Personality disorders, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social cues. Journal of personality disorders, 18(4), 320-336.

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., & 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.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881–895.

Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective component of the secure base schema: affective priming with representations of attachment security. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 305.

Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2007a) Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139-156.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007c). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3), 139-156.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological review, 102(2), 246.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 208-241.

Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Halberstadt, J. B., & Innes-Ker, Å. H. (2001). When did her smile drop? Facial mimicry and the influences of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional expression. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 853–864.

35

Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Robin, L., & Innes-Ker, Å. H. (2002). Adult attachment and the perception of facial expression of emotion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(3), 419.

Niedenthal, P. M., Halberstadt, J. B., Margolin, J., & Innes-Ker, Å. H. (2000). Emotional state and the detection of change in facial expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 211–222.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(6), 1409.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2000). Attachment theory as an organizing framework: A view from different levels of analysis. Review of General Psychology, 4, 107–110.

Poindron, P., Lévy, F., & Keller, M. (2007). Maternal responsiveness and maternal selectivity in domestic sheep and goats: the two facets of maternal attachment. Developmental Psychobiology, 49(1), 54-70.

Rowe, A., & Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing of attachment–relevant information: Primed–style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 59-75.

Seay, B., & Harlow, H. F. (1965). Maternal separation in the rhesus monkey. The Journal of nervous and mental disease, 140(6), 434-441.

Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. Phillip R. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.) (pp. 131-157). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press,

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & human development, 4(2), 133-161.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(3), 434.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 598-608.

Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(1), 94.

Sugden, R. L. (1999) Dismissive-repressors: Attachment and processing bias of implicit facial expressions (discrete emotions theory, coping style). ProQuest Information & Learning, 60(6B), 2964.

Vohs K. D., Baumeister R. F., Ciarocco N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 632–657.

Vrtička, P., Sander, D., & Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Influence of adult attachment style on the perception of social and non-social emotional scenes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(4), 530-544.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty‐year longitudinal study. Child development, 71(3), 684-689.

36

Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, W. T. (2004). Maladaptive Perfectionism as a Mediator and Moderator between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 201.

Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. N. (2002). Personality in context: An interpersonal systems perspective. Journal of personality, 70(6), 851-900

Ziabreva, I., Poeggel, G., Schnabel, R., & Braun, K. (2003). Separation-induced receptor changes in the hippocampus and amygdala of Octodon degus: influence of maternal vocalizations. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(12), 5329-5336.

37

Appendices

Appendix 1: State Adult Attachment Measure (Gillath et al., 2009)

SAAMThe following statements concern how you feel right now. Please respond to each statement by

indicating how much you agree or disagree with it as it reflects your current feelings. Please circle the number on the 1-to-7 scale that best indicates how you feel at the moment:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Disagree Strongly ......... ......... Neutral/Mixed ......... ......... Agree Strongly

Right now…Anx 1. I wish someone would tell me they really love me

Avo 2. I would be uncomfortable having a good friend or a relationship partner close to me

Avo 3. I feel alone and yet don't feel like getting close to others

Sec 4. I feel loved

Anx 5. I wish someone close could see me now

Sec 6. If something went wrong right now I feel like I could depend on someone

Sec 7. I feel like others care about me

Anx 8. I feel a strong need to be unconditionally loved right now

Avo 9. I'm afraid someone will want to get too close to me

Avo 10. If someone tried to get close to me, I would try to keep my distance

Sec 11. I feel relaxed knowing that close others are there for me right now

Anx 12. I really need to feel loved right now

Sec 13. I feel like I have someone to rely on

Anx 14. I want to share my feelings with someone

Avo 15. I feel like I am loved by others but I really don't care

Avo 16. The idea of being emotionally close to someone makes me nervous

Anx 17. I want to talk with someone who cares for me about things that are worrying me

Sec 18. I feel secure and close to other people

Anx 19. I really need someone's emotional support

Sec 20. I feel I can trust the people who are close to me

Avo 21. I have mixed feelings about being close to other people

Appendix 2: Information sheet displayed to participants before taking part in the study

Researcher: Sara Graham                          Email: Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.ukProject supervisor: Dr David Bowles, Principal lecturer                  Email: dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk

Thank you for taking time to read about, and hopefully participate in, this study. Please read this information sheet thoroughly before continuing as it gives you a description of your

38

participation in the study and the ethical considerations that must be addressed. Your participation will take no longer than 20 minutes.

This study is aiming to examine the relationship between adult attachment styles and social evaluation. First we will collect demographic data such as age, gender, occupation, nationality and relationship status. Then, you will be asked to describe (very briefly) a particular relationship situation. You will then be asked to rate a few statements on a scale between ‘strongly agree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ about your relationship style. Finally, there is a social evaluation task in which you are asked to rate some images.

As your participation in this study is voluntary, you have the right to choose not to participate, the right to withhold information you do not feel comfortable sharing. All data will be kept completely anonymous, collecting only demographic information such as age and gender which will not be sufficient to identify you as an individual participant.As data is anonymous, confidentiality of your information is guaranteed and the only people able to access the data will be the researcher and supervisor. In the case that the paper is made public either through publishing or the university, the data will still remain completely anonymised.

Although you may quit participation at any time, once you have completed and submitted the data it cannot be withdrawn.All data will only be accessible to the researcher (and the project supervisor if necessary) electronically via a password protected laptop and google drive account.

Sheffield Hallam University give their ethical approval as a professional body to this study.If you do not give their consent then please go no further and close the window, however, by continuing with the study you are automatically giving your consent to take part.If you have questions or qualms about taking part you may contact Sara Graham at - Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.ukOr project supervisor Dr David Bowles at –dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk

Appendix 3: Debriefing provided to participants after taking part in the study

Researcher: Sara Graham                          Email: Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.ukProject supervisor: Dr David Bowles, Principal lecturer                  Email: dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk

Thank you for taking part in this study. This study is aiming to examine the relationship between adult attachment styles and social evaluation.

You were asked to describe one of two relationship situations – either being asked to describe a close, comfortable relationship situation or an uncomfortable one. The ways in which you answered the questions following may have been slightly effected according to which situation you were asked to describe.

All data will be kept completely anonymous, collecting only demographic information such as age and gender which will not be sufficient to identify you as an individual participant. In the case that the paper is made public either through publishing or the university, the data will still remain completely anonymised.

All data will only be accessible to the researcher (and the project supervisor if necessary) electronically via a password protected laptop and google drive account.

If you have questions or qualms about your participation we should be able to help with any immediate concerns, please contact Researcher Sara Graham at-

39

Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.ukOr project supervisor Dr David Bowles at –dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk

Appendix 4: Copy of ethics proforma

Psychology Research ProjectResearch and Ethics ProformaStudent Name: Sara Graham Supervisor Name: Dr. David BowlesTitle of Project: How is primed attachment style related to processing of social information: State attachment orientations effecting the subjective perception of neutral facial expressions?Project Code: Bowles1Description of MethodsIn the space below, briefly and simply describe the main research question of the study, your rationale for asking this question, and the methods that you will use. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that you know why you are doing this study and what you will be doing.

The study will explore the relationship between primed state attachment orientations on neutral facial expressions after either a security prime condition or a threat prime condition. In the past it has been found that attachment style can be temporarily altered by laboratory manipulations (priming) which activates the attachment system (Gillath et al., 2009). It has been also been found that individual adult attachment style can affect how they process social information.This study will contain two priming conditions (Secure and threat) and the effects of these will be measured by the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) and social evaluation of neutral faces, both measured with likert-type scales. Data will be collected using the Qualtrics program and assessed using quantitative cause + effect statistical methods.

Ethical IssuesIn the space below, briefly discuss the key ethical issues that relate to your project (one short paragraph per issue) and how you intend to deal with these. A non-exhaustive list of issues you may wish to consider includes: informed consent, vulnerable participants, right to withdraw, anonymity, confidentiality, deception, debriefing, data storage.

Informed consent: Participants will give their informed consent after reading an information sheet - a simple description of their participation in the study and what it will involve (appendix 1). As the study is electronic it will be clearly stated that if they do not give their consent then please go no further and close the window, however, by continuing with the study the participants are automatically giving consent. This will only happen if the participant is fully willing to take part and no forms of coercion will be used to persuade them otherwise. It will ensure that Sheffield Hallam University gave their ethical approval as a professional body and include all contact details of both the researcher, the project leader and Sheffield Hallam if the participants a have any questions or qualms about taking part.

40

Right to withdraw: As the study is carried out electronically and is also anonymised, it is not possible to specify a particular participant’s data set. Therefore participants cannot withdraw their data but give automatic consent for their data to be used.

Anonymity: All data will be kept completely anonymous, collecting only demographic information such as age and gender which will not be sufficient to identify individual participants. Participants will be made aware of this anonymity in both the information briefing before the study and the debriefing process after the study.

Confidentiality: As all data is anonymous, confidentiality is guaranteed and the only people able to access the data will be the researcher and supervisor. In the case that the paper is made public either through publishing or the university then data will still remain completely anonymised.

Deception: This study will involve a small amount of deception in that it will not be explained that the participant will be primed. Priming is a subconscious task that if paid attention to can effect participant’s behaviour by resulting in demand characteristics resulting in invalid data. However, participants will be told the true nature of the study in that it measures how attachment style can effect social evaluations and then be fully debriefed after the study.

Debriefing: Participants will be provided with a debriefing (appendix 2) stating in layman terms the study research question, here they will be informed that they were subject to one of two priming conditions which may have altered their behaviour temporarily but will not cause any long term lasting effects or damage to them. Although one of the priming conditions is a ‘threatening’ prime, this is no more threatening or does not put the participants at any greater psychological risk than information they will process in day to day life. This feature is being utilized to simply activate the appropriate attachment system.

Data Storage: All data will only be accessible to the researcher (and the project supervisor if necessary) electronically via a password protected laptop and google drive account. This gives the research ease of access but keeps the data secure as it cannot be accessed by any other person by using these means of storage.

Action PlanIn the table below, list the specific actions that you need to take (or have taken) and when you will take them to progress with your project. Pay particular attention to actions related to the ethics of your project.

What WhenInitial meetings DoneEthical considerations: Information sheet and debrief.

Done

Gather materials 9th NovemberAttend Qualtrics workshop 9th NovemberSet up psychcredits account 10th NovemberFirst draft of Lit review + intro + Methods 15th NovemberPut together study on Qualtrics + check with supervisor

20th November

Create advert for study + check with supervisor 20th NovemberPost and share advert, recruit participants and start data collection (back data up onto computer, USB and google drive)

End of November 2015 – February 2016

41

Second draft of lit review and intro 5th December Attend quantitative analysis workshop January 2016 Attend stats drop in/ workshop January/FebruaryAttend other relevant workshops on writing, presentation, discussion etc. (to be confirmed)

February

Finish analysis Mid-February/Beginning of MarchWrite discussion Beginning of MarchThorough proofread Beginning of AprilPrint two copies and bind Beginning – Mid AprilSubmission 28th April

Study Materials and Ethics DocumentsList each of the measures, questionnaires, and stimuli sets you will be using. In the appendices, include any unpublished measures in full, along with the information sheet, consent form, and debrief sheet (where applicable). Where possible, your materials should be fully in place before your supervisor can pass your Research and Ethics Proforma.

Published Materials/Questionnaires

State Adult Attachment Measure (Gillath et al., 2009)

“Permissions: Test content may be reproduced and used for non-commercial research and educational purposes without seeking written permission. Distribution must be controlled, meaning only to the participants engaged in the research or enrolled in the educational activity. Any other type of reproduction or distribution of test content is not authorized without written permission from the author and publisher.”

Unpublished Materials/Questionnaire

Social evaluation task – images of neutral faces

Information sheet

Debriefing information

References Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a

state adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 362-373. Meyer, B., Pilkonis, P. A., & Beevers, C. G. (2004). What's in a (neutral) face? Personality

disorders, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social cues. Journal of personality disorders, 18(4), 320-336.

Risk Assessment1. Will the proposed data collection take place solely online, on campus or at your own residence?

X Yes (Please proceed to question 6)

No (Please complete all questions)

2. Where will the data collection take place? (Tick as many as apply if data collection will take place in multiple venues)

42

Residence of participant

School

Business/Voluntary Organisation

Public Venue (e.g., Youth Club, Church, etc.)

X Other (Please specify) _____Solely online _______

How will you ensure your own personal safety whilst at the research venue?

N/A

3. How will you travel to and from the data collection venue?

On foot

By car

Public Transport

Other (Please specify) ______________________________

How will you ensure your personal safety when travelling to/from the data collection venue?

N/A

5. Whenever you go to collect data, you must ensure that someone you trust knows where you are going (without breaching the confidentiality of your participants), how you are getting there (preferably including your travel route), when you expect to get back, and what to do should you not return at the specified time. Please outline here the procedure you propose using to do this:

N/A

6. Are you aware of any potential risks to your health and wellbeing associated with the venue where the research will take place and/or the research topic?

X Yes (Please outline below)

No

As the data will be collected through electronic questionnaires my health and wellbeing will not be jeopardized in any way.

7. Does this research project require a health and safety risk analysis for the procedures to be used?

Yes

X No

If yes, what is the current status of the health and safety risk assessment

Confirmation of Ethical Abidance by StudentBy submitting this proforma I, Sara Graham, confirm that:

My supervisor has seen and accepted this version of the proforma. I will not deviate from the above action plan I will abide by the ethical requirements of the project as described above.

43

Appendix 5: SPSS outputs of independent t-tests

Appendix 6: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of avoidant attachment and prime condition on negative social evaluation

44

Appendix 7: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of secure attachment and prime condition on negative social evaluation

45

Appendix 8: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of anxious attachment and prime condition on negative social evaluation

46

Appendix 9: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of avoidant attachment and prime condition on positive social evaluation

47

Appendix 10: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of secure attachment and prime condition on positive social evaluation

Appendix 11: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of anxious attachment and prime condition on positive social evaluation

48

Appendix 12: Images of neutral faces used

49

Appendix 13: Sample of raw data

Appendix 14: Figure 5 – Interpretive graph demonstrating both moderation effects on one scale.

50

Secure SPC

Secure IPC

Avoidant SPC

Avoidant IPC

High attachmentLow attachment

Appendix 15: Figure 6 – Interpretive graph to show non-significant relationship between anxious attachment and prime on negative social evaluations for reference.

Low anxious at-tachment

High anxious at-tachment

22.22.42.62.8

33.23.43.63.8

Inse-cure prime

Neg

ativ

e so

cial

eva

luat

ion

Appendix 17: Figure 7 – Interpretive graph to show non-significant relationship between anxious attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference

Low anxious at-tachment

High anxious at-tachment

33.23.43.63.8

44.24.44.6

Inse-cure prime

Posit

ive

soci

al e

valu

atio

n

51

Appendix 18: Figure 8 – Interpretive graph to show non-significant relationship between avoidant attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference

Low avoidant at-tachment

High avoidant at-tachment

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Inse-cure prime

Posit

ive

soci

al e

valu

atio

n

Appendix 19: Figure 9 – Interpretive graph to show non-significant relationship between secure attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference

Low Secure at-tachment

High Secure at-tachment

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Inse-cure prime

Posit

ive

soci

al e

valu

atio

n

52