Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 39(5), 2002 © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.10050

THE INFLUENCE OF PARENTAL AND PEER ATTACHMENT

ON COLLEGE STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
MICHAEL E. FASS
Barry University
JONATHAN G. TUBMAN
Florida International University

This study examined relations among attachment to parents and peers, cognitive ability, psycho-
social functioning variables, and academic achievement in a multiethnic sample of college stu-
dents (n ⫽ 357). A small subgroup (14.8%) of students reported low levels of attachment to both
parents and peers. Significant positive correlations were documented between parent and peer
attachment and several indices of psychosocial competence. Results from hierarchical multiple
regression analyses revealed that indices of cognitive ability were significant predictors of col-
lege students’ grade point averages, while broader measures of functioning in early adulthood
(attachment, intellectual ability, self-esteem) were significant predictors of scholastic compe-
tence. Results suggest that perceived attachment to both parents and peers is a component of
wider patterns of social competence and adjustment that may function as protective or compen-
satory factors during key transitions in young adulthood, such as participation in college, and
with its attendant demands for academic achievement. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A great deal of research and practice has focused on the influence of attachment and social
support on the psychological well-being of adolescents. There has been, however, considerably
less attention paid to the role of attachment and social support as an influence on academic achieve-
ment, and in particular, the potential joint effects of parental and peer attachment. While the
developmental task of separation-individuation has received substantial scrutiny in research on
adolescence, studies suggest that late adolescent college students remain strongly attached to, and
influenced by, their parents (Bank, Slavings, & Biddle, 1990; Hoffman, 1984; Kenny, 1990; Kenny
& Donaldson, 1991). Recent literature has emphasized that positive parental support promotes
higher grade point averages (GPAs), general academic attainment, cognitive engagement, and
academic persistence among children, early adolescents, and late adolescents (Bell, Allen, Hauser,
& O’Conner, 1996; Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994; Finn & Rock, 1997;
Hoffman & Weiss, 1987; Moss & St.-Laurent, 2001; Peng, 1994). In contrast, low levels of attach-
ment to parents has been identified as a potential risk factor for poor academic performance. Poor
parent-child communication or relationships (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986; Finn,
1989) and low educational expectations or encouragement for children (Dornbusch, Ritter, Lei-
derman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987; Okun, Benin, & Brandt-Williams, 1996) have been identified
as placing students at risk for poor academic outcomes. Research on the influence of parental
attachment on academics has also revealed cultural and ethnic differences possibly associated
with the collectivist nature of the culture or the adolescent’s reliance on self-discipline coping
strategies (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel, 1990; Liang & Bogat, 1994).
In addition to the influence of the quality of parental attachment on adolescents’ academic
achievement, studies have focused on relations between students’ peer networks and their aca-
demic achievement. Several studies have suggested positive relations between peer acceptance/
peer support and academic success among both children and adolescents (Cotterell, 1992; Holahan,
Valentiner, & Moos 1994; Kupersmidt, Coie, & Dodge, 1990). In addition, Bean (1983) and Hearn
(1985) found that positive interaction with friends was a significant determinant of college satis-

Correspondence to: Michael E. Fass, PhD, Barry University, 11300 NE 2nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33161. E-mail:
mef412@aol.com

561
562 Fass and Tubman

faction. While fewer studies have examined the combined effects of peer and parental relation-
ships on college academic achievement, those that have suggest that social support positively
influences successful college adaptation and academic achievement (Abby, Abramis, & Caplan,
1985; Riggio, Watring, & Throckmorton, 1993; Robbins, Lese, & Herrick, 1993; Zea, Jarama, &
Bianchi, 1995). Several studies have found that general social support positively affects general
academic achievement from elementary school to college (Abby et al., 1985; Gerdes & Mallinck-
rodt, 1994; Levitt, Guacci-Franco, & Levitt, 1993; Reifman & Dunkel-Schetter, 1990; Riggio
et al., 1993). In contrast, low peer acceptance or peer rejection in adolescence has been identified
as a risk indicator for poor school adjustment, including academic failure (Buhs & Ladd, 2001;
Coie, Terry, Lenox, Lochman, & Hyman, 1995; Parker & Asher, 1987).
Research on risk and protective factors, competence, and resilience has focused on the addi-
tive and moderating influences of individual- or contextual-level resources or deficiencies upon
the quality of developmental or educational outcomes. Psychosocial “turning points” or stressful
transitions (e.g., the transition through college) are often significant opportunities to observe how
specific risk, protective, or compensatory factors operate within broader developmental systems to
direct individual life trajectories onto more or less adaptive pathways. For example, low levels of
attachment to parents and peers is likely to be predictive of lower levels of a range of forms of
competence due to lower availability of supportive social resources, in particular in conjunction
with the experience of normative stressors or more serious forms of adversity (Masten, Hubbard,
Gest, Tellegen, Garmezy, & Ramirez, 1999). In contrast, strong family support enhances compe-
tent functioning among adolescents, including general psychological well-being (Dubois, Felner,
Brand, Adam, & Evans, 1992; McFarlane, Bellissimo, & Norman, 1995).
Increasing numbers of studies have focused on the description of individuals who display
specific or general forms of competence within and across settings, educational or otherwise.
Competence is a multidimensional construct that may be broadly defined as an individual’s capac-
ity to interact effectively with the environment or to cope skillfully with challenges (Masten et al.,
1999; Wills, Blechman, & McNamara, 1996). The concepts of competence and resilience, while
both referring to adaptive patterns of individual functioning, are distinguished by the experience
of adversity; competence is adaptive functioning in the absence of significant adversity, while
resilience is adaptive functioning in spite of significant adversity (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000; Mas-
ten, 1994).
While there is ample research on competent functioning among college students, e.g., as
indexed by academic achievement, and growing interest in the topic of resilience as college stu-
dent populations continue to become more diverse, the topic of attachment to parents and peers
has been largely overlooked. This is a concern, given the changing nature of their social supports
as students move through college and begin to assume adult roles related to work and family
formation (Rao, Hammen, & Daley, 1999). Of particular interest is the patterning of functioning
among college students with low levels of attachment to parents and peers. While individuals
within this group may demonstrate competence on some dimensions, on average this group of
college students may utilize a disproportionate share of counseling resources in university set-
tings, or present with more severe patterns of problems. Therefore, these students may be an
appropriate group for targeted selected prevention programs designed to enhance specific protec-
tive or compensatory factors to increase the likelihood of adaptive patterns of functioning or
competence (Masten, 1994).
The Current Study
The current study had several aims. First, the proportion of college students who report low
levels of attachment to both parents and peers was documented in a multiethnic student sample.
 Attachment and Academic Achievement 563

Second, correlational relations among measures of parent and peer attachment and measures of
academic achievement, cognitive ability, and noncognitive psychosocial functioning were described.
Third, hierarchical multiple regression (HMR) analysis was used to determine if measures of
attachment to parents and peers accounted for significant proportions of variance in indices of
academic achievement (e.g., college GPA and perceived academic competence). Finally, relations
between low attachment to parents and peers and broader patterns of functioning were described
in a set of post-hoc analyses of variance (ANOVAs). This analytic plan was intended to document
(a) the degree to which attachment is a salient predictor of contemporaneous academic compe-
tence and (b) the degree to which attachment to parents and peers is associated with other forms of
competence pertinent to students in university settings.

Method

Participants
Participants in this study were undergraduate college students (N ⫽ 357) attending a 4-year
university in the Southeastern United States during 1997. The sample included 255 female (71.4%)
and 102 male students (28.6%) ranging in age from 18 to 24 years (M ⫽ 20.7, SD ⫽ 1.9). The
ethnic backgrounds of the participating students were European American (15.7%), African Amer-
ican (12.0%), Hispanic American (66.4%), Asian American (3.4%), or Other (2.5%). Class stand-
ing of the participants included 151 (42.3%) first- or second-year students and 206 (57.7%) juniors
or seniors. A small percentage of students (7.6%) belonged to a fraternities or sororities. Most
(94.4%) were unmarried. Due to the urban setting of the university, 78.2% of the participants lived
at home with one or both parents. The mean grade/academic level completed by the participants’
parents was 13.88 (SD ⫽ 3.25) for their mothers and 14.19 (SD ⫽ 3.90) for their fathers.

Measures
Parent and peer attachment. Attachment levels were assessed using the Inventory of Parent
and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). This 53-item self-report questionnaire
measures cognitive and affective qualities of attachment to both parents and peers during late
adolescence and young adulthood and includes subscales for trust, communication, and alienation.
Two attachment scores, one each for parents and peers, are calculated by adding scores for trust
and communication items and subtracting scores for alienation items. Item responses range from
Almost Never or Never (1) to Almost Always or Always (5). After reverse coding negatively worded
items, higher scores indicate higher levels of attachment to parents or peers. The three subscales
have demonstrated excellent internal consistency, i.e., Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .91, .91,
and .86 for the Parent Trust, Communication, and Alienation subscales, respectively, with alpha
coefficients of .87, .91, and .72 for the comparable Peer subscales (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
In the current study, alpha coefficients were .91, .90, and .75 for the Parent Trust, Communication,
and Alienation subscales. Alpha coefficients for comparable peer subscales were .92, .86, and .67.
Self-perceived functioning and competence. The Self-Perception Profile for College Stu-
dents is a 54-item self-report measure that assesses self-perceived functioning and competence
among adolescents and young adults (Harter, 1990; Neemann & Harter, 1986). Twelve domains
are profiled, including global self-worth, scholastic competence, intellectual ability, creativity, job
competence, athletic competence, physical appearance, romantic relationships, peer social accep-
tance, close friendships, parent relationships, sense of humor, and morality. Each domain, except
for global self-esteem, is assessed via four items, using a 4-point forced-choice format. Two
opposing self-statements are presented, (e.g., “Some students are not very proud of the work they
do on their job BUT Other students are proud of the work they do on the job”) and 1 is rated either
564 Fass and Tubman

“really true for me” or “sort of true for me”. Responses are scored from 1 to 4, with higher scores
indicating higher competence in a specific domain. The alpha coefficients for the present study
ranged from .77 for Job Competence to .92 for Athletic Competence.
Self-esteem. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) is a widely used 10-item self-report
measure (Rosenberg, 1965) that provides a reliable index of overall self-esteem (Chubb, Fertman,
& Ross, 1997; Paterson, Pryor, & Field, 1995). Participants rate 10 self-statements such as “I feel
that I have a number of good qualities” or “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure” from
strongly agree (1), agree (2), disagree (3), or strongly disagree (4). After reverse coding positively
worded items, a total self-esteem score is calculated by summing all responses, with higher scores
indicating higher levels of self-esteem. The alpha coefficient of the RSES was .90 in the current
study.
Sex-role adherence. The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is a 60-item self-report instru-
ment that distinguishes androgynous individuals from sex-typed individuals via their self-ratings
of masculine, feminine, and gender-neutral personality characteristics (Bem, 1974). The BSRI
contains three sets of 20 adjectives each representing prototypical masculine personality charac-
teristics, prototypical feminine characteristics, and neutral characteristics. Each adjective is rated
on a scale from Never or almost never true (1) to Almost or almost always true (7) of how well
each characteristic describes the participant. A participant’s degree of sex-role assignment is deter-
mined as a Student’s t ratio for the difference between the total points assigned to the feminine and
masculine traits. If a person’s masculinity score and femininity scores are approximately equal
(t ⱕ 1), that person is labeled androgynous (Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1976). Previous studies
have found the BSRI to have reliable subscales (Brems & Johnson, 1990; Pei-Hui & Ward, 1994).
Alpha coefficients for the current study were .82 and .79 for the masculinity and femininity sub-
scales, respectively.
Locus of control. In the current study, a brief version of Levenson’s (1974) locus of control
scale was used to assess participants’ causal attributions for events and outcomes in their personal
lives. This brief self-report instrument consists of nine items that tap three dimensions: internal
control, chance, and powerful others, with demonstrated alpha coefficients of .59, .65, and .72,
respectively (Sapp & Harrod, 1993). The nine items are rated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from Never or almost never true (1) to Always or almost always true (7). The predictive and
construct validity of the scale has been supported empirically, and it is a reliable and valid instru-
ment for research purposes (Sapp & Harrod, 1993). In this sample, the alpha coefficient for the full
scale was .80.
Optimism. The Life Orientation Test–Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994)
is a six-item scale, plus four filler items, that assesses optimism using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Three items are keyed in a positive
direction, three items are keyed in a negative direction, and the six items are summed to provide
an overall optimism score. The LOT-R has been found to have high internal consistency and
test-retest reliability and it has performed well in tests of convergent and discriminant validity
(Scheier et al., 1994). The LOT-R appears to be particularly well suited for measuring optimism
among college-aged respondents. The alpha coefficient for the LOT-R in the current study was .80.
Academic functioning. Students’ recent academic history and current academic achieve-
ment were assessed using a series of questions developed for this study. The Student Academic
Profile (SAP) is 10-item self-report questionnaire used to collect information on the continuity or
discontinuity of academic functioning among study participants. The SAP instructed participants
to answer questions about present GPA, high school GPA, the number of changes of major, parent
 Attachment and Academic Achievement 565

and peer influences on academic functioning, and the sources to which students attributed aca-
demic success. For current GPA, participants were presented with six choices: (1) 1.0–1.49, (2)
1.5–1.99, (3) 2.0–2.49, (4) 2.5–2.99, (5) 3.0–3.49, (6) 3.50–4.0.

Procedure
Respondents were recruited from undergraduate psychology classes, and participating stu-
dents received 1 hour of research credit. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was guar-
anteed. A 3-digit identification number was assigned to each questionnaire. Data collection was
conducted in large groups in classroom settings. A packet of questionnaires was handed to each
participant and participants were instructed to read each form carefully and then to choose the
answers that most accurately represented their experiences. The seven measures used in this study
were presented to participants in a counterbalanced manner.

Results

Attachment Analyses for Entire Sample

Students’ IPPA scores for their perceptions of attachment to parents and peers were divided
into three groups (low, medium, high) based on the participant’s combined score on the three
subscales (Trust, Communication, Alienation). The three-group classification variables for parent
and peer attachment were then cross-tabulated, creating a typology of nine groups, ranging from a
low peer and low parental attachment group to a high peer and high parental attachment group.
The number of students in each of these groups ranged in size from 20 students (High Parent-Low
Peer) to 60 students (High Parent-High Peer). The distribution of students was nonrandom
across the nine categories, indicating a significant association between the two forms of attach-
ment: ␹ 2 (4, N ⫽ 357) ⫽ 35.27, p ⬍ .001.
A small subgroup of the students (14.8%) perceived themselves to be weakly attached to both
parents and peers, i.e., the Low-Low Group. In contrast, perceived peer attachment for the total
sample (N ⫽357, M ⫽ 60.28, SD ⫽ 14.41) and perceived parental attachment for the total sample
(N ⫽ 357, M ⫽ 55.76, SD ⫽20.00) were similar to attachment levels found for the normative
college sample in Armsden and Greenberg (1987). In the current study, the Low Peer and Low
Parent Group had a mean peer attachment score of 41.71 and a mean parental attachment score of
30.62 compared with the High Peer and High Parent Group, whose mean parent and peer attach-
ment scores were 78.02 and 75.33, respectively.
One-way ANOVAs of parent and peer attachment scores yielded no differences based on
marital status (single vs. married), class rank, or fraternity/sorority membership. While there were
no significant differences in mean levels of peer attachment across ethnic groups, there were
significant differences in mean levels of parental attachment across ethnic groups; F(4,353) ⫽
2.98, p ⬍ .05. Asian American students reported the lowest levels of attachment to parents (M ⫽
41.67) and post-hoc tests revealed this group to have significantly lower levels of attachment when
compared with Hispanic American students (M ⫽ 57.71). A cross-tabulation of ethnic group mem-
bership by the attachment typology did reveal a significant association between ethnic group and
parental attachment; ␹ 2 (4, N ⫽ 357) ⫽ 49.9, p ⬍ .05. This finding should be interpreted with
caution, however, due to the small number of Asian American students in the sample (n ⫽ 12) and
the potential that this difference is sample dependent and therefore not robust.
A significant gender difference was found for mean levels of peer attachment; F ⫽ (1, 355) ⫽
6.99, p ⬍ .01. There was, however, no significant gender difference in mean levels of parental
attachment. The finding that females report higher levels of peer attachment is consistent with
previous studies, and this difference may be related to women’s traditionally higher levels of
566 Fass and Tubman

friendship intimacy (Lapsley, Rice, & Fitzgerald, 1990; Nada Raja, McGee, & Stanton, 1992). No
significant gender differences were found in mean levels of either cognitive or noncognitive psy-
chosocial variables, contrary to previous studies in which gender differences in levels of self-
esteem and locus of control have been documented (e.g., Eccles, Wigfeld, Flanagan, Miller, Reuman,
& Yee, 1989; Findley & Cooper, 1983). Means, standard deviations, and ranges are listed in
Table 1 for key attachment, cognitive, and noncognitive psychosocial variables assessed as part of
the current study.

Correlational Analyses of Attachment, Cognitive, and Noncognitive Variables

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated among key attachment, cognitive, academic,
and noncognitive psychosocial variables for the entire sample of college students and are summa-
rized in Table 2. Significant positive correlations ( p ⬍ .01) were found among both peer attach-
ment and parental attachment for self-esteem, locus of control, global self-esteem, optimism,
scholastic competence, intellectual ability, and androgyny. Neither parental attachment nor peer
attachment were found to be significantly correlated with college GPA. Several items from the
SAP were significantly correlated ( p ⬍ .05) with parental or peer attachment. For example, high
school GPA was significantly but modestly correlated with both parental and peer attachment.
Other significant correlates of indices of academic achievement or performance (e.g., college
GPA and self-reported scholastic competence) beyond the attachment measures are summarized in
Table 2. For example, scholastic competence, as measured by the Self-Perception Profile for
College Students, is significantly correlated with other indices of current functioning such as
measures of self-esteem, locus of control, optimism, and androgyny. In contrast, college GPA has
fewer significant correlates that also tend to be of lower magnitude. Due to the range of significant
correlates of measures of academic achievement or performance, the degree to which attachment
variables account for significant amounts of variance in academic outcome measures is a salient
issue for school counselors or other educational professionals seeking to understand putative influ-
ences on the functioning of college students.
Hierarchical Multiple Regression (HMR) Analyses
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the degree to which attach-
ment and cognitive and noncognitive psychosocial variables predict indices of academic achieve-

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Attachment, Cognitive,
and Noncognitive Variables

Variables Mean SD Range

1. Peer attachment 60.28 14.41 4.00–83.00

2. Parent attachment 55.76 20.00 ⫺9.00–88.00
3. Scholastic competence 2.94 0.71 1.00– 4.00
4. Intellectual ability 3.19 0.73 1.00– 4.00
5. Grade point average 4.33 1.10 1.00– 6.00
6. Locus of control 49.83 7.35 22.00– 63.00
7. Optimism 22.36 5.03 7.00–30.00
8. Rosenberg self-esteem 16.79 5.47 10.00– 40.00
9. Global self-esteem 3.19 0.64 1.00– 4.00
10. Androgyny 2.50 1.12 1.00– 4.00

Note. For variables listed above, N ranged from 352 to 357.

 Attachment and Academic Achievement 567

Table 2
Correlations Among Attachment, Cognitive, and Noncognitive Variables for the Entire Sample

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Peer attachment —
2. Parent attachment .31** —
3. Scholastic competence .20** .26** —
4. Intellectual ability .21** .29** .70** —
5. College GPA ⫺.07 .06 .46** .21** —
6. High School GPA .12* .12* .22** .16** .22** —
7. Parents stress academics ⫺.14* ⫺.03 ⫺.03 ⫺.02 .00 ⫺.12 —
8. Peers stress academics ⫺.09 ⫺.06 ⫺.11* ⫺.08 ⫺.15** ⫺.19** .36** —
9. Self-esteem .31** .47** .42** .51** .06 .14* .07 .04 —
10. Locus of control .34** .38** .37** .41** .18** ⫺.10 ⫺.05 ⫺.10 .44** —
11. Optimism .37** .44** .40** .45** .13* .11* .00 ⫺.01 .62** .56** —
12. Global self-esteem .34** .51** .51** .57** .12* .06 .08 .03 .68** .51** .57** —
13. Androgyny .24** .14** .19** .28** .02 .02 ⫺.03 .12* .30** .24** .21** .28** —

Note. ⴱ p ⬍ .05; **p ⬍ .01.

GPA, grade point average.

ment and performance, such as college GPAor self-reported academic competence. In the first equation,
summarized in Table 3, predictor variables were entered in four blocks with the order of entry based
on the degree to which putative influences were either distal or proximal to student participants. For
example, distal influences such as demographic variables or attachment variables were entered prior

Table 3
Results of a Hierarchical Regression Model: Students’ College Grade Point Average Predicted
by Demographic, Attachment, Cognitive, and Noncognitive Variables

Predictor Variable ␤ t df R2 Adj. R 2 R 2 Change

Step 1 3,346 .006 ⫺.003 .006

Gender ⫺.07 ⫺1.25
Age ⫺.03 ⫺0.59
Ethnicity .01 0.10
Step 2 2,344 .018 .003 .012
Parent attachment .09 1.64
Peer attachment ⫺.10 ⫺1.68
Step 3 3,341 .306 .290 .289***
Intellectual ability ⫺.21 ⫺3.19**
Scholastic competence .62 9.66***
High school GPA .15 3.16**
Step 4 4,337 .319 .295 .013
Optimism .03 .51
Locus of control .12 2.01*
Global self-esteem ⫺.10 ⫺1.44
Androgyny ⫺.01 ⫺0.24

*p ⬍ .05; **p ⬍ .01; ***p ⬍ .001.

GPA, grade point average.
568 Fass and Tubman

to more proximal influences such as cognitive and noncognitive psychosocial variables. The first block
included demographic variables (i.e., age, ethnicity, and gender), but it did not account for a signif-
icant proportion (0.6%) of the variance in college GPA. Similarly, the second block, consisting of
parent attachment and peer attachment variables, did not account for a significant proportion (1.2%)
of variance in college GPA. The third block entered, consisting of several indices of cognitive ability
(intellectual ability, scholastic competence, and high school GPA), significantly predicted college
GPA and accounted for an additional 28.9% of the variance in this academic outcome. The fourth
block of variables entered, consisting of several noncognitive psychosocial variables, did not pre-
dict significant additional variance (1.3%) in college GPA. The combined R 2 for all four of the blocks
of variables entered was 31.9% of the variance in college GPA. Analysis of individual beta weights
for significant predictor variables identified intellectual ability, scholastic competence, high school
GPA, and locus of control as significant predictors of college GPA.
A second hierarchical multiple regression equation analyzed predictors of self-reported scho-
lastic competence. The first block containing demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, and ethnic-
ity) did not account for a significant proportion of the variance in scholastic competence (0.5%).
The second block entered contained attachment variables, and it accounted for a significant pro-
portion of the variance in scholastic competence (8.9%). The third block, containing several indi-
ces of cognitive ability, accounted for a significant proportion (42.0%) of the variance in scholastic
competence. The final block of variables entered, the noncognitive psychosocial variables, accounted
for a significant increment in the variance in scholastic competence (1.8%). Analysis of individual
beta weights in the second regression equation revealed that measures of parent and peer attach-
ment, self-reported intellectual ability, high school GPA, and global self-esteem were significant
predictors of self-reported scholastic competence. These results are summarized in Table 4.
A series of post-hoc one-way ANOVAs were conducted to describe the degree to which
differences in the joint patterning of parent and peer attachment (i.e., the attachment typology)

Table 4
Results of a Hierarchical Regression Model: Students’ Scholastic Competence Predicted by Demographic,
Attachment, Cognitive, and Noncognitive Variables

Predictor Variable ␤ t df R2 Adj. R 2 R 2 Change

Step 1 3,346 .005 ⫺.004 .005

Gender ⫺.04 ⫺0.79
Age ⫺.03 0.55
Ethnicity .04 0.79
Step 2 2,344 .094 .081 .089***
Parent attachment .22 4.01***
Peer attachment .15 2.73**
Step 3 2,342 .514 .504 .420***
Intellectual ability .66 16.30***
High school GPA .13 3.21***
Step 4 4,338 .532 .516 .018*
Optimism .03 .66
Locus of Control .04 .82
Global self-esteem .15 2.68**
Androgyny ⫺.04 ⫺1.03

*p ⬍ .05; **p ⬍ .01; ***p ⬍ .001.

GPA, grade point average.
 Attachment and Academic Achievement 569

were associated with differences in mean levels of other indices of psychosocial functioning, and
hence with broader patterns of competence. Univariate F tests were statistically significant for all
five psychosocial variables: self-esteem, F(8,348) ⫽ 11.82, p ⬍ .001; locus of control, F(8,343) ⫽
10.15, p ⬍ .001; global self-esteem, F(8,348) ⫽ 15.48, p ⬍ .001; androgyny, F(8,348) ⫽ 4.17,
p ⬍ .001; and optimism, F(8,347) ⫽ 14.01, p ⬍ .001. In each of the five one-way ANOVAs, the
group of students with the lowest attachment ratings to both parents and peers (i.e., the Low-Low
group) reported the lowest levels of the specific psychosocial variable. Similar results were doc-
umented for concurrent academic functioning as indexed by self-reported scholastic competence,
F(8,348) ⫽ 4.70, p ⬍ .001, and intellectual ability, F(8,348) ⫽ 5.72, p ⬍ .001. Post-hoc Scheffe⬘
tests were used to decompose and interpret the results of the one-way ANOVAs. In general, post-
hoc comparisons of student groups based on levels of attachment to parents and peers revealed
two consistent results. First, in each case, the Low-Low attachment group was typically signifi-
cantly different from groups defined by high attachment to parents, peers, or both groups. Second,
the High-High attachment group was significantly better functioning than most of the other groups
in the parent-peer attachment typology.
Discussion
The results of this study provided evidence for relations between (a) measures of attachment
to parents or peers and indices of academic performance, and (b) attachment and other measures
of psychosocial competence. Therefore, attachment quality may be a significant compensatory
factor for the development or maintenance of competence in social transitions occurring during
the college years. Preliminary HMR equations included blocks containing interaction terms between
attachment variables and other psychosocial variables, yet neither of these types of blocks accounted
for significant variance in academic outcomes. This finding suggests the lack of a moderating
effect by any of the psychosocial adjustment variables assessed upon the putative influence of
attachment quality on academic outcomes. Yet, conjoint levels of attachment co-vary systemati-
cally with the measures of psychosocial adjustment included in the study, suggesting that attach-
ment is an important component of a broader pattern of adjustment.
Late adolescent college students’ levels of perceived parental and peer attachment showed
substantial variability, and there was a significant association between the two types of attach-
ment. In addition, while the majority of this sample of college students remained moderately to
strongly attached to parents and to peers, a minority of students (14.8%) perceived themselves to
be weakly attached to both parents and peers. In contrast, the Low-Low group reported few
significant differences from most of the other groups in the attachment typology for the majority
of the psychosocial adjustment variables. Therefore, contrary to the widely held belief that low
levels of attachment to parents and peers places students at risk for academic failure and poor
psychosocial competence, this subgroup of college students is not significantly less academically
successful or less socially competent than the majority of their college cohort, with the exception
of students with the highest degree of parental and peer attachment. The results suggest that there
is a threshold effect in relations between attachment and a broad pattern of competence, including
academic achievement.
It is important to note that there were wide individual differences in level of competence
(academic achievement, psychosocial adjustment) reported within the Low-Low attachment group.
This suggests that the influence of attachment to significant others may be moderated by a wide
range of potential risk, protective, or compensatory factors in a broader developmental system
(Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). Therefore, joint weak attachment to parents and peers is not a single
omnibus predictor of poor academic outcomes or other deficiencies in competence. Yet, the find-
ings from this study are congruent with previous literature that has shown that moderate to strong
570 Fass and Tubman

attachment to parents and peers enhances an individual’s sense of self and promotes higher self-
esteem, internal locus of control, greater likelihood to be androgynous, and more optimism (Blain,
Thompson, & Whiffen, 1993; Cohen & Wills, 1985; O’Koon, 1997). In contrast, students who
reported low levels of attachment to both parents and peers appeared to be affected by their attach-
ment quality on a potentially more crucial level, i.e., their sense of self. While low self-esteem, ex-
ternal locus of control, less likely to be androgynous, and less optimism may not have negative effects
on these students’ academic functioning, weak attachment status may adversely affect them in
future career choices, employment, and social domains (Hazen & Shaver, 1990; Kenny, 1990).

Implications for Academic Counselors

The college experience is marked by numerous opportunities and challenges that in combi-
nation with normative developmental tasks, form a transition-linked turning point that requires
competent adaptation (Stewart, 1982). While it is important for college administrators to design
programs to enhance the students’ cognitive and/or psychosocial self-beliefs, counseling pro-
grams should also be established to foster greater social competencies. The findings of this study
suggest that enhancing an at-risk student’s social competence may lead to enhanced academic
achievement. For example, students who are weakly attached to parents and/or peers could be
placed in a social skills training program or friendship therapy program (Gerken, 1987). Counsel-
ors and administrators may also assist by providing opportunities for students and their parents to
improve lines of communication in hopes of strengthening attachment bonds. Students and parents
may receive counseling related to the developmental task of separation-individuation, thereby
enhancing their awareness that this process involves a balance between family enmeshment and
complete disengagement (Cooper, Grotevant, & Condon, 1983). Members of college student affairs
departments may also reassure students that turning to a parent rather than to a peer for psycho-
logical assistance is a normative behavior for college students (Kenny, 1990). “Booster” interven-
tions for self-esteem and/or scholastic competence are also suggested for at-risk students due to
the stressful developmental transition accompanying adaptation to college (Cicchetti, 1993).
Correlational analyses in this article document significant relations between self-esteem and
measures of attachment, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning. A positive inter-
vention approach would be for high school counselors and college student affairs administrators to
provide students presenting with low self-esteem or high external locus of control with opportu-
nities to demonstrate successful internal control and competence within the school environment
(Nunn & Parish, 1992). For example, self-esteem coaching may provide a controlled experience
that demonstrates the relation between behavior and outcome for groups of students with low
self-esteem. Nevertheless, additional research is necessary to refine and enhance the effectiveness
of intervention programs for weakly attached students whose risk of academic failure may be
moderated by specific cognitive or noncognitive factors not included in this study. The results of
this study should have salient practical implications for interventions by counselors and college
administrators, including (a) a greater effort to identify students who are weakly attached to par-
ents or peers (i.e., weak social support) and (b) the development of intervention programs to
enhance academic efficacy, social efficacy, and self-efficacy.

Limitations
Although this study has contributed to understanding relations between weak parental and
peer attachment and academic achievement among late adolescent college students, limitations of
this study need to be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional and correlational nature of this study
makes it difficult to make causal inferences or statements about the directionality of influences.
Second, this study relied on self-report data, including self-reported GPA for statistical analysis.
 Attachment and Academic Achievement 571

Greater use of observational or behavioral assessments or school records would have been helpful
in validating self-reported data. While a number of studies have reported high correlations between
self-reported GPA and GPA obtained from official registrar records (Rabow, Radcliffe-Vasile,
Newcomb, & Hernandez, 1992), use of registrar GPA would reduce the potential risk of bias in
these data. Third, while the sample of students was ethnically diverse, the vast majority of the
participants were Hispanic American, comprised largely of Cuban American females. Therefore,
these findings should not be assumed to generalize to college students from other cultures and
ethnic groups. As a group, Cuban American parents living in Miami, regardless of their socioeco-
nomic status, view their children’s educational persistence and success as a fait accompli (Portes
& MacLeod, 1996). Children of Cuban American parents may feel compelled and pressured to
attain academic success in college. This parental-collective expectation related to educational
success may filter down and influence peer relations as well. A fourth caveat pertains to the small
number (n ⫽ 12) of Asian American participants in this study. While this study is consistent with
literature that suggests Asian American students perceive themselves to be less attached to parents
than Anglo Americans, Hispanic Americans, and African Americans (Zea et al., 1995), future
studies that include a larger sample of Asian American students are needed to fully understand the
complexity of ethnicity-attachment relations. Finally, although it has a diverse student population,
the urban university sampled in this study is mainly Cuban American in composition and it has had
great success in attracting and matriculating Cuban American females who are scholastically
competent and extremely self-confident.

Acknowledgments
The data summarized in this article were collected as part of the doctoral dissertation in
psychology awarded to Michael E. Fass, PhD, by Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

References
Abby, A., Abramis, D.J., & Caplan, R.D. (1985). Effects of different sources of social support and social conflict on
emotional well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 111–129.
Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their
relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427– 454.
Bank, B.J., Slavings, R.L., & Biddle, B.J. (1990). Effects of peer, faculty, and parental influences on students’ persistence.
Sociology of Education, 63, 208–225.
Bean, J.P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. Review of
Higher Education, 6, 129–148.
Bell, K.L., Allen, J.P., Hauser, S.T., & O’Conner, T.G. (1996). Family factors and young adult transitions: Educational
attainment and occupational prestige. In J.A. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn, & A.C. Petersen (Eds.), Transitions through
adolescence: Interpersonal domains and context (pp. 345–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bem, S.L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.
Bem, S.L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex-typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1016–1023.
Blain, M.D., Thompson, J.M., & Whiffen, V.E. (1993). Attachment and perceived social support in late adolescence: The
interaction between working models of self and others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8, 226–241.
Brems, C., & Johnson, M.E. (1990). Reexamination of the Bem sex-role inventory: The interpersonal BSRI. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 53, 484– 498.
Buhs, E.S., & Ladd, G.W. (2001). Peer rejection as an antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination
of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology, 37, 550–560.
Chubb, N.H., Fertman, C.J., & Ross, J.L. (1997). Adolescent self-esteem and locus of control: A longitudinal study of
gender and age differences. Adolescence, 32, 113–129.
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, and projections. Developmental Review, 13,
471–502.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.
572 Fass and Tubman

Coie, J.D., Terry, R., Lenox, K., Lochman, J., & Hyman, C. (1995). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors
of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 697–713.
Cooper, C., Grotevant, H., & Condon, S. (1983). Individuality and connectedness in the family context as a context for
adolescence identity formation and role-playing skill. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & H. Grotevant & C. Coooper (Vol.
Eds.), New directions in child development: Vol. 22. Adolescent development in the family (pp. 43–59). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cotterell, J.L. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-being and school adjustment. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 7, 28– 42.
Cutrona, C.E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Russell, D.W. (1994). Perceived parental social support and
academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369–378.
Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D.F., & Fraleigh, M.J. (1987). The relation of parenting style to
adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244–1257.
Dubois, D.J., Felner, R.D., Brand, S., Adam, A.M., & Evans, E.G. (1992). A prospective study of life stress, social support,
and adaptation in early adolescence. Child Development, 63, 542–557.
Eccles, J.S., Wigfeld, A., Flanagan, C.A., Miller, C., Reuman, D.A., & Yee, D. (1989). Self-concepts, domain values, and
self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310.
Ekstrom, R.B., Goertz, M.E., Pollack, J.M., & Rock, D.A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from
a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 356–373.
Findley, M.J., & Cooper, H.M. (1983). Locus of control and academic achievement: A literature review. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 44, 419– 427.
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.
Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 82, 221–234.
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal
study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 281–288.
Gerken, K. (1987). Children and peer relations. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Children’s needs: Psychological per-
spectives (pp. 404– 412). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Harrison, A.O., Wilson, M.N., Pine, C.J., Chan, S., & Buriel, R. (1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child
Development, 61, 347–362.
Harter, S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In R.J. Sternberg
& J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 67–97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hazen, C. & Shaver, P.R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 270–280.
Hearn, J.C. (1985). Determinants of college students’ overall evaluations of their academic programs. Review of Higher
Education, 23, 413– 437.
Hoffman, J. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their parents. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,
170–178.
Hoffmam, J., & Weiss, B. (1987). Family dynamics and presenting problems in college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 34, 157–163.
Holahan, C.J., Valentiner, D.P., & Moos, R.H. (1994). Parent support and psychological adjustment during the transition to
young adulthood in a college sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 2, 215–223.
Kenny, M.E. (1990). College seniors’ perceptions of parental attachments: The value and stability of family ties. Journal of
College Student Development, 31, 39– 46.
Kenny, M.E., & Donaldson, G.A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and
psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 479– 486.
Kupersmidt, J.B., Coie, J.D., & Dodge, K.A. (1990). The role of poor peer relationships in the development of disorder. In
S.R. Asher & J.D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood. Cambridge studies in social and emotional development
(pp. 274–305). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lapsley, D.K., Rice, K.G., & Fitzgerald, D.P. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, and adjustment to college: Impli-
cations for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68, 561–565.
Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: Distinctions within the concepts of internal-external control. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 38, 377–383.
Levitt, M.J., Guacci-Franco, N., & Levitt, J.L. (1993). Convoys of social support in childhood and adolescence: Structure
and function. Developmental Psychology, 29, 811–818.
Liang, B., & Bogat, G.A., (1994). Culture, control, and coping: New perspectives on social support. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 22, 123–147.
 Attachment and Academic Achievement 573

Luthar, S.S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policy. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885.
Masten, A.S. (1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In M.C. Wang
& E.W. Gordan (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects. (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Masten, A.S., Hubbard, J.J., Gest, S.D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the context of
adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psycho-
pathology,11, 143–169.
McFarlane, A.H., Bellissimo, A., & Norman, G.R. (1995). The role of family and peers in social self-efficacy: Links to
depression in adolescence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 402– 410.
Moss, E., & St.-Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 37,
863–874.
Nada Raja, S., McGee, R., & Stanton, W.R. (1992). Perceived attachment to parents and peers and psychological well-
being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21, 471– 485.
Neemann, J., & Harter, S. (1986). The self-perception profile for college students. Manual. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Nunn, G.D., & Parish, T.S. (1992). The psychological characteristics of at-risk high school students. Adolescence, 27,
435– 440.
O’Koon, J. (1997). Attachment to parent and peers in late adolescence and their relationship with self-image. Adolescence,
32, 471– 482.
Okun, M.A., Benin, M., & Brandt-Williams, A. (1996). Staying in college: Moderators of the relation between intention
and institutional departure. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 577–596.
Parker, J.G., & Asher, S.R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psy-
chological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Paterson, J., Pryor, J., & Field, J. (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in relation to aspects of self-esteem.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 365–376.
Pei-Hui, R.A., & Ward, C. (1994). A cross-cultural perspective on models of psychological androgyny. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 134, 391–393.
Peng, S.S. (1994). Understanding resilient students: The use of national longitudinal databases. In M.C. Wang & E.W.
Gordon (Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 73–84). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Portes, A., & MacLeod, D. (1996). Educational progress of children of immigrants: The roles of class, ethnicity, and school
context. Sociology of Education, 69, 255–275.
Rabow, J., Radcliffe-Vasile, S., Newcomb, M.D., & Hernandez, A.C.R. (1992). Teachers’, students’, and others’ contribu-
tions to educational outcomes. Youth and Society, 24, 71–91.
Rao, U., Hammen, C., & Daley, S.E. (1999). Continuity of depression during the transition to adulthood: A 5-year longi-
tudinal study of young women. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 908–915.
Reifman, A., & Dunkel-Schetter, C. (1990). Stress, structural support, and well-being in university students. College
Health, 38, 271–277.
Riggio, R.E., Watring, K.P., & Throckmorton, B. (1993). Social skills, social support, and psychosocial adjustment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 275–280.
Robbins, S.B., Lese, K.P., & Herrick, S.M. (1993). Interactions between goal instability and social support on college
freshman adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 343–348.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sapp, S.G., & Harrod, W.J. (1993). Reliability and validity of a brief version of Levenson’s locus of control scale. Psy-
chological Reports, 72, 539–550.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-
mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
1063–1078.
Stewart, A.J. (1982). The course of individual adaptation to life changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
1100–1113.
Wills, T.A., Blechman, E.A., & McNamara, G. (1996). Family support, coping, and competence. In E.M. Hetherington &
E.A. Blechman (Eds.), Stress, coping, and resiliency in children and families (pp. 107–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zea, M.C., Jarama, S.L., & Bianchi, F.T. (1995). Social support and psychosocial competence: Explaining the adaptation
to college of ethnically diverse students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 509–531.