Personal Relationships - 2005 - ANDERS - Adult Attachment Style Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social Support

Personul Relatwmhips, 7 (2000), 379-389. Printed in the United States of America.
Copyright 0 2000 ISSPR. 1350-4126/00$9.50
Adult attachment style, interpersonal

communication competence, and social
support
SHERRY L. ANDERS AND JOAN S. TUCKER

Brandeis University
Abstract
Individualswith a more secure attachment style report having larger and more satisfying social support
networks Individuals with a more anxious or a more avoidant attachment style, by contrast, report having
smaller and less satisfying support networks The present study examined the role of interpersonal
communicationcompetence (ICC) as a possible mediator of the association between attachment and social
support in a sample of college undergraduates Strong support was found for the described model.
Mediational analyses revealed that global deficits in ICC could account for the smaller social support network
sizes and lower levels of satisfaction among both more anxiously attached and more avoidantly attached
individuals. In addition, subsequent analyses examining specific dimensions of ICC revealed that the lower
support satisfaction among more anxious individuals could be uniquely accounted for by a lack of
assertivenessin social interactions For more avoidantly attached individuals,smaller network sizes could be
uniquely accounted for by lower levels of self-disclosure,and less support satisfaction could be uniquely
accounted for by a lack of assertiveness in addition to lower levels of self-disclosure. The implications of these
findings and suggestionsfor future research are discussed.
According to attachment theory, our earli- as anxious’ or avoidant (Fraley & Waller,
est interactions with a primary caregiver be- 1998;Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998).Anx-
come internalized as mental models, or in- iousness reflects a strong desire for intimacy
ternal working models, that serve to guide coupled with a fear of abandonment,
our social behavior and our social expecta- whereas avoidance reflects discomfort with
tions across the life span (Bowlby, closeness due to the expectation that others
1%9-1982).Asecure working model is char- will be neglectful or intrusive (Brennan et
acterized by a basic sense of trust that others al., 1998;Feeney,Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994).
will be dependable and available to us, par- As adults, secure individuals report hav-
ticularly during times of stress. By contrast, ing more positive relationship experiences,
insecure working models may be described
1. Although the terms anxious-ambivalent (Hazan &
Shaver, 1987) and preoccupied (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991) have also been used to describe
We are grateful to Jeffry A. Simpson and two anony- anxious working models, we have chosen to use the
mous reviewers for their helpful comments on an ear- term anxious after Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s
lier draft of this article. We are also very grateful to (1996, 1998) recent, comprehensive measure of
Tobi Putterman and Emily Spiegel for their help with adult attachment. We have done so in order to
data collection and entry. Portions of this research make it conceptually clear which framework we are
were presented at the 1999 meeting of the American adopting owing to the fact that there are subtle but
Psychological Association, Boston. important differences in the conceptualization,
Correspondence concerning this article should be measurement strategies, and outcomes associated
sent to Sherry L. Anders’s new address: Department with each slightly varied framework (see Brennan
of Psychology, Suffolk University, 41 Temple St., Bos- et al., 1998, and Fraley & Waller, 1998, for a discus-
ton, MA 02114. sion of these issues).
379
14756811, 2000, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00023.x by Ist Politecnico De Lisboa, Wiley Online Library on [11/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
380 S. L. Anders and J.S. Tucker
larger social support networks, and more interpersonal skills required to develop
satisfaction with their support. Individuals strong and satisfying networks. A number
who are more anxious or avoidant, by con- of studies have specifically linked social
trast, report experiencing greater emo- competence to the development and adap-
tional ups and downs in their relationships, tive use of social support networks (Cohen,
smaller social support networks, and less Sherrod, & Clark, 1986; Sarason, Sarason,
satisfaction with their support (Hazan & Hacker, & Basham, 1985). For more anx-
Shaver, 1987; Priel & Shamai, 1995; Sadava iously and more avoidantly attached indi-
& McCreary, 1996). Having a strong and viduals, early exposure to poor social mod-
satisfying social support network available els and high levels of social anxiety may
has been positively linked to physical result in less overall interpersonal compe-
health and lowered mortality risk (for re- tence (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974;
views, see Berkman, 1985;Broadhead et al., Bretherton, 1988). These deficits in inter-
1983;Wallston, Alagna, De Vellis, & De Vel- personal competence, in turn, may limit the
lis, 1983),as well as to emotional well-being ability of more anxiously attached and
(see Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kessler & more avoidantly attached individuals to
McLeod, 1985; Leavy, 1983). In conse- form and maintain quality social ties.
quence, it seems important to attempt to Previous research examining associa-
delineate the mechanisms that may lead to tions between attachment and various
better support outcomes for more secure measures of interpersonal competence sug-
individuals and worse support outcomes for gests a number of behavioral patterns that
more anxious or avoidant individuals. may account for the lack of quality social
One explanation for avoidant individu- support experienced by less secure indi-
als’ weaker support outcomes may be that viduals. Relative to more secure individuals,
more avoidant individuals are both less more anxiously attached and more
likely to seek out support from others and avoidantly attached individuals show inter-
less likely to offer support to others. For personal deficits in a number of domains,
example, Simpson, Rholes, and Nelligan including expressivity,disclosure, conversa-
(1992) found that avoidant women tend to tional regulation, conflict resolution skill,
seek less support from their male partners and interpersonal sensitivity. For example,
(compared to secure women) the more dis- more anxious and more avoidant individu-
tressed they are. In another study, avoidant als show less conversational flexibility than
individuals even tended to pull away from their more secure counterparts, and
their partners as their levels of distress in- avoidant individuals engage in less self-dis-
creased prior to an airport separation closure than do anxious or secure individu-
(Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Avoidant men als (Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991). When
have been found to offer less support to interacting with a dating partner, more anx-
their female partners the more distressed iously attached and more avoidantly at-
their partners are (Simpson et al., 1992), tached individuals display less nonverbal
and avoidant men also appear less warm immediacy and appear less expressive over-
and supportive toward their female part- all (Tucker & Anders, 1998). During prob-
ners during discussions about major rela- lem-solving situations, less secure individu-
tionship problems (Simpson, Rholes & als appear less able to regulate their
Phillips, 1996). By seeking and offering less emotions in a constructive way (Kobak &
support, avoidant individuals may isolate Hazan, 1991), and anxious women, in par-
themselves from important potential ticular, engage in more dysfunctional styles
sources of support. of negotiation (Simpson et al., 1996). More
Another possible explanation for poorer anxious and more avoidant individuals re-
support networks among more avoidant port using less adaptive conflict resolution
and more anxious individuals is that less strategies (Levy & Davis, 1988; Pistole,
secure individuals may lack the necessary 1989). Less secure individuals also show
Attachment and social support 381
certain deficits in the ability to decode their this construct (Shaver & Brennan, 1992). It
partner’s nonverbal behavior (Noller & was therefore expected that, in the present
Feeney, 1994) and their partner’s feelings study, more anxious individuals would re-
about the relationship (Tucker & Anders, port lower levels of assertiveness. Finally, it
1999), although both of these findings are was expected that lower levels of assertive-
qualified by gender. ness and interpersonal sensitivity would
Given that more anxiously and more uniquely be able to account for the associa-
avoidantly attached individuals tend to re- tion between anxious attachment and social
port having smaller and less satisfying social support, whereas lower levels of self-disclo-
support networks, the goal of the present sure and interpersonal sensitivity would
study was to examine the extent to which uniquely be able to account for the relation-
this could be accounted for by deficits in ship between avoidant attachment and so-
interpersonal communication competence. cial support.
Self-report measures of adult attachment
style, interpersonal communication compe-
Method
tence, and social support were administered
to a sample of college undergraduates. Con-
Participants
sistent with previous literature, it was hy-
pothesized that more anxious and more Participants were 104 Brandeis University
avoidant (less secure) attachment would be undergraduates who participated for
associated with less perceived social sup- course credit. Fifty-five of the participants
port and less satisfaction with social sup- (53%) were women and 49 (47%) were
port. It was also expected that more anxious men. Ages ranged from 18 to 23 years (M =
and more avoidant attachment would be as- 18.84 years; SD = 0.90). The sample was
sociated with less interpersonal communi- predominantly white (78.8%) and upper
cation competence. Finally, it was expected middle class.
that interpersonal communication compe-
tence would mediate the relationship be-
Procedure
tween attachment and social support.
Based on an exploratory factor analysis After completing a consent form, each par-
of the measure of interpersonal communi- ticipant completed measures of attachment
cation competence used in this study, three style, interpersonal communication compe-
underlying dimensions of competence were tence, social support, and demographic in-
identified: assertiveness, interpersonal sen- formation, as well as several nonrelated
sitivity, and self-disclosure (see below for measures that were being used for another
details). As a result, the following additional study. All measures within the full question-
hypotheses were made. Following previous naire were counterbalanced across partici-
research, it was expected that both more pants. The questionnaires were adminis-
anxious and more avoidant individuals tered in a group setting.
would report lower levels of interpersonal
sensitivity (Noller & Feeney, 1994;Tucker &
Instruments
Anders, 1999),and that more avoidant indi-
viduals would additionally report lower lev- Attachment style. Adult attachment style
els of self-disclosure (Mikulincer & Nach- was measured with the Experiences in
son, 1991). No research to- date has Close Relationships Scale (ECL; Brennan
systematically examined associations be- et al., 1998).The ECL is a 36-item measure
tween attachment style and assertiveness; that assesses feelings and attitudes about
however, scores based on the assertiveness close relationships. Responses are made on
facet subscale of the NEO Personality In- a 7-point scale ranging from Strongly Dis-
ventory (NEO-PI) suggest a negative asso- agree to Strongly Agree. This measure pro-
ciation between anxious attachment and vides a score for each of the two dimensions
382 S.L. Anders and J.S. Tucker
of adult romantic attachment: Anxiety and domains. The domains are as follows: (1)
Avoidance.2 Sample items from the Anxiety Whom can you really count on to distract
and Avoidance scales, respectively, are: “I you from your worries when you feel un-
need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by der stress? (2) Whom can you really count
my partner,” and “I get uncomfortable on to help you feel more relaxed when you
when a romantic partner wants to be very are under pressure or tense? (3) Who ac-
close.” Scale reliabilities reported by the cepts you totally, including both your worst
authors for the “Anxiety” and “Avoidance” and your best points? (4) Whom can you
scales, respectively, are Cronbach’s a = .91 really count on to care about you, regard-
and .94 (Brennan et al., 1998). less of what is happening to you? ( 5 )
Whom can you really count on to help you
Interpersonal communication competence. feel better when you are feeling down-in-
Interpersonal communication competence the-dumps? and (6) Whom can you count
was measured with the Interpersonal Com- on to console you when you are very up-
munication Competence Scale (ICCS; Ru- set? Then, for each domain, participants
bin & Martin, 1994).The ICCS is a 30-item are asked to rate their level of satisfaction
scale tapping a variety of skills that facili- with the support that they receive on a 6-
tate effective communication in interactive point scale ranging from Very Unsatisfied
settings. For example, two sample items in- to Very Satisfied. Thus, the SSQ6 yields two
clude: “I let others know that I understand scores for each participant-one describ-
what they say,” and “It’s difficult to find the ing the amount of support that each re-
right words to express myself [reverse- ceives, and one describing the participant’s
coded].” Responses are made on a 5-point overall satisfaction with their support.
scale ranging from Almost Never to Almost Scale reliabilities reported by the authors
Always. Scale reliability for this measure, for this six-item measure, for both amount
reported by its authors, is Cronbach’s a = of support and satisfaction, range from
.86 (Rubin & Martin, 1994). Cronbach’s a = .90 to .93 (Sarason et al.,
1987).
Social support. Finally, social support was
measured using a shortened version of the
Results
Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ6; Sara-
son, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987). The
Descriptive information.
SSQ6 measures the amount of support that
one receives by having participants list the The mean, standard deviation, and scale re-
initials of up to nine people who provide liability for each measure are reported in
them with support in each of six related Table 1. Correlations among attachment,
social sumort, and interpersonal communi-
A. ,
2. Although a number of measures of adult romantic

cation competence are also reported in Ta-
attachment exist, including a widely used measure ble 1.3 As expected, higher levels Of anxious
based on a four-category model of adult attach- attachment and avoidant attachment were
ment (The Relationship Questionnaire; Bartholo- significantly associated with receiving
_ _
mew & Horowitz, 1991),consistent and converging
evidence from a growing number of sources points
to the particular validity of a two-dimensional 3. Correlations among the attachment variables, so-
model (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998 Feeney, cial support variables, and interpersonal communi-
Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994; Sanford, 1997; Simpson, cation competence were examined separately for
Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). This two dimensional each sex. The direction of each association was the
model appears to best fit the latent structure of same for women and men. Furthermore, a series of
existing attachment data (Fraley & Waller, 1998), z-tests using Fisher’s r to t’ transformation re-
and is best captured using the ECL (Brennan, vealed no significant differences in the strength of
Clark, & Shaver, 1998),which is currently the most each association between women and men. Thus,
comprehensive and well-validated measure avail- data were con, h e d across the sexes for the re-
able. mainder of the analyses.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations of attachment

style, social support, and interpersonal communication competence
Measure 2 3 4 5 Mean (SD) cia
1.Anxious attachment .14 -.19* -.28** -.21* 4.02 (0.86) .84

2. Avoidant attachment - -.26** -.23* -.44*** 2.96 (1.03) .92
3. Social Support
Amount - .43*** .53*** 5.37 (2.31) .93
4. Social Support
Satisfaction - .56*** 5.05 (0.93) .90
5. Interpersonal communication - 3.68 (0.52) .90
competence
Note: N = 104.
aCronbach’salpha coefficient.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
lesser amounts of support and being less ses, the relevant social support variable
satisfied with one’s support. Also, both anx- (satisfaction or amount) was regressed on
ious attachment and avoidant attachment the relevant attachment variable (anxious
were significantly associated with less inter- or avoidant) on step 1. Then, on step 2,
personal communication competence. ICC was added to the equation to see
whether the amount of variance accounted
Mediational analyses. Mediational analy- for by the attachment variable was re-
ses were conducted to see whether inter- duced. The results are presented in Table
personal communication competence 2. When ICC was added to each of the
(ICC) could account for the relationships equations, the following results were ob-
among each of the two attachment orienta- tained: (1) The relationship between anx-
tions and each of the two social support ious attachment and amount of support
variables (anxious attachment with amount became nonsignificant; (2) the relationship
of support, anxious attachment with sup- between anxious attachment and support
port satisfaction, avoidant attachment with satisfaction was notably reduced, but re-
amount of support, and avoidant attach- mained significant; (3) the relationship be-
ment with support satisfaction). Following tween avoidant attachment and amount of
the method outlined by Baron and Kenny support became nonsignificant; and ( 4 ) the
(1986), mediation is established when the relationship between avoidant attachment
following conditions are met: (a) A signifi- and support satisfaction became nonsigni-
cant association is found between the inde- ficant. Based on a test of indirect effects
pendent variable and the presumed media- (see Baron & Kenny, 1986), the above re-
tor, (b) a significant association is found sults indicate that ICC fully mediates the
between the presumed mediator and the relationship between anxious attachment
dependent variable, and (c) a significant as- and amount of support ( Z = 5.17, p <
sociation between the independent vari- .OOl), partially mediates the relationship
able and the dependent variable is signifi- between anxious attachment and support
cantly reduced after statistically controlling satisfaction ( Z = 5.47, p < .001), fully me-
for the presumed mediator. Conditions a diates the relationship between avoidant
and b were met in all of the four possible attachment and amount of support ( Z =
cases. Therefore, four separate stepwise 5 . 1 6 , ~< .001), and fully mediates the re-
multiple regression analyses were con- lationship between avoidant attachment
ducted to test condition c for each case. and support satisfaction ( Z = 5.78, p <
In each of the multiple regression analy- .OOl).
384 S. L. Anders and J.S. Tucker
Table 2. Multiple regression analyses of social support variables on attachment style and
interpersonal communication competence
s Total R2
(1) Dependent Variable: Amount of Support
Step I .04*
Anxious attachment -.19*
Step 2 .28***
Anxious attachment - .08
Interpersonal communication competence .51***
(2) Dependent Variable: Satisfaction with Support
Step I .08**
Anxious attachment -.28**
Step 2 .34***
( 3 ) Dependent Variable: Amount of Support
Step 1 .07*
Avoidant attachment -.26**
Step 2 .30***
Avoidant attachment - .04
Step 1 .05*
Avoidant attachment -.23*
Step 2 .31***
Avoidant attachment .02
Note: N = 104.
* p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .01.
Supplementary analyses using derived fac- rights”). Finally, the third factor contained
tors from the ICCS. To supplement the six items reflecting interpersonal sensitivity
main findings, exploratory analyses were (sample item: “In conversations with
conducted to determine whether particular friends, I perceive not only what they say
dimensions of ICC could independently ac- but what they don’t say”). The mean, stand-
count for the associations found between ard deviation, and scale reliability for each
attachment and social support. The items of the three derived ICCS factors are pre-
on the ICCS were factor-analyzed using a sented in Table 3. Intercorrelations among
principal components analysis with varimax these three factors are also presented in
rotation. A three-factor solution resulted. Table 3.
Only those items that loaded .40 or greater To determine which ICC factors could
on a single factor were interpreted. Because independently account for the associations
of high intercorrelations among the items, between attachment and social support, it
many were eliminated owing to this restric- was first necessary to see which factors
tion. The first factor contained three items were independently associated with each of
reflecting self-disclosure (sample item: “I the attachment and social support variables.
reveal how I feel to others”). The second To do this, all of the attachment and social
factor contained four items reflecting asser- support variables were regressed on the
tiveness (sample item: ‘‘I stand up for my three factors simultaneously. Assertiveness
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations of the three
derived interpersonal communication competence factors
Factor 2 3 Mean (SD) aa

1.F1: Self-disclosure ,31*** .35*** 3.85 (1.00) .80
2. F2: Assertiveness - .26** 3.34 (0.82) .72
3. F3: Interpersonal Sensitivity - 3.94 (0.56) .71
Note: N = 104.
aCronbach’salpha coefficient.
**p < .01. ***, < .001.
was independently and negatively associ- in Table 4. In case 1, when assertiveness was
ated with anxiousness (p = -.19,p < .05), added into the equation, the association be-
whereas both assertiveness and self-disclo- tween anxious attachment and support sat-
sure were independently and negatively as- isfaction was notably reduced, but re-
sociated with avoidant attachment (respec- mained significant. In case 2, when
tively, p = -.22,p < .05, and p = -.37 p < self-disclosure was added to the equation,
.001). Self-disclosure and sensitivity were the association between avoidant attach-
each independently and positively associ- ment and amount of support became non-
ated with the amount of social support re- significant. Finally, in case 3, when self-dis-
ported (respectively, p = .28,p < .01, and p closure and assertiveness were added to the
= .39,p < .001). Finally, self-disclosure and equation, the association between avoidant
assertiveness were each independently and attachment and support satisfaction be-
positively associated with support satisfac- came nonsignificant. These results indicate
tion (respectively, p = .38,p < .001, and p that assertiveness partially mediates the as-
= .18,p < .05). sociation between anxious attachment and
Again following Baron and Kenny’s support satisfaction ( Z = 2.95, p < .Ol),
(1986) method for testing mediator models, self-disclosure fully mediates the associa-
three cases met the conditions necessary for tion between avoidant attachment and
mediation: ( 1 )Assertiveness was tested as a amount of support (2 = 3 . 4 3 , < ~ .001), and
possible mediator of the association be- self-disclosure and assertiveness in combi-
tween anxious attachment and support sat- nation fully mediate the association be-
isfaction; ( 2 ) self-disclosure was tested as a tween avoidant attachment and support
possible mediator of the relationship be- satisfaction (2 = 4 . 7 3 , ~< .001).
tween avoidant attachment and amount of
support; and, finally, ( 3 ) self-disclosure and
assertiveness were tested as possible me- Discussion
diators of the association between avoidant The results of this study lend strong support
attachment and support satisfaction. to the idea that interpersonal communica-
Stepwise multiple regression analyses tion competence is an important factor in
were again used to test the potential media- understanding why less secure individuals
tors. The relevant social support variable (both anxious and avoidant) have difficulty
(satisfaction or amount) was regressed on in developing broad and satisfying social
the relevant attachment variable (anxious- support networks. As expected, individuals
ness or avoidance) on step 1. Then, on step with a more anxious attachment orienta-
2, the relevant ICC factors were added to tion reported having smaller social support
the equation to see whether the amount of network sizes and reported being less satis-
variance accounted for by the attachment fied with the support that they received.
variable was reduced; results are presented The smaller network sizes could be fully
386 S.L. Anders and J.S. Tucker
Table 4. Multiple regression analyses of social support variables on attachment style and
the derived interpersonal communication competence factors
P Total R2
Step 1 .08**
Anxious attachment -.28**
Step 2 .16***
Assertiveness .28**
(2) Dependent Variable: Amount of Support

Step 1 .07*
Avoidant attachment -.26**
Step 2 .17***
Avoidant attachment -.11
Self-disclosure .35***
Step 1 .05*
Avoidant attachment - .23*
Step 2 .26***
Avoidant attachment .02
Self-disclosure .41***
Assertiveness .21*
Note: N = 104.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
explained by a global deficit in ICC. The Also note that the association between
lower amounts of support satisfaction could anxious attachment and support satisfaction
be partially explained by deficits in ICC, could only be partially explained by deficits
and in particular by a lack of assertiveness in ICC. Other explanations for anxiously at-
in social interactions. Thus, despite anx- tached individuals’ relative lack of satisfac-
iously attached individuals’ preoccupation tion may relate directly to the influences of
with relationships and a strong desire for anxious working models of attachment. A
closeness (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), it ap- tenuous sense of trust is encoded in the
pears that they lack the necessary skills to working models of anxious individuals (Col-
meet these ends. lins & Read, 1990;Mikulincer, 1998;Shaver
The particular role that a lack of asser- & Hazan, 1993),and as a result anxious indi-
tiveness played in explaining why more viduals tend to show heightened vigilance
anxiously attached individuals reported less toward violations of trust (Mikulincer,
support satisfaction is not surprising. Given 1998), tend to make negative attributions
anxiously attached individuals’ charac- about the intentions of others’ behavior in
teristic lack of self-esteem (Brennan & ambiguous situations (Collins, 1996), and
Morris, 1997; Collins & Read, 1990) and tend to have greater access to negative
fear of rejection (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998), memories than secure or avoidant individu-
they may feel unable to assert their own als (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). These
needs and desires in the context of interper- heightened negative attributions, memories,
sonal relationships. If these needs are not and expectations, in turn, may leave anxious
communicated, they will not be met, ulti- individuals feeling particularly less satisfied
mately resulting in less support satisfaction. with their support than others.
Like individuals with a more anxious at- ness and dissatisfaction with one’s social
tachment orientation, individuals with a network (Stokes, 1987).
more avoidant attachment orientation also Contrary to expectations, neither anx-
reported having smaller social support net- ious attachment nor avoidant attachment
work sizes and reported being less satisfied was uniquely associated with the interper-
with the support that they received. The sonal sensitivity dimension of the ICCS.
mediating processes differed slightly, how- This may reflect an inability of participants
ever. Avoidantly attached individuals’ to self-rate interpersonal sensitivity accu-
smaller network sizes could be fully ac- rately. Previous studies examining associa-
counted for by a deficit in ICC, and in par- tions between attachment and sensitivity
ticular by a lack of self-disclosure.The ten- have used methodologies that compare
dency for more avoidantly attached participants’ perceptions about a target in-
individuals to be less self-disclosing is well- dividual to the target individual’s own re-
documented in previous literature (e.g., see ported thoughts and feelings, resulting in a
Mikulincer & Nachson, 1991). By not open- measure of objective accuracy (Noller &
ing up and disclosing to others, avoidantly Feeney, 1994; Tucker & Anders, 1999).
attached individuals inhibit the possibility Therefore, the lack of association between
for close, supportive relationships to de- attachment and sensitivity in this study
velop and endure. should be interpreted with caution, and fu-
The lower support satisfaction that ture research should not discount the po-
avoidantly attached individuals reported tential importance that interpersonal sensi-
experiencing could also be fully accounted tivity may have for understanding the ways
for by a deficit in ICC, but here due to a in which attachment style influences rela-
lack of assertiveness in addition to a lack of tionship development.
self-disclosure. Although a lack of asser- A few limitations of the present study
tiveness in avoidantly attached individuals should be noted. First, as with any study
may be less due to a fear of rejection than that relies solely on the use of self-report
to the simple expectation of others’ indif- methods, it is not clear the extent to which
ference (Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & systematic biases may have entered into the
Shaver, 1987), it may lead to lower support participants’ responses. Although the re-
satisfaction in much the same way that was sults presented here show patterns that are
described above for anxiously attached in- largely consistent with previous research,
dividuals. That is, by not communicating or future work using alternative methodolo-
asserting one’s needs or desires, they will gies will be useful in further elucidating the
not likely be met, resulting in less satisfac- validity of these results. Second, the sample
tion. Lower levels of self-disclosure,in con- consisted of young college undergraduates,
trast, may both directly and indirectly im- and the generalizability of our results be-
pact support satisfaction. Directly, a lack of yond this sample is unclear. Finally, al-
self-disclosure is likely to result in feeling though specific behavioral deficits that in-
misunderstood by others, and may there- hibit the development of supportive social
fore translate into less satisfaction. More ties are identified, no direct assessment is
indirectly, lower levels of self-disclosure made as to whether these behavioral defi-
keep others at a distance. As a result, others cits reflect varying motivational states ver-
may feel less willing or committed to offer sus actual deficits in skill. For example, it is
genuine and satisfying support in return. not clear whether avoidant individuals’ lack
This is consistent with previous work sug- of self-disclosure is motivated by a desire to
gesting that self-disclosure is an essential shun close relationships or by an actual in-
component for the development of mutual ability to appropriately disclose self-rele-
understanding and caring in relationships vant information during social interactions.
(e.g., see Chelune, 1979), and that a lack of Thus, it seems possible that these individu-
self-disclosure results in feelings of loneli- als fully possess the skills to develop close
388 S L . Anders and J.S Tucker
relationships but are simply not motivated ther reinforce the negative relational expec-
to use them. Further research will be re- tations that are already encoded in the
quired to identify the specific causes of the working models of highly anxious and
behavioral patterns cited here and in other avoidant individuals.Future research would
studies. benefit by making a more thorough and de-
Despite these limitations, the research tailed attempt to identify the specific behav-
presented here builds on previous research ioral patterns that are most likely to cause
by not only identifying particular deficits in interpersonal distress for more anxious and
interpersonal competence associated with more avoidant individuals. Not only would
anxious and avoidant attachment styles,but this contribute to our basic knowledge of
also by providing a direct link between these attachment, but it might ultimately be useful
deficits and the social consequences that are for the development of individualized skill-
likely to ensue. Unfortunately, the negative building strategies that would allow less se-
social outcomes generated by these inter- cure individuals to build richer networks of
personal difficulties may only serve to fur- strong, satisfying social ties.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. (1974). E. H., Schoenbach, V. J., Grimson, R., Heyden, S.,
Infant-mother attachment and social develop- Tibblin, G., & Gehlbach, S. H. (1983). The
ment. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The introduction of epidemiologic evidence for a relationship between
the child into a social world (pp. 99-135). London: social support and health. American Journal of
Cambridge University Press. Epidemiology, I 1 7, 521-537.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The modera- Chelune, G. J. (1979). Self-disclosure. San Francisco:
tor-mediator variable distinction in social psycho- Jossey-Bass.
logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statisti- Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social
cal considerations. Journal of Personality and skills and the stress-protective role of social sup-
Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. port. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment 50, 963-973.
styles among young adults: A test of a four-cate- Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support,
gory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulle-
chology, 61,226-244. tin, 98, 310-357.
Berkman, L. F. (1985). The relationship of social net- Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment:
works and social support to morbidity and mortal- Implications for explanation, emotion, and behav-
ity. In s.Cohen & s.L. Syme (Eds.), Social support ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
and health (pp. 241-262). New York Academic 71, 810-832.
Press. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment,
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.Attach- working models, and relationship quality in dating
ment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. (Original couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
work published 1969) ogy, 58, 644663.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Feeney,J. A., Noller,€?, & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assess-
Development of a new multi-item measure of adult ing adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H.
romantic attachment: A preliminary report. Poster Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and
presented at the International Society for the developmental perspectives. New York: Guilford
Study of Personal Relationships, Alberta, Canada. Press.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P R. (1998). Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, R R. (1998). Airport separa-
Self-report measurement of adult romantic attach- tions: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dy-
ment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & namics in separating couplesJournal of Personality
W. S. Rholes (Eds), Attachment theory and close and Social Psychology, 75, 1198-1212.
relationships (pp. 4676). New York: Guilford Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment
Press. patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A.
Brennan, K. A., & Morris, K. A. (1997). Attachment Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory
styles, self-esteem, and patterns of seeking feed- and close relationships. New York: Guilford Press.
back from romantic partners. Personality and So- Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love concep-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 23, 23-31. tualized as an attachment process. Journal of Per-
Bretherton, I. (1988). Open communication and inter- sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
nal working models: Their role in the development Kessler, R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1985). Social support
of attachment relationships. In R. A. Thompson and mental health in community samples. In S. Co-
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. hen & S. L. Syme (Eds.), Social support and health
57-1 13). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. (pp. 219-240). New York: Academic Press.
Broadhead, W. E., Kaplan, B. H., James, S. A., Wagner, Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in mar-
Attachment and social s u p p o r t 389
riage: Effects of security and accuracy of working Sanford, K. (1997). Two dimensions of adult attach-
models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ment: Further validation. Journal of Social and Per-
ogy, 60, 861-869. sonal Relationships, 14, 133-143.
Leavy, R. L. (1983). Social support and psychological Sarason, B. R., Sarason, I. G.,Hacker,T. A., & Basham,
disorder: A review. Journal of Community Psychol- R. B. (1985). Concomitants of social support: Social
ogy, I I , 3-21. skills, physical attractiveness, and gender. Journal
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 469480.
attachment styles compared: Their relations to Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., & Pierce,
each other and to various relationship charac- G. P. (1987). A brief measure of social support:
teristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of
ships, 5, 439471. Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 497-510.
Mikulincer, M. (1998). Attachment working models Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment
and the sense of trust: An exploration of interac- styles and the “Big Five” personality traits: Their
tion goals and affect regulation. Journal of Person- connections with each other and with romantic re-
ality and Social Psychology, 74, 1209-1224. lationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psy-
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, 0. (1991). Attachment chology Bulletin, IS, 536-545.
styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Shaver, I? R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic at-
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 321-331. tachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman &
Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships
and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and (Vol. 4, pp. 29-70). London: Jessica Kingsley.
architecture of affective memories. Journal of Per- Simpson, J. A,, Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992).
sonality and Social Psychology, 68, 917-925. Support-seeking and support-giving within couple
Noller, l?, & Feeney, J. A. (1994). Relationship satisfac- members in an anxiety-provoking situation: The
tion, attachment, and nonverbal accuracy in early role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality
marriage. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, IS, and Social Psychology, 62, 434-446.
199-219. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996).
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic Conflict in close relationships: An attachment per-
relationships: Style of conflict resolution and rela- spective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
tionship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal ogy, 71, 899-914.
Relationships, 6, 505-510. Stokes, J. P. (1987). The relation of loneliness and self-
Priel, B., & Shamai, D. (1995). Attachment style and disclosure. In V. J. Derlega & J. H. Berg (Eds.),
perceived social support: Effects on affect regula- Self-disclosure (pp. 175-202). New York: Plenum
tion. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, Press.
235-241. Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1998). Adult attachment
Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development style and nonverbal closeness in dating couples.
of a measure of interpersonal communication Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 109-124.
competence. Communication Research Reports, Tucker, J. S., & Anders, S. L. (1999). Attachment style,
11, 33-44. interpersonal perception accuracy, and relation-
Sadava, S., & McCreary, D. (August 1996). Adult at- ship satisfaction in dating couples. Personality and
tachment style and health: The mediating role of Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 403412.
social support and health behaviors. Poster pre- Wallston, B. S., Alagna, S. W., De Vellis, B. M., & De
sented at the XXVI International Congress of Psy- Vellis, R. F. (1983). Social support and physical
chology, Montreal. health. Health Psychology, 4, 367-391.

Personal Relationships - 2005 - ANDERS - Adult Attachment Style Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social Support

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Personal Relationships - 2005 - ANDERS - Adult Attachment Style Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social Support

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personal Relationships - 2005 - ANDERS - Adult Attachment Style Interpersonal Communication Competence and Social Support

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personul Relatwmhips, 7 (2000), 379-389. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 0 2000 ISSPR. 1350-4126/00$9.50

Adult attachment style, interpersonal

SHERRY L. ANDERS AND JOAN S. TUCKER

2. Although a number of measures of adult romantic

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, scale reliabilities, and correlations of attachment

1.Anxious attachment .14 -.19* -.28** -.21* 4.02 (0.86) .84

Factor 2 3 Mean (SD) aa

(2) Dependent Variable: Amount of Support

You might also like