Content uploaded by Umit Morsunbul
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Umit Morsunbul on May 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract—Attachment theory focuses on the bond that
develops between child and caretaker and the consequences that
this bond has on the child’s future relationships. Adolescents
attempt to define their identity by experiencing various risky
behaviors. The first aim of the study was whether risk taking
behavior differs according to attachment styles. The second was
to examine risk taking behavior differences according to gender.
The third aim of this study was to examine attachment X gender
interaction effect for risk taking behavior. And final was to
investigate attachment styles differences according to gender.
Data were collected from 218 participants (114 female and 104
male) who are university students. The results of this study
showed that attachment styles differentiated by risk taking
behavior and males had higher risk taking score than females. It
was also found out that there was significant attachment X gender
interaction effect for risk taking behavior. And finally, the
results showed that attachment styles differentiated according to
gender.
Keywords—Attachment style, risk taking
I. INTRODUCTION
TTACHMENT theory was developed by Bowlby to
explain the process by which a bond develops
between a child and his/her caretaker and the functions
that this bond serves. Bowlby defined attachment as
strong emotional bonds that people develop against
important person for them. The tendency and requirement
of emotional bond establishment represent attachment
system which necessary to people continue their life.
Attachment theory focuses on the bond that develops
between child and caretaker and the consequences that
this bond has on the child’s future relationships [1].
Bowlby pointed out that experiences between caretaker
and child form child’s internal working model. Bowlby
identifies two key features of these working models of
attachment: (a) whether or not the attachment figure is
judged to be the sort of person who in general responds
to call for support and protection; and (b) whether or not
the self is judged to be the sort of person towards
whom anyone, and the attachment figure in particular, is
likely to respond in helpful way. The first concerns the
child’s image of other and the second concerns the child’s
image of the self [1, 2, 3]. Internal working models are
Ümit Morsünbül is with the Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara
University, Cebeci, 06320, Ankara, Turkey, [E-mail:
morsunbulumit@gmail.com].
consolidated permanently from childhood to adolescence.
The end of adolescence is seen as period that internal
working models are permanent and more resistant to
change. According to Bowlby, adolescences and adults
use internal working model in relationships with people
who important for them [1].
Bartholomew defined four attachment styles by using
internal working model. These are secure, preoccupied,
dismissing and fearful attachment styles. According to this
model, the secure individuals have positive self and
positive others model, the preoccupied individuals have
negative self and positive others model, the dismissing
individuals have positive self and negative others model
and finally the fearful individuals have negative self and
others model. Secure individual is characterized by a
valuing of intimate friendships, the capacity to maintain
close relationships without losing personal autonomy, and
a coherence and thoughtfulness in discussing relationships
and related issues. Dismissing individual is characterized
by a downplaying of the importance of close
relationships, restricted emotionality an emphasis on
independence and self reliance, and lack of clarity or
credibility in discussing relationships. Preoccupied
individual is characterized by an over involvement in
close relationships, a dependence on other people’s
acceptance for a sense of personal well- being, a
tendency to idealize other people, and incoherence and
exaggerated emotionality in discussing relationships.
Fearful individual is characterized by an avoidance of
close relationships because of fear of rejection, a sense of
personal insecurity, and distrust others [2, 3].
According to Erikson the most important and basic
developmental task in adolescence is construction of
identity. In the process of identity construction,
adolescents make a lot of attempts related to life area
[4]. Some adolescents arrive at a clear and integrated
identity, others end up in a state of identity confusion. In
this process, adolescents show a lot of risk taking
behaviors.
The concept of risk taking was described different ways
by different authors. Psychologist have shown great
interest in question of risk and risk-taking. Underpinning
much of this approach lies a number of claims and
beliefs about how risk can be identified and understood
[5]. According to Jack risk taking is a part of normal
transitional behavior during adolescence [6]. In adolescence
risk-taking fulfils a basic developmental psychological
Attachment and Risk Taking: Are They
Interrelated?
Ümit Morsünbül
A
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:3 2009-07-27
630International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation
International Science Index Vol:3, No:7, 2009 waset.org/Publication/5243
need related to gaining autonomy. Taking risk is a means
of distancing themselves from parents and others and
forming their own identities. This arises from the basic
human need of having mastery and individuality. Pursuing
new risky activities and practices can therefore have
positive and negative outcomes [5]. Trimpop, argues that
risk taking is any consciously or non- consciously
controlled behavior with a perceived uncertainty about its
outcome, and/or about its possible benefits or costs for
the physical, economic or psycho-social well-being of
oneself or others [7]. Consequently, current literature
differentiate risk taking behavior as normative risk taking
behavior (healthy exploratory activity) and non-normative
risk taking behaviors (dangerous and high risk
exploratory). In this study risk taking behavior was taken
in hand as non-normative risk taking behavior.
Risk taking on the stage of adolescence is explained by
different viewpoints. Attachment view point has lead to
great strides in understanding the development of social
behavior, psychopathology and risk taking behavior in
adolescence. According to attachment viewpoint one’s
attachment style affects person’s coping styles and risk
taking behaviors in various situations [8]. Adolescence
period is seen as dramatic changes stage, and this period
is not same for all adolescents. For adolescent who has
secure attachment, these paths appear fairly straight,
smooth and easily traversed; for adolescent who has not
secure attachment these paths are twist, detours and
difficult [9]. The secure individuals think that their lives
are under their control. They are strong against stress
and when they have a problem they communicate with
their family and friends. Unsecure individuals have poor
coping strategies, when they have problem they either
regret it or show risk behavior [2, 5].
In the light of these knowledge, the purpose of this
study is to answer the following questions:
1. Does risk taking behavior differ according to
attachment styles?
2. Does risk taking behavior differ according to
gender?
3. Does risk taking behavior differ according to
attachmentXgender interaction effect?
4. Does attachment styles differ according to gender?
II. METHOD
A. Participants and Procedure
Data were collected from 218 participants who are
university students at Mersin University in Turkey. Of this
participants, 114 participants were female and 104 were
males. Their age range from 17 to 22, and mean age
was 20,15 (SD=1.41).
Data gathering took place during lesson time and
participants filled out the questionnaire nearly within 40
minutes. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality.
B. Measures
Attachment styles
To determine attachment styles RSQ (Relationship Scale
Questionnaire) were administered. It was developed by
Griffin and Bartholomew and adapted to Turkish by
Sümer and Güngör [10, 11]. RSQ consists of 18 items
which show 4 attachment styles. Secure and dismissing
attachment subscales contain 5 items and preoccupied and
fearful attachment subscales contain 4 items. Participants
rated each item on a 7- point scale ranging from “not at
all like me” to “very like me”. The Cronbach’s alpha for
each attachment styles ranged from .47 to .61. Internal
consistency for the attachment styles were relatively
low. It result from each attachment style category
combines two orthogonal dimensions: self model and
others model. Although RSQ has low internal consistency
its construct validity is high [10, 11, 12].
Risk taking Behavior
To determine risk taking behavior (ARTQ) The
Adolescent Risk-Taking Questionnaire were administered. It
was developed by Gullone, et al. and adapted Turkish by
Esen [13, 14]. ARTQ consists of 26 items. ARTQ include
3 subscales; risk taking related to social position (15
items), risk taking related to traffic (6 items) and risk
taking related to substance using 5 items). Participants rated
each item on a 5- point scale ranging from “not at all
like me” to “very much like me” The Cronbach’s alpha
for each subscale ranged from .62 to .84. ARTQ gives
only one score. If one’s score is high it shows high risk
taking behavior; if one’s score low it shows low risk
taking behavior [14].
III. RESULTS
In order to analysis the data Two-Way ANOVA and t
test were conducted. Means and standard deviations which
adolescents took from ARTQ according to attachment
styles and gender were shown in Table 1. Two-Way
ANOVA were conducted to determine whether the means
which adolescent took from ARTQ differentiate by
attachment styles and gender. These results were shown in
Table 2. The results of Two-Way ANOVA revealed that
adolescents’ risk taking means significantly differentiate by
attachment styles [F (3-210)= 81,86, p‹,01] and gender [F
(1-210)= 12,11, p‹,01]. According to attachment styles
fearful ( X=92.22) and preoccupied ( X=73.17) attachment
styles have higher risk taking scores than secure
(X=50.74) and dismissing ( X=54.39) attachment styles.
According to gender, females ( X=61.35) have lower risk
taking scores than males ( X=65.96).
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:3 2009-07-27
631International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation
International Science Index Vol:3, No:7, 2009 waset.org/Publication/5243
TABLE I
MEANS AND STANDART DEVIATIONS WHICH ADOLESCENTS
TOOK FROM ARTQ ACCORDING TO ATTACHMENT STYLES AND
GENDER
Attachment Gender N M Df
Female 20 44.29 15.58
Male 28 57.19 12.63
Secure
Total 48 50.74 15.86
Female 32 90.62 10.85
Male 12 93.83 16.94
Fearful
Total 44 92.22 12.67
Female 14 72.18 18.91
Male 22 74.14 16.68
Preoccupied
Total 36 73.17 17.34
Female 48 46.50 10.78
Male 42 62.28 16.54
Dismissing
Total 90 54.39 15.14
Female 114 61.35 24.25
Male 104 65.96 19.28
Total
Total 208 63.65 22.09
There is also significant attachmentXgender interaction
effect for risk taking behavior [F (3-S210)= 3.35, p‹,05]. In
order to determine source of the differences attachment x
gender interaction Scheffe test were conducted. Scheffe
test showed that there are significant differences between
secure females and fearful females, between secure
females and fearful males, between secure females and
preoccupied females, between secure females and
preoccupied males; significant differences between secure
males and fearful females, between secure males and fearful
males, between secure males and dismissing females;
significant differences between fearful females and
preoccupied males, between fearful females and dismissing
females, between fearful females and dismissing males;
significant differences between preoccupied females and
dismissing females, between preoccupied females and
dismissing males; significant differences between
preoccupied males and dismissing females, between
preoccupied males and dismissing males. And finally, there
are significant differences between fearful males and
preoccupied males, between fearful males and dismissing
females, between fearful males and dismissing males.
[Secure females ( X=44.29), secure males ( X=57.19),
fearful females
(X=90.62), fearful males ( X=93.83), preoccupied females
(X=72.18), preoccupied males ( X=74.14), dismissing
females ( X=46.50), dismissing males (X=62.28)].
T test was conducted to determine if there were any
significant differences between females and males by
attachment styles. Results were shown in Table 3.
There is significant difference between males
(X=4.16) and females ( X=3.85) in secure attachment
dimension (p‹,05). In fearful attachment dimension females
(X=4.39) got higher scores than males (X=3.81)
(p‹,01). In preoccupied attachment dimension males
(X=4.07) got higher scores than females ( X=3.69)
(p‹,01). And finally dismissing attachment dimension there
is not significant difference between males and females.
IV. DISCUSSION
The present study investigated whether risk taking
behavior differentiates by attachment styles. The result of
this study showed that attachment styles differentiated by
risk taking behavior. These results consistent with
previous studies [15, 16, 17]. According to the results of
this study individuals who have positive self model showed
lower risk taking behavior than individuals who have
negative self model. That is, individual who have fearful
or preoccupied attachment showed higher risk taking
behavior than individual who have dismissing or secure
attachment style. However, dismissing adolescents showed
higher risk taking behavior than secure adolescents and
fearful adolescents showed higher risk taking behavior
than preoccupied adolescents. The secure adolescents view
self and others positively, are comfortable with close
relationships, and feels in control of his or her life. The
dismissing adolescents view self positive but others
negative, are uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy.
They have poor coping strategies and show higher risk
TABLE II
RESULTS OF TWO-WAY ANOVA
Source SS df MS F P
Attachment 50196.28 3 16732.09 81.86 .000*
Gender 2476.10
1 2476.10 12.11 .001*
Attachment
* Gender
2188.765 3 729.588 3.35 .015**
Error 42921 210 204.384
Total 105953 217
* P‹,01 ** p‹,05
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:3 2009-07-27
632International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation
International Science Index Vol:3, No:7, 2009 waset.org/Publication/5243
taking behavior than secure adolescents. The preoccupied
adolescents have negative self and positive others model,
are dependent, lack self confidence, conform to other’s
wishes. The fearful adolescents have negative self and
others model, avoid relationships because of fear rejection,
are introverted and lacks self confidence. Since fearful
adolescents have both negative self and others model,
they show higher risk taking behavior than preoccupied
adolescents. Similar findings were found in others studies.
TABLE III
MEANS, STANDART DEVIATIONS, AND RESULTS OF
INDEPENDENT T-TEST
Gender N M SD T P
Female 114 3.85 .95 2.35 .019*
Secure
Male 104 4.16 1.003
Female 114 4.39 1.38 3.46 .001**
Fearful
Male 104 3.81 1.03
Female 114 3.69 .99 2.61 .009**
Preoccupied
Male 104 4.07 1.14
Female 114 4.71 1.12 .65 .51 Dismissing
Male 104 4.62 .95
* P‹,05 ** p‹,01
Cooper, Colins and Shaver investigated attachment style
differences in psychological symptomatology, self-concept,
and risky or problem behaviors in a community sample of
Black and White adolescents, 13 to 19 years old. Overall,
secure adolescents were the best-adjusted group, though not
necessarily the least likely to engage in risky behaviors.
Anxious (preoccupied) adolescents were the worst-adjusted
group, reporting the poorest self-concepts and the highest
levels of symptomatology and risk behaviors. In contrast,
avoidant (dismissing) adolescents reported generally high
levels of symptomatology and poor self-concepts but similar
levels of risk behaviors to those found among secures [15] .
Turner at. al. examined the relationships among
sociodemographic characteristics, family process, and the
initiation of health risk behaviors in early adolescence.
Results showed that students who received autonomy
support from parents were less likely to initiate sexual
intercourse. Students who were emotionally detached from
their parents were more likely to fight and use
substances. Those who were emotionally detached tended
to come from families with low levels of cohesion and
acceptance [16]. Consequently, it can be said that positive
self model decreases level of risk taking behavior but
negative self model increases level of risk taking
behavior.
The second aim of this study was investigation of risk
taking behavior differences according to gender. According
to the results of this study there are significant gender
differences in risk taking behavior. Results related to
gender and risk taking, revealed that males show higher
risk taking behavior than females. This result was
consistent with previous studies [18, 19]. When we look
studies related to risk taking and gender, similar results
can be seen. Studies of gender differences in harmful risk
taking and antisocial behavior suggest that male and
female adolescents respond differently to situational
stressors. This situation related to gender role. Girls may
have different ways of externalizing their response to
stress and anxiety in terms of antisocial and risk
behavior. When we look societies, especially collectivist
societies, girls prefer indoor activities but boys prefer
outdoor activities. Outdoor activities include more risk
than indoor activities. Therefore, generally, males may
show higher risk taking behavior than females[20]. The
socialization environment may determine gender
differences according to risk taking behavior. In cultures
characterized by broad socialization, individualism and
independence are promoted, and there is relatively less
restrictiveness on the various dimensions of socialization.
This leads to higher rates of risk taking. Cultures
characterized by narrow socialization individuals consider
obedience and conformity to the standards and
expectations of the community to be paramount and
punish physically or socially any deviation from the
norm. This leads to lower rates of risk taking [18]. In the
cultures characterized by narrow socialization, traditional
gender roles are prevalence. Thus girls attend more
indoor activities than outdoor activities. Turkish society
show more narrow socialization than broad socialization.
In Turkey, traditional gender roles are prevalence. Thus
girls make lower attempts related to life area as
compared with boys on adolescence. In traditional Turkish
culture, boys are supported to be more independent and
free, unlike girls are supported to be dependent[21].
Consequently, girls show lower risk taking behavior than
boys.
The third aim of this study was to examine attachment X
gender interaction effect for risk taking behavior. The
results showed that there was significant attachment X gender
interaction effect for risk taking behavior. According to
these results attachment and gender change adolescent’s
risk taking level together. According to result of
attachment X gender interaction which was very important
fearful females had higher risk taking behavior level than
secure, dismissing and preoccupied males.
The fourth aim of this study was investigation of
attachment styles differences according to gender. In this
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:3 2009-07-27
633International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation
International Science Index Vol:3, No:7, 2009 waset.org/Publication/5243
study gender differences were found in attachment styles
except from dismissing attachment style. Gender differences
were found previous studies [1, 22, 23]. Brennan, Shaver
and Tobey found differences in dismissing and fearful
attachment styles. In dismissing dimension more males
than females were dismissing and in fearful dimension
more females than males were fearful [23]. Morsünbül also
found similar results in fearful dimension [22].
Consequently, the study showed that, when adolescents
faced with risk taking behavior, their preferences may
depend on attachment style. When specialists try to
decrease rates of risk behavior among adolescent, they
should consider whether modification can be made in
attachment styles.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Bowlby, “Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2 Separation”, New York,
Basic Books, 1973.
[2] K. Bartholomew, “Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment
perspective”, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 1990
pp. 147-178.
[3] K. Bartholomew, & L. M. Horowitz, “Attachment styles among
young adolescents”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 1991, pp. .226-244.
[4] E. H. Erikson, “Identity: Youth and Crisis”, New York, Norton, 1968.
[5] A. France, “Towards a sociological understanding of youth and
their risk taking”, Journal of Youth Studies, 3, 2000, pp. 317-331.
[6] M. S. Jack, “Personal fable: a potential explanation for risk taking
behavior in adolescents”, Journal of Pediatric Nurse, 4, 1986, pp.
334-338.
[7] R. M. Trimpop, “The Psychology of Risk Taking Behavior”,
Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1994.
[8] M. S. Howard,.& F. J. Medway, “Adolescents’ attachment and coping
with stress”, Psychology in the Schools, 41, 2004, pp. 391-402.
[9] J. P. Allen, &D. Land, “Attachment in adolescence”, J. Cassidy, P. R.
Shaver (Ed), Handbook of Attachment Theory, Research and Clinical
Applications, New York, Gullford Press, 1999.
[10] D. Griffin, & K. Bartholomew, “Models of the self and other:
Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1994, pp. 430-
445.
[11] N. Sümer, & D. Güngör, “Yetiúkin ba÷lanma stilleri ölçeklerinin
Türk örneklemi üzerinde psikometrim de÷erlendirmesi ve
kültürlerarası bir karúılaútırma”, Turkish Journal of Psychology, 14
,1999, pp. 71-106.
[12] N. Sümer, “Yetiúkin ba÷lanma ölçeklerinin kategoriler ve boyutlar
düzeyinde karúılaútırılması”, Turkish Journal of Psychology, 21,
2006, pp. 1-22.
[13] E. Gullone, S. Moore, S. Moss, & C. Boyd, “The adolescent risk –
taking questionnaire: Development and psychometric evaluation”,
Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 2000, pp. 231-251.
[14] B. K. Esen, “Akran düzeyleri ve cinsiyetlerine göre ö÷rencilerin
risk alma davranıúı ve okul baúarısının incelenmesi”, Turkish
Psychological Counseling and Guidance Journal, 2, 2003, pp. 17-26.
[15] M. L. Cooper, N. L. Collins & P. R. Shaver, “Attachment styles,
emotional regulation, and adjustment in adolescence”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1998, pp. 1380-1397.
[16] R. A. Turner, C. E. Irwin, J. Tschann & S. G. Millstein, “Autonomy,
relatedness, and the initiation of health risk behaviors in early
adolescence”, Health Psychology, 12, 1993, pp. 200-208.
[17] N. J. Bell, L. F. Forthun & S. Sun, “Attachment, adolescent
competencies, and substance use: Developmental Considerations in
the study risk behavior”. Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 2000, pp.
1177-1206.
[18] J. Arnett & L. B. Jensen, “Cultural bases of risk behavior: Danish
adolescents”, Child Development, 64, 1993, pp. 1842-1855.
[19] J. P. Byrness, D. C. Miller & W. D. Schafer, Gender differences in
risk taking: A meta analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 125, 1999, pp.
367-383.
[20] J. A. Chapman, C. Denholm & C. Wyld, “Gender differences in
adolescent risk taking: Are they diminishing ?”, Youth & Society, 40,
2008, pp. 131-154.
[21] O. Guneri, Z. Sümer & A. Yıldırım, Sources of self-identity among
Turkish adolescents, Adolescence, 34, 1999, pp. 535-546.
[22] Ü. Morsunbul, “ Ergenlikte b÷lanma stillerinin yaú ve cinsiyet
açısından incelenmesi”, XV. National Education Sciences Congress,
Mu÷la University, Mu÷la, 13-15 September, 2006
[23] K. Brennan, P. R. Shaver & A. E. Tobey, Attachment styles, Gender
and Parental problem drinking, Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 8, 1991, pp. 451-466.
Ümit Morsünbül is Ph.D student [Educational Psychology], at Ankara
University, Institute of Educational Sciences. He received B.S. in
Psychology, Ankara Universitiy in 2001. He completed his master
education between years 2002-2005. His Ph.D. began 2005 and continues
now, both at Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences and his
master thesis were about identity status and attachment styles. His
academic interest areas are identity development, attachment, self
construal and risk taking.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
Vol:3 2009-07-27
634International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation
International Science Index Vol:3, No:7, 2009 waset.org/Publication/5243
