Affect Regulation Styles in Avoidant and Anxious Attachment

Abstract

Previous research suggests that attachment style may affect how individuals cope with emotions. This study examines whether individuals with different attachment styles show distinct patterns in their ability to identify and regulate emotions. Participants (N = 96) completed measures assessing their attachment style, ability to cope with emotions, and emotional awareness. Results indicate a pattern in which individuals with avoidant attachment lack awareness into their emotional state and are less reactive to their emotions, while individuals with anxious attachment have increased emotional awareness, but struggle in both identifying their feelings and managing impulses.

Full text

Individual Differences Research
2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
©2014 Individual Differences Association, Inc.
www. idr-joumal.com
ISSN: 1541-745X
Affect Regulation Styles in Avoidant and
Anxious Attachment
Francis L. Stevens*
University o f Massachusetts, Boston
*Francis L. Stevens; Department of Psychology; 100 Morrissey Blvd., 2nd Floor Quinn
Administration Bldg., University o f Massachusetts- Boston, Boston, MA 02125;
fstevens@wheelock. edu.
ABSTRACT - Previous research suggests that attachment style may affect how individuals cope
with emotions. This study examines whether individuals with different attachment styles show
distinct patterns in their ability to identify and regulate emotions. Participants (N = 96) completed
measures assessing their attachment style, ability to cope with emotions, and emotional
awareness. Results indicate a pattern in which individuals with avoidant attachment lack
awareness into their emotional state and are less reactive to their emotions, while individuals with
anxious attachment have increased emotional awareness, but struggle in both identifying their
feelings and managing impulses.
The quality of child-parent attachment appears to be related to psychological
functioning later in life; insecure attachment has been shown to be related to poor mental
health outcomes (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Dozier, Stovall-McClough, & Albus,
2008). Several authors have suggested that secure attachment develops through validation
of the child’s emotions, which later in turn, becomes the basis for affect regulation as an
adult (Schore, 1994; Siegel, 2012). When secure attachment fails to take place, the child
is unable to effectively regulate their emotions and becomes vulnerable to developing
psychopathology. Much of psychopathology involves failure in the ability to self-regulate
emotion, and this deficit may be an organizing principle in psychopathology (Gross &
Munoz, 1995). Emotional dysregulation, in fact, may be synonymous with insecure
attachment in childhood (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012).
Maternal sensitivity to infant distress is highly predictive o f secure attachment
(McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006) and has also been associated with less behavioral
problems, low levels of emotional reactivity, and more effective regulation of affect
(Leekers, Blankson, & O’Brien, 2009). A caregiver’s ability to effectively respond to a
child’s distress, thus, may be the basic building block for secure attachment as well as for
the child’s effective emotional self-regulation in future stressful situations. Children with
a secure attachment bond display less negative emotion over time (Kochanska, 2001),
suggesting that secure attachment may help the child to internally regulate their
distressful emotions. Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, Powers, and Wang (2001) found that
the ability to regulate affect partly mediated the relationship between maternal sensitivity
and attachment. This suggests that the child’s ability to regulate affect is largely
123

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
dependent upon the care giving environment. The development of secure attachment and
the ability to regulate affect may be a synchronous developmental process, congruent to
what has been referred to as an internal working model (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008;
Zimmermann, 1999) or reflective function (Fongay, 1997). The internal working model
or reflective function is an internalization of the caregiver that can act as a representative
model for self-soothing and regulation of affect.
Insecure attachment was first identified as three categories by Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, and Wall (1978) and, subsequently, was developed into a four-part matrix along
two dimensions by Bartholomew (1990). The first dimension reflects how the child views
the nature of the world, and the second dimension is how the child views the nature of the
self, which create the four attachment types (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Model of Attachment
M od el of Se lf (an xi ous d ime ns ion )
Po sitive Neg ative
M od el o f Oth er Positive S ecu re A ttac hm en t A nx iou s A tta ch me nt
(avoidan t
dimensio n) N ega tive A vo ida nt At tac hm en t
(D ism issive )
(P reo cc up ied )
F earf ul At tac hm en t
Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg’s (2003) believe that insecure attachment rest along
these two dimensions o f avoidant and anxious attachment. Mikulincer, Shaver, and
Pereg’s (2003) model outlines two strategies for coping with neglect as a child: hyper
activating and deactivating strategies of emotion. A hyper-activating strategy is
associated with anxious attachment, acting out by being overly emotional in efforts to
receive parental attention. Tire second strategy involves deactivating emotions and is
associated with avoidant attachment. This strategy is used to dissociate from the feelings
of abandonment when a caregiver is unable to meet the child’s needs. How children view
themselves and the world have long-term consequences for the ways they cope with their
emotions. A child who sees the world as positive, will be able to rely on others to help
them regulate emotion; whereas, those who believe that they cannot rely on the world
will feel left to their own devices to cope with emotion. Those with avoidant attachment
become overwhelmed by intense emotion, and they cope through deactivating strategies
involving repression or dissociation away from emotion. Whereas, individuals with
anxious attachment display extreme emotions to gain attention from caregivers to have
their emotions soothed. Individuals with anxious attachment will attribute themselves as
the reason their caregiving needs are not being met and, consequently, develop a negative
model of self. If the Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg (2003) model is correct, those with an
avoidant attachment style should show deficits in recognizing and acknowledging
emotions, and those with anxious attachment should exhibit deficits in controlling their
response to emotions.
This study hypothesized that individuals with avoidant attachment will show deficits
in emotional awareness (Aware), as well as in emotional clarity (Clarity), on the
subscales of the Difficulties Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). And, individuals high in
124

Stevens/Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
anxious attachment will show deficits in controlling their emotional responses, marked by
higher scores on the impulse control difficulties (Impulse) and difficulties in goal-
direction (Goals) subscales of the DERS. The other two subscales of the DERS, limited
access to emotion regulation strategies (Strategies) and non-acceptance of emotional
response (Non-accept) are not hypothesized to correlate with any particular attachment
style, since they are not specific to either controlling or having an awareness of emotion.
However, anxious and avoidant attachment may affect these emotional regulation
abilities as well. Further, it is also hypothesized that individuals with avoidant attachment
will show greater deficits in describing their feelings (DDF), as well as higher levels of
externally orientated thinking (EOT) on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20), than
individuals with anxious attachment. Lastly, it is predicted that both anxious-attached and
avoidant-attached individuals will show deficits in the ability to identify their feelings
(DIF) subscale of the TAS-20.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 96 undergraduates at a northeastern public university. The
sample consisted of 64 women and 32 men. The age range of the sample was 18 to 41
years old, with an average age of 21 years. The racial demographics of the participants
consisted of 46 percent Caucasian, 14 percent African-American, 19 percent Latino or
Hispanic, 17 percent Asian, and 4 percent other or Mixed Race
Materials and Procedure
Participants completed the Experiences in Close Relationships, Toronto Alexithymia
Scale, and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scales. Participants took the study
online through the PsychData website, an online human subjects’ data pool software
program. Participants received course credit in undergraduate psychology classes for
their involvement.
Measures
The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) instrument (Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998) is a 36-item measure, designed to assess anxious and avoidant attachment.
The measure consists of two scales measuring anxious and avoidant attachment.
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was shown to be a = .92 (Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, & Chun,
2010), and test-retest reliability appears robust, r = .71 for the avoidance subscale, and r
= .68 for the anxiety subscale, over a six month period (Lopez & Gormley, 2002).
The Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale (DERS) (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) is a
36-item measure, assessing how one copes with and handles emotions. It consists of six
subscales: non-acceptance of emotional responses, difficulties in goal-directed behavior,
impulse control difficulties, lack of emotional awareness, limited access to emotion
regulation strategies, and lack of emotional clarity. Higher scores are indicative of an
inability to regulate emotional responses. Gratz & Roemer (2004) reported a robust
Cronbach’s alpha (a = .93) for the overall scale, with the subscales ranging from a = .80
to .89. Gratz & Roemer (2004) further found the DERS is predictive o f self-harm
behavior, providing validity for the scale.
125

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
The Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) (Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) is a 20-
item assessment, designed to measure alexithymia. The measure has three subscales:
difficulty in identifying feelings (DIF), difficulty in describing feelings (DDF), and
externally orientated thinking (EOT), which, measures an individual’s tendency to focus
attention on external sources. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was ascertained at a = .81
and a test retest reliability correlation was established at r = .77 (Bagby, Parker, &
Taylor, 1994).
Results
Cronbach’s alphas, means, and standard deviations for all measures are listed in
Table 1. A correlational analysis was completed to identify deficits in emotional
regulation assessed by various subscales of the DERS by attachment type. The results of
the correlational analysis are listed below in Table 2.
Table 1
Summary o f all measures for
participants (N= 96)
aM SD
ECR .93 109.34 32.35
Anxious Attachment .93 63.09 22.35
Avoidant Attachment .91 46.25 17.34
DERS .95 82.09 12.11
Non-accept .93 13.52 6.57
Goals .90 13.53 5.72
Impulse .92 12.54 6.13
Aware .78 14.46 4.34
Strategies .92 17.22 7.67
Clarity .85 10.83 4.20
TAS-20 .89 48.11 12.61
Describing (DDF) .82 12.47 4.49
Identifying (DIF) .89 16.79 6.40
External Orientated (EOT) .62 18.84 4.25
Table 2
Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale
_____
(DERS) Subscale Correlations
_____
Non-accept Goals Impulse Aware Strategies Clarity
Avoidant
Attachment .347** .160 .284** .470** .350** .455**
Anxious
Attachment .522** .491** .569** .092 .647** .413**
Note. * p <.05, **p <.01
Attachment style was examined as it relates to alexithymia. A Pearson correlation
shows that both avoidant (r = .592, p < .01) and anxious attachment (r = .461, p < .01)
were both significantly related alexithymia, results are listed in Table 3. In order to
126

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
identify differences in alexithymia presentation between the two attachment types, two
linear regressions were completed, using avoidant and anxious attachment as two
separate dependent variables, and the TAS-20 subscales as the independent variables.
Both regressions were significant, but in the anxious attachment regression (F (3,92) =
15.38, p < .01), only the identifying emotions subscale (ft = .684, p <01) was a
significant predictor of anxious attachment; whereas, in the avoidant attachment
regression (F (3,92) = 16.73,/? < .01), only the externally orientated thinking subscale (ft
= .260, p < .05) was a significant predictor o f avoidant attachment.
Table 3
Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) correlations
Describing Identifying External Orientated Scale Total
Avoidant
Attachment .544** .484** .451** .592**
Anxious
Attachment .369** .571** .118 .461**
Note. * p <.05, **p <.01
As hypothesized, anxious attachment type showed a significant positive correlation
with Goals (r = .491, p < .01) and Impulse (r = .569, p < .01) DERS subscales. Avoidant
attachment type failed to show a correlation with Goals, but did correlate with the
Impulse scale (r = .284, p < .01), albeit not nearly as strong; indicating that anxious
attachment has a much stronger effect on impulse control than avoidant attachment. The
hypothesis that avoidant attachment would show stronger correlations with the Aware
and Clarity subscales than anxious attachment also was partially supported. Both Aware
(r = .470, p < .01) and Clarity (r = .455, p < .01) were significantly correlated with
avoidant attachment, yet Clarity (r = .413, p < .01) was also correlated with anxious
attachment; indicating that both avoidant and anxious attachment types struggle in
clarifying their emotions. Both attachment types, anxious attachment (r = .647, p < .01)
and avoidant attachment (r = .35, p < .01), showed deficits in Strategies to regulate
emotions. The Non-accept subscale was significantly positively correlated with anxious
attachment (r = .522, p < .01) and avoidant attachment (r = .347, p < .01) to a lesser
degree.
Discussion
The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Pepping, Davis, and
O’Donovan (2013), showing positive correlations between avoidant and anxious
attachment and the DERS scale. The authors did not analyze the results by the subscales.
Further, the findings of the present study closely resemble those of Goodall, Trejnowska,
and Darling (2012) who found positive correlations between attachment type and the
specific DERS subscales included in this investigation.
Results from the linear regressions of the TAS-20 subscales on anxious and avoidant
attachment, partially supported the predicted hypotheses, and were consistent with the
above results between attachment type and difficulties in emotion regulation. Overall
results show that individuals higher in avoidant attachment are less focused on their own
emotions. Avoidant-attached individuals when compared to anxious-attached individuals
127

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
displayed a stronger focus on externally orientated thinking (EOT) and exhibited greater
deficits in awareness of feeling on the DERS. While anxious-attached participants
compared to avoidant-attached, were more aware o f their emotions, they still struggled in
clarifying those emotions. Anxious-attached individuals were also more likely to let their
emotions interfere with their goals and were more likely engage in impulsive behaviors.
Oskis, Clow, Hucklebridge, Bifulco, Jacobs, and Loveday (2013) found similar results
with TAS-20 in a sample of female adolescents; anxious-attached participants showed
greater deficits in identifying feelings (DIF), than avoidant-attached participants, who
showed greater deficits in describing (DDF) feelings than did the anxious-attached
participants.
This study’s findings support Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg’s (2003) model that
predicts that individuals cope differently with emotions based upon their attachment type.
Those with avoidant attachment prefer to avoid, not think about their feelings, making
them less aware of their emotions. Avoidant-attached individuals may benefit from this
strategy by not letting emotions interfere with their functioning or cause impulsive
behavior. Alternatively, anxious-attached individuals having an increased awareness of
their emotions, they may now struggle more in regulating these emotions. Anxious-
attached individuals struggle in correctly identifying their feelings and controlling
emotional impulses. These anxious-attached individuals may have more awareness into
their feelings; yet, without strong affect regulation skills, they are more likely to feel out
of control by their emotions and struggle in daily life tasks when emotionally
overwhelmed.
The results of these two distinct patterns of attachment suggest that it may be
important for clinicians to employ two different strategies when approaching emotions
based upon the client’s attachment type. Those with avoidant attachment may derive
greater therapeutic benefits from skills that focus on awareness of emotion so that they
may gain better insight into their emotions. Conversely, clients with anxious attachment
may experience greater therapeutic benefits from learning affect regulation skills in order
to better cope with difficult emotions. For these individuals, learning techniques to better
manage emotions and inhibit negative behaviors may prove to be more adaptive since
anxious-attached individuals are naturally more focused on their feelings, but struggle
with impulse control.
Although further research is needed, the results from this study support the predicted
relationship between attachment style and emotion regulation. Individuals with avoidant
attachment show robust deficits in recognizing emotion; while those with anxious
attachment exhibit greater difficulties in managing and controlling their response to
emotions. One notable limitation is that participants scoring high on both anxious and
avoidant attachment dimensions, indicative of a fearful attachment style were not
examined. These individuals may engage both hyper-activating and deactivating
strategies of emotion regulation, which render these participants’ deficient in
acknowledging, as well as in controlling their emotions. Individuals with fearful
attachment will likely need skill building in both raising awareness of emotion as well as
in affect regulation. Therefore, it is suggested that future research consider grouping
attachment style into the four purposed groups (Bartholomew, 1990) and examining
difficulties in emotion regulation by each attachment style.
128

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns o f
attachment: A psychological study o f the strange situation. Hillsdale, N J.: Erlbaum.
Bagby, R. M., Parker J. D. A., & Taylor, G.J. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto
Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation o f the factor structure.
Journal o f Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23-32.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. The
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Garwood, M. M., Powers, B. P., & Wang, X. (2001). Parental
sensitivity, infant affect, and affect regulation: Predictors of later attachment. Child
Development, 72(1), 252-270.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In: Cassidy J,
Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical
applications. New York: Guilford Press
Brennan, K.. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rhodes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dozier, M., Stovall-McClough, K. C., & Albus, K. E. (2008). Attachment and
psychopathology in adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications. New York: Guilford.
Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (1997). Attachment and reflective function: Their role in self
organization. Development and Psychopathology, 9(04), 679-700.
Gillath, O., Sesko, A.K., Shaver, P.R., & Chun, D.S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity,
and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce self- and
other-deception. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 841-855.
Goodall, K., Trejnowska, A., Darling, S. (2012). The relationship between dispositional
mindfulness, attachment security, and emotional regulation. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 622-626.
Gross J. J., & Munoz, R. F. (1995). Emotion Regulation and Mental Health. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 151 - 164.
Kochanska, G. (2001). Emotional development in children with different attachment
histories: The first three years. Child Development, 72(2), 474-490.
Leerkes, E. M„ Blankson, A. N„ & O ’Brien, M. (2009). Differential Effects of Maternal
Sensitivity to Infant Distress and Non-distress on Social-Emotional Functioning.
Child Development, 80(3), 762-775.
Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment style over
the first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence, coping, and distress
patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49,355-364.
McElwain, N. L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2006). Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and
non-distress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. Journal o f Family
Psychology, 20(2), 247.
Mikulincer, M. Shaver, P. R. & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect
regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-
related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77-102.
129

Stevens / Individual Differences Research, 2014, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 123-130
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology.
World Psychiatry, //(l), 11-15.
Oskis, A., Clow, A., Hucklebridge, F., Bifulco, A., Jacobs, C., & Loveday, C. (2013).
Understanding alexithymia in female adolescents: The role of attachment style.
Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 97-102.
Pepping, C. A., Davis, P. J., & O’Donovan, A. (2013). Individual differences in
attachment and dispositional mindfulness: The mediating role of emotional
regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 453-456.
Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of
emotional development. Psychology Press.
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to
shape who we are. Guilford Press.
Zimmermann, P. (1999). Structure and functions of internal working models of
attachment and their role for emotion regulation. Attachment and Human
Development, 1(5), 291-306.
130

CopyrightofIndividualDifferencesResearchisthepropertyofIndividualDifferences
Researchanditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistserv
withoutthecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,
download,oremailarticlesforindividualuse.