Attachment Related Affective Arousal and Adolescent Outcomes

Attachment Related Affective Arousal and Adolescent Outcomes

Attachment Related Affective Arousal and Adolescent Outcomes

Maryfrances R. Porter

Department of Psychology

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, Virginia
ABSTRACT

Attachment theory is based, in part, on infants internalizing the ability to manage affect via their experience of consistent parental availability, sensitivity, and responsiveness. Individuals who do not experience consistent parental care likely develop maladaptive strategies for managing affective arousal. If affective arousal goes unregulated (hyperactivated arousal), adolescent and adult peer relationships may be characterized by worry about the reliability of others and difficulties managing intimacy and navigating close relationships. This study used a multi-method, multi-reporter design to test hypotheses that hyperactivated attachment-related arousal is associated with maladaptive psychosocial functioning during adolescence. Findings indicated that that teens with hyperactivated arousal may lack insight regarding their interpersonal competence, may primarily use intimacy as an avenue for communicating with close friends, and may need a great deal of emotional support. The close friends of these teens are unable to fully understand teens’ needs. Implications and limitations are discussed.

I would like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health for funding provided to Joseph P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (Grant #R01 MH58066) to conduct this project. The analysis and write-up for this study were additionally supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship awarded to Maryfrances R. Porter.

INTRODUCTION

Attachment theory is based, in part, on infants internalizing the ability to manage affect via their experience of consistent parental availability, sensitivity, and responsiveness (Bowlby, 1982). Children developing dismissing attachment organizations may hyperregulate their attachment needs, deactivate their affective arousal, and rarely send out distress signals (Kobak & Cole, 1994). Resistant children may underregulate their attachments needs, hyperactivate their affective arousal, and repeatedly send out distress signals (Kobak & Cole, 1994).

Kobak and Sceery (1988) found that late adolescents who used hyperactivating strategies described themselves as distressed, and peers described them as anxious, ruminating, and worried about personal inadequacy. Especially for individuals with preoccupied attachment organizations, peer relationships may be characterized by worry about the reliability of others, difficulty managing intimacy, and generally poor interpersonal skills (reviewed by Bartholomew et. al., 1997 and Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Insecure children are also less tolerant of frustration and are unable to appropriately label and share affective/emotional information (Greenberg et. al., 1988). Since an inability to manage affect has been associated with poor interpersonal competence (Bartle-Haring & Sabatelli, 1997), individuals with hyperactivating strategies/preoccupied attachment organizations are conceptualized as being unable to manage their own affective distress and, therefore, as having difficulty navigating close relationships.

HYPOTHESES

Although attachment organization has been consistently related to psychosocial functioning (reviewed by Erickson et al., 1985; Allen et al, 1998), we know strikingly little about the mechanisms of attachment organization. This study considers hypotheses that anxious attachment-related-affective arousal (i.e., hyperactivated arousal) is associated with maladaptive psychosocial functioning during adolescence.

Specifically, this study will consider the following hypotheses:

(1)For adolescents with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal, there will be a disconnect between adolescents’ and peers’ perceptions of adolescents’ interpersonal competence. Specifically, teens will lack insight into the quality of their interpersonal skills.

(2)Adolescents with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal will demonstrate maladaptive behaviors when interacting with peers including difficulty managing intimacy and communicating emotionally-laden information.

PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected as part of a larger, longitudinal, multi-method, multi-reporter, study of a socioeconomically diverse sample of adolescents (N = 157). Measures reported in this study were administered when teens were about 13 years old (mean = 13.35, SD = .63). Attachment-related affective arousal was measured one year later when teens were about 14 years old (mean = 14.27, SD = .76).a

Gender N

Males 77

Females 80

Race/Ethnicity (self-identified at Wave 1)

Caucasian 98

African American 41

Other Minority Group 18

Family Income (from the 1st year the study was conducted)

Mean$30,000 - $39,000 (range ≤ $5,000 to > $60,000)

a Note: Attachment-related affective arousal was measured at the time Adult Attachment Interviews (AAIs) were administered. All AAIs were administered when teens were 14 years old. Because of the longitudinal design of the larger study, half the teens were given the AAI the 2nd year they participated in the study while the other half were given the AAI the 3rd year they participated in the study. For the purpose of this study, these two groups were collapsed so that all independent measures are from the year prior to when the AAI was administered.

MEASURES

Attachment-Related Affective Arousal was assessed using a 5-item, self-report measure administered directly before and after the Adult Attachment Interview (Main & Goldwyn, 1991) when teens were 14 years old. Five negatively and 3 positively-valenced items were rated on a 100mm visual analog scale from “None At All” to “Very!” Each teen’s relative change in arousal is computed by subtracting pre-interview ratings from post-interview ratings. Higher scores thus reflect greater arousal after the interview. The first time the measure is completed, teens are not told they are about to be given the interview. Cronbach’s’s alphas for anxious arousal pre and post are both = .72.

Observed Qualities of Interactions with Peers were assessed when teens were 13 years old using the Supportive Behavior Coding System (Allen et al., in preparation). The teen and a close friend discussed a problem with which teen requested support. Two trained raters coded each interaction.

Reported Qualities of Peer Relationships were gathered from teens and peers using the Inventory for Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greenburg, 1989). Teens reported about the quality of their interactions with friends, and close friends reported about the quality of teens’ interactions. Cronbach’s alphas for communication scales range: .88 - .92.

RESULTS

Table 1 provides the simple correlations as well as means and standard deviations for all variables in this study.

Hypothesis 1: Teens who were more anxious after the AAI reported that they were good communicators with their friends ( = .19, p .05, Table 2). However, their close friends reported that teens were poor communicators ( = -.25, p .01, Table 3).

Hypothesis 2: Teens who were more anxious after the AAI were observed to self-disclose more personal information and ask for more emotional support from their friends (respectively:  = .22, p .05, Table 4;  = .20, p .05, Table 5). However, their close friends were generally unable to understand the teens’ problem very well ( = -.27, p .01, Table 6).

DISCUSSION

When teens reported more attachment-related anxiety, there was a disconnect between teens’ and peers’ perceptions of teens’ communication skills. These findings support the hypothesis that teens with hyperactivated arousal may lack insight regarding their interpersonal competence. Alternatively, teens’ higher scores may reflect a wish for better communication with peers or an attempt to appear socially skilled when, in fact, they may be particularly worried about their interpersonal competence.

When teens reported more attachment-related anxiety, they were observed to share more intimate and emotional information with peers than teens reporting less anxiety. Additionally, peers of anxious teens were generally unable to fully understand the teens’ problems. These findings indicate that teens with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal predominantly use intimacy as an avenue for communicating with friends and request more emotional support from friends. However, consistent with above findings, the effectiveness of teens’ communication was questionable given that peers appear to be unable to fully understand teens’ needs. Sharing of intimate and emotional information may not be an effective way for these teens to get their needs met. Alternatively, hyperactivating teens may select friends who are poor sources of support, perhaps completing a self-fulfilling expectation that their needs will not get met.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that teens with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal (perhaps those teens with preoccupied attachment organizations) have maladaptive interpersonal skills – especially when it comes to communicating their needs. These teens may also be poor judges of their interpersonal skills, believing (or wishing) themselves to be more competent than they really are. Consistent with previous research, hyperactivating teens appear to be unable to negotiate intimacy in their relationships, sharing more personal information than other teens, and looking to peers for emotional support. These behaviors may reflect a greater need for emotional support, but also may reflect an inability to effectively manage intimacy in close relationships. Eventually, friendships of hyperactivating teens may become strained as the disconnect between teens’ and peers’ perceptions of the teens’ behavior may be a source of stress and teens fail to get their emotional needs adequately met.

This research is most clearly limited by the absence of ratings of teens’ attachment organizations; thus, the conclusions presented here are tentative and clearly speculative. As these data become available, the analyses presented will be reviewed and the conclusions revised. At that time, additional information regarding the relationships of dismissing/deactivating and secure teens also may be explored. Future research will also incorporate analyses of these relationships as they change over time.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. P., Hall, F., Marsh, P., Insebella, G., Schlatter, A., & Porter, M. R. (2001). Supportive behavior coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406-1419.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1989). Inventory of parent and peer attachment: Revised manual. Unpublished revised version. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.

Batholomew, K., Cobb, R. J., & Poole, J. A. (1997). Adult attachment patterns and social support processes. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, &B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality. (pp. 359-378). Plenum Press: New York.

Bartle-Haring, S., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1997). Emotional reactivity toward parents and interpersonal competence: Differences across gender and type of relationship. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 399-414.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol.1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published in 1969).

Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (Serial No.209, pp. 147-166).

Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Speltz, M. (1988). Emotional regulation, self-control, and psychopathology: The role of relationships in early childhood. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology.Vol.2, Internalizing and externalizing expressions of dysfunction. (pp.21-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.

Kobak, R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.

Kobak, R., & Cole, H. (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for adolescent autonomy and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology, Vol.5. Disorders and dysfunctions of the self. (pp. 267-297). New York: University of Rochester.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1991). Adult Attachment Rating and Classification Systems, Version 5.0.Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.

Simple Correlations & Means and Standard Deviations

for Primary Variables

Table 1.

Variable
r / 1. / 2. / 3. / 4. / 5. / 6.
  1. Hyperactivated Attachment-
Related Arousal / --
2. Teens’ Reported Communication
with Friends / 0.19 / --
3. Close Peers’ Report of Teens’
Communication / -0.22 / 0.12 / --
4. Teens’ Self Disclosure / 0.20 / 0.20 / 0.01 / --
5. Teens’ Call for Emotional
Support / 0.18 / 0.15 / 0.13 / 0.54 / --
6. Close Peers’ Interpretation of
Teens’ Problem / -0.26 / -0.07 / 0.08 / -0.25 / -0.08 / --
Mean
(SD) / 0.04
(1.58) / 31.46
(5.71) / 31.92
(5.90) / 1.54
(1.01) / 1.42
(1.27) / 3.28
(0.80)
N / 157 / 157 / 157 / 118 / 118 / 118

Hierarchical Regressions for

Change in Attachment-Related

Anxious Arousal

Table 2. (N = 157)
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step /  / R2 / Δ R2
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority) / -.20
.01
.01 / .01
.01
.01 / .00
.00
2. Teen Reported Communication
with Friends / .19* / .04 / .03
Table 3. (N = 157)
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step /  / R2 / Δ R2
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority) / -.20
.01
.01 / .01
.01
.01 / .00
.00
2. Peer Reported Teen
Communication / -.25** / .06* / .05

Note.'s are from entry into the models.

*** p .001, ** p .01, *p .05 *, +p = .06

Table 4. (N = 119)
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step /  / R2 / Δ R2
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority) / -.07
.06
.00 / .00
.00
.00 / .00
.00
2. Teen Self Disclosure / .22* / .05 / .05
Table 5. (N = 119)
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step /  / R2 / Δ R2
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority) / -.07
.06
.00 / .00
.00
.00 / .00
.00
2. Teen Call for Emotional
Support / .20* / .04 / .04
Table 6. (N = 119)
Hierarchical Regression Results
Step /  / R2 / Δ R2
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority) / -.07
.06
.00 / .00
.00
.00 / .00
.00
2. Peers’ Interpretation of
Teens’ Problem / -.27** / .07+ / .07

Note.'s are from entry into the models.

*** p .001, ** p .01, *p .05 *, +p = .06