Attachment Style Differences and Similarities in Evaluations of Affective Communication Skills and Personcentered Comforting Messages

Transcription

1 Western Journal of Communication Vol. 69, No. 3, July 2005, pp Attachment Style Differences and Similarities in Evaluations of Affective Communication Skills and Personcentered Comforting Messages Susanne M. Jones Taylor RWJC sgm / Original 2005 Western July Dr Department SusanneJones and Journal States Article (print)/ Francis 2005 of Communication of Ltd (online) StudiesUniversity Association of Minnesota225 Ford Hall, 224 Church Street, S.E.MinneapolisMN 55455USA Recent research has explored moderating factors that shape the perception and production of emotional support messages. The current study extends this agenda and examines how attachment patterns influence values for affective communication skills and evaluations of verbal person-centered comfort. A total of 280 participants completed categorical and continuous attachment measures as well as a measure of communication values, and provided evaluations of comforting messages. Results indicated that avoidants viewed affective communication skills as significantly more important than did nonavoidants. Dismissives and preoccupieds viewed low person-centered comforting messages as more comforting than did secures and fearful avoidants. Fearful avoidants viewed these messages as least comforting of the four attachment styles. These findings have important implications for differences in how people evaluate affective communication skills and particularly comforting messages that vary in person centeredness. Keywords: Attachment Styles; Communication Skills; Person Centeredness Emotional support is one of the most important resources people rely on in interpersonal relationships because it provides comfort and security during times of stress (that leads) the person to feel he or she is cared for by others (Cutrona & Russell, 1990, p. 322). Burleson (2003a) defines emotional support as consisting of specific lines of communicative behavior enacted by one party with the intent of helping another cope Susanne M. Jones is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and Brant Burleson for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. Correspondence to: Susanne M. Jones, Department of Communication Studies, University of Minnesota, 225 Ford Hall, 224 Church Street, S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Tel: (612) ; jones344@umn.edu ISSN (print)/issn (online) 2005 Western States Communication Association DOI: /

2 234 S. M. Jones effectively with emotional distress (p. 552). The positive effects of helpful support (and the negative effects of unhelpful support) have led communication researchers to identify those message properties that make for more and less effective emotional support. One of the most important verbal message factors that have been identified is verbal person centeredness, which involves the legitimization and validation of feelings experienced by the emotionally upset person (Burleson, 1994). These messages are not only evaluated as beneficial and helpful (Burleson & Samter, 1985), but also make people feel better (Jones, 2004). In an effort to examine the general importance and benefits of emotional support in close relationships, researchers have examined the effects of gender, culture, and personality on evaluations of affective communication skills, as well as the perception and production of person-centered comforting messages (for a review see Burleson, 2003b). A large body of research now suggests that there are small, but significant, sex differences in the evaluation of affective communication skills, as well as in the use and response to comforting messages that vary in person centeredness. Women tend to rate affective skills, such as ego support and comforting, as more important than do men, though the magnitude of these sex differences is rather small (Burleson, Kunkel, Samter, & Werking, 1996; MacGeorge, Feng, & Butler, 2003). In addition, although both sexes value person-centered comforting, women tend to produce more comforting messages that are high in person centeredness than do men (MacGeorge et al., 2003) Ethnicity also seems to influence the evaluation of emotional support in close relationships. For instance, Samter and her colleagues found that African-American women in particular tended to discriminate among comforting messages varying in person centeredness far less sharply than did Euro-American women (Samter, Whaley, Mortenson, & Burleson, 1997). The current study extends this research agenda and focuses on adult attachments as one psychological factor that potentially shapes recipients evaluations of affective communication skills and person-centered comforting messages. Attachment theory was originally proposed to examine how parent child interactions affect children s development of self-esteem and security, as well as their capacity for developing intimate relationships in adulthood (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). The attachment system is activated when children are emotionally distressed and seek out their primary care giver for protection. Children who receive consistent care that is responsive to their needs gain a sense of protection and are likely to develop positive working models of themselves and others. However, children who are neglected or receive inconsistent care are likely to see themselves and/or others negatively, and tend to develop less positive models of interpersonal relationships (Bartholomew, 1990). Examining how attachments influence evaluations of affective communication skills and person-centered messages has important implications for conceptualizations of emotional support. For example, anxiously attached people tend to be relatively unskilled in producing person-centered comforting messages (Weger & Polcar, 2002). Nevertheless, they might value such messages as comforting because anxiously attached people still look to close relationships for support and care. Ancillary evidence for this assertion comes from research conducted by Burleson and Samter

3 Western Journal of Communication 235 (1985), who found that people with low levels of cognitive complexity viewed personcentered messages as the most sensitive and effective ways of comforting others, even though they typically are not able to generate such messages. Interestingly, Weger and Polcar (2000) found small but significant attachment style differences in cognitive complexity, such that securely attached people generated slightly more complex relational construals than did insecurely attached people. Herein also lies the pragmatic relevance of the current study: we might have to reconsider pragmatic advice to professional helpers about how to provide emotional support to insecurely attached people (see Malinckrodt, 2000). The current study extends Weger and Polcar s (2002) research that assessed the influence of attachment style on the production of person-centered comforting messages. As expected, Weger and Polcar found that avoidants produced less personcentered comforting messages than did nonavoidants. A curvilinear relationship emerged for person-centered message use by anxiously attached people, with those extremely low and high in attachment anxiety producing the least amount of highly person-centered messages, and those having a moderate degree of anxiety (i.e., secures) producing the largest amount of highly person-centered messages. Specifically, the present study explores how attachment style influences people s evaluations of affective communication skills and person-centered comforting messages. The current study uses two attachment measures: a continuous attachment measure that examines attachment patterns in terms of anxiety and avoidance (Collins & Feeney, 2000), and a prototypical four-factor attachment measure that examines attachment patterns for dismissives, fearful avoidants, preoccupieds and secures (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment Theory Attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety are the two primary dimensions underlying the formation of cognitive models of self and other. Attachment anxiety is shaped by models of self that reflect whether people see themselves as worthy or unworthy of affection and attention. Attachment avoidance is shaped by other models that reflect the degree to which people approach (vs. avoid) intimacy and interpersonal relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Crossing the two dimensions generates four distinct prototypical attachment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Secures are neither avoidant nor anxious because they possess positive views of themselves and others. Secures are comfortable expressing their difficult emotions in a constructive manner by acknowledging their distress and turning to others for support and help. Dismissives are primarily avoidant because they possess negative views of others and positive views of themselves. They tend to suppress negative emotions and use avoidant strategies as primary coping mechanisms. Preoccupieds have positive models of others but negative models of themselves and are primarily anxious. They tend to demonstrate their negative feeling states in a turgid and anxious manner by constantly seeking their partner s approval. Fearful avoidants have negative models of themselves and others and can be best classified as anxious-avoidant. Although fearful avoidants would like to have close

4 236 S. M. Jones relationships with others, they avoid relational intimacy because they worry about being hurt or rejected. Affective Communication Skills and Person-centered Comforting Messages in the Emotional Support Process People look to close relationships for psychological support, mutual intimacy, and emotional involvement. Communication skills that foster these affective functions are therefore particularly valued in close relationships (Samter & Burleson, 1990). Burleson and Samter (1990; also see Samter & Burleson, 1990) developed the Communication Functions Questionnaire (CFQ) to elicit evaluations about six affective communication skills (comforting, ego-support, expressivity, listening, behavioral regulation, conflict management) and four instrumental skills (conversing, informing, persuading, narrating) Two affective communication skills that seem to be particularly important in close relationships are comforting and ego support (Burleson et al, 1996; Burleson & Samter, 1990, 1996). Comforting skill reflects the ability to make depressed or sad others feel better, whereas ego support concerns abilities to make others feel good about themselves. Research on attachment style differences in social skills suggests that two additional affective skills, expressiveness (the ability to disclose thoughts and feelings) and listening, are crucial in the context of emotional support in close relationships, because these skills target the elaboration and processing of emotional experiences (Guerrero, 1996; Guerrero & Jones, 2003). Person-centered comforting messages aim to overcome the psychological distance between people with message features that validate and legitimize the identity, experiences, and emotions of the message recipient (Burleson, 1982). Highly person-centered messages explicitly acknowledge and legitimize the feelings of the distressed person. Their primary function is to encourage the expression of difficult feelings, which might subsequently lead to a reappraisal of the stressful situation (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998) Moderate person-centered messages implicitly recognize the distressed person s feelings, yet do not elaborate or contextualize them extensively. Low person-centered messages are regulative in nature because they implicitly or explicitly deny the feelings of the upset person. These messages do not necessarily express noninvolvement and distance; rather their core feature is that they delegitimize and even attack the feelings and perspectives of a distraught other. Uniform findings in numerous message perception studies across different methods of message presentation and varied stimulus situations indicated that people evaluate messages that display high levels of person centeredness as more sensitive, effective, and helpful than messages that display lower levels of person centeredness (for a review see Burleson, 2003a). Attachment Dimensional and Categorical Differences in Evaluations of Affective Communication Skills and Person-centered Comforting Messages Because attachment styles reflect individual differences in relational bonds, we should detect differences due to attachment patterns in evaluations of affective

5 Western Journal of Communication 237 communication skills and person-centered comforting messages. In fact, there is conceptual overlap because the attachment system that is activated in stressful and threatening encounters also sets in motion the emotional support process (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001). Attachment Avoidance People exhibiting high levels of attachment avoidance are compulsively self-reliant and respond to distress with deactivating and withdrawing behaviors, presumably as a defensive mechanism (Bartholomew, 1990). People high in attachment avoidance and low in attachment anxiety in particular (i.e., dismissives) do not feel comfortable depending on others and devote less attention to their emotional experiences than nonavoidant individuals (Bartholomew, 1990). Because of their positive self-models, dismissives seem to view themselves as capable of coping with difficult emotions in a self-sufficient manner (Guerrero, 1996; Malinckrodt, 2000). Consequently, dismissives frequently express the least desire for social support (Collins & Feeney, 2000). If avoidants, and dismissives in particular, eschew interpersonal closeness, they might view the affective communication skills of others as less important than nonavoidants, because these skills signal relationship functions that aim to reduce interpersonal distance. Dismissives may also evaluate highly person-centered comforting messages less positively than those having other attachment styles because dimissisves show little interest in conversational interaction (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Guerrero, 1996). Indeed, dismissives may evaluate low person-centered messages as more comforting than nonavoidants, precisely because such messages do not encourage dismissives to talk about upsetting emotions Low person-centered comforting might reflect the emotionally detached and self-sufficient internal working models of avoidants. Attachment Anxiety The defining characteristic of anxiously attached people is their high need for approval and intimacy (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). People high in attachment anxiety and low in attachment avoidance in particular (i.e., preoccupieds) require consistent and continual affirmations of interpersonal closeness; they react strongly to involvement change because of their pressing need for intimacy (Guerrero, 1996; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Compared to dismissives and fearful avoidants, preoccupieds tend to be more sociable, presumably as a strategy to promote increased affiliation (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). For these reasons, preoccupieds may value affective communication skills more than do secures and dismissives, because these skills convey the affirmation and relational closeness anxiously attached people so desire. Highly person-centered comforting messages should fulfill the intense attachment needs of preoccupieds because these messages regulate and explicitly acknowledge the difficult and intense emotions experienced by preoccupieds, who are at times overattentive to distress cues (Mikulincer & Sheffi, 2000). Indeed, compared to other

6 238 S. M. Jones attachment styles, preoccupieds may not differentiate among more and less personcentered messages, because low person-centered comforting messages, though evaluative in nature, might be perceived as better than no emotional support at all. Secure Attachments Securely attached people usually display the most flexible communication patterns of the four attachment styles (Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Secures look to close relationships as an important resource for intimacy, emotional support, and interpersonal closeness when they need it, and can adapt to various situations and relational partners because they are able to draw on a host of past positive experiences that have been nurturing and supportive (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Collins & Feeney, 2000). They also tend to be viewed as more socially skilled than the other three attachment styles when discussing stressful and difficult emotional experiences (Guerrero & Jones, 2003). The following hypotheses offer predictions concerning the influence of attachment dimensions and categories on evaluations of affective communication skills: H1: Attachment avoidance is negatively associated with evaluations of affective communication skills. H2: Attachment anxiety is positively associated with evaluations of affective communication skills. H3: Preoccupieds value affective communication skills as more important than do secures and dismissives. The next set of hypotheses offers predictions concerning the influence of attachment dimensions and categories on evaluations of more and less person-centered comforting messages: H4: Attachment avoidance is positively associated with evaluations of low personcentered comforting messages. H5: Attachment anxiety is positively associated with evaluations of high personcentered messages. H6: Dismissives and preoccupieds evaluate low person-centered comforting messages more positively than do secures. H7: Dismissives evaluate high person-centered messages less positively than do preoccupieds and secures. The fearful avoidant attachment style constitutes a paradoxical predisposition, which does not lend itself to clear predictions regarding evaluations of affective communication skills and person-centered comforting (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Because of their desire for intimacy, fearfuls value close relationships, yet their mistrust of others frequently undermines their desire to develop and maintain the kind of trusting relationship they desire. Their source of mistrust lies in past negative experiences with unavailable or rejecting attachment figures. Because of their high levels of mistrust and fears of rejection, fearfuls might view low person-centered messages as particularly unsupportive. On the other hand, fearfuls might not differentiate between high and low person-centered messages since they tend to avoid intimacy (Duggan & Brennan, 1994). These contradicting assumptions will be explored with the following research question:

7 Western Journal of Communication 239 RQ: Do fearful avoidants differ from those having other attachment styles in their evaluations of (a) affective communication skills, as well as (b) high and (c) low person-centered comforting messages? Methods Procedures and Participants A total of 280 participants (96 males, 183 females, 1 missing) were recruited from senior-level communication courses at a midwestern university. Participants were asked to complete the survey themselves, or to recruit a friend or family member to complete the survey. All participants received class extra-credit. The average age of the participants was 26.8 years (range = years), which is somewhat higher, presumably because family members or friends completed the survey. The sample consisted of 228 Whites, 26 African Americans, 7 Hispanics, 4 Pacific Islanders, and 3 Native Americans. Six participants indicated other ethnic backgrounds, and the ethnic information for six participants was missing. 1 Instruments and Instrument Validation Categorical attachment styles Participants indicated which of Bartholomew and Horowitz s (1991) four attachment style descriptions best characterized them. A total of 117 participants classified themselves as secure, while 86 self-classified as fearful avoidant, 41 as dismissive, and 31 as preoccupied. Four participants failed to identify their attachment style but were kept in the analyses. Attachment dimensions To obtain a continuous attachment style measure, participants were asked to indicate on Likert-type scales that ranged from 1 (very unlike me) to 7 (very like me) to what extent each of the four paragraphs fit them. Following Collins and Feeney s (2000) procedures, two attachment dimensions were then computed from the continuous single-item scales of the paragraph measure. These dimensions reflect self and other working models that underlie the four prototypical attachment styles. The self (anxiety) dimension reflects fundamental views people hold about themselves, whereas the other (avoidance) dimension reflects people s views of others. The model of self dimension was constructed as follows: [(fearful avoidant + preoccupied) (secure + dismissive)], in which high scores reflect high levels of attachment anxiety and a lack of confidence. The model of other dimension was constructed as follows: [(dismissive + fearful avoidant) (secure + preoccupied)], in which high scores reflect high levels of attachment avoidance and discomfort with closeness. The anxiety scale ranged from 11 (high anxiety) to 10 (low anxiety, M = 1.30, SD = 3.97), whereas the avoidance scale ranged from 12 (high avoidance) to 10 (low avoidance, M =.30, SD = 4.64). It is noteworthy that the means of both measures hovered around the center of the scales. 2

8 240 S. M. Jones Affective communication skills Participants completed the most recent version of Burleson and Samter s (1990) CFQ, which consists of 30 randomly ordered items that reflect outcomes typically achieved through the effective exercise of ten affective and instrumental communication behaviors. Participants evaluated the importance of all ten behaviors in close friendships (e.g., Makes me feel like I m a good person ) on Likert-type scales that ranged from 1 (somewhat important) to 5 (extremely important). Each communication skill was assessed with three items. Only those items pertaining to four affective skills (ego support, comforting, expressiveness, listening) were analyzed. Internal consistencies for the affective skills are reported in the Results section. Comforting message evaluation task Participants were instructed to read three hypothetical comforting scenarios about a good male or female friend who (a) was rejected for a prestigious scholarship, (b) just found out that his/her parents will divorce, and (c) just found out that his/her significant other broke off their relationship. After reading each hypothetical situation, participants were asked to evaluate nine preformulated messages that reflect possible comforting responses to the distressed person in the hypothetical situation. Each message strategy corresponded to one of the nine hierarchical ordered categories in Applegate s (1980) and Burleson s (1982) coding scheme for person centeredness in comforting and has been adapted from previous studies (Burleson & Samter, 1985; Jones & Burleson, 1997). The nine comforting messages were presented in a fixed random order and participants evaluated these messages on two semantic differential scales that ranged from 1 (very ineffective, very insensitive) to 7 (very effective, very sensitive). In line with previous procedures (e.g., Jones & Burleson, 1997), the two semantic differential scales were subsequently combined to form one composite index of comforting quality. Three major person-centered messages levels were constructed across the three comforting situations. The three messages lowest in person centeredness were combined to form the low person-centered message level (M = 2.20, SD =.53), while the three messages highest in person centeredness were combined to form high personcentered message level (M = 3.68, SD =.56). Messages that reflected moderate levels of person centeredness were combined to form moderate levels of person-centered messages (M = 3.00, SD =.45). Internal consistencies for the ratings of message quality for the low, moderate, and high person-centered comforting messages were.76,.72, and.71, respectively. Results Analysis Plan, Correlations among Variables, and Power Analysis A hypothesized one-factor structure for evaluations of the four affective communication skills, as well as predictions concerning associations between the two attachment dimensions and evaluations of these skills (H1, 2) were examined with a path model

9 Western Journal of Communication 241 using AMOS 4.0 (Analysis of Moment Structure; Arbuckle, 1997) and maximum-likelihood estimation. Predictions concerning associations between the attachment dimensions and evaluations of person-centered messages (H4, 5) were examined with simple regressions, and differences due to attachment categories in evaluations of affective skills and person-centered messages (H3, 6, 7, RQ) were examined with planned comparisons and analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Table 1 presents the correlation coefficients for the variables involved in the analysis and shows that the four affective skills were significantly correlated with one another. It is also noteworthy that the two attachment dimensions (anxiety and avoidance) were significantly associated with one another (r =.15, p <.05), which replicates findings of earlier studies (Collins & Feeney, 2000, r =.26; Feeney & Collins, 2001, r =.08). Following power procedures outlined by Cohen (1988), statistical power (with α =.05) for the regression procedures was.93 for large effect sizes (ƒ 2 =.35) and.99 for medium effect sizes (ƒ 2 =.15). Power for the ANOVA procedures (with α =.05) was.87 for large effect sizes (ƒ =.40) and 99 for medium effect sizes (ƒ =.25). The Hypothesized Model Figure 1 presents the model tested in the current study. As this figure illustrates, attachment avoidance and anxiety are observed variables that were directly measured, while four indicators (i.e., evaluations of ego support, comforting, expressiveness, listening) formed the unobserved, latent affective skills construct. The relationship between the latent construct and its indicators is referred to as the measurement model, and is tested with factor analytic procedures to determine whether the latent construct is represented well by its indicators. The comforting skills factor was selected as the reference item for the latent variable because comforting skills tend to conceptually represent affective skills well (Burleson & Samter, 1990). The linear relationships between the exogenous variables (i.e., attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety) and the dependent variable (i.e., affective communication skills) represent the structural equation model (H1, 2) and is commonly tested with regression procedures. Figure 1 Latent Path Model for Attachment Avoidance, Attachment Anxiety, and Affective Communication Skills. χ 2 (8, N = 280) = 14.9, p =.06. Path values represent standardized regression coefficients. Error variances are standardized. *p<.001, **p<.05. Table 1 Correlation Coefficients for the Variables Involved in the Study Anxiety Avoidance Comforting Ego-support Expressivity Listening Anxiety Avoidance.15** Comforting.04.20* (.80) Ego support.24**.00.55** (.67) Expressivity.10.17*.63**.58** (.71) Listening **.47**.50** (.75) Note N = 135, measures in parentheses are Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficients. *p<.01, **p<.05.

10 242 S. M. Jones.86* Comforting.15* Attachment Avoidance -.20*.41*.67* Ego Support.25*.15** Attachment Anxiety.02 Affective Communication Skills.75*.73* Expressivity.21* Listening.17* Figure 1 Latent Path Model for Attachment Avoidance, Attachment Anxiety, and Affective Communication Skills. χ 2 (8, N = 280) = 14.9, p =.06. Path values represent standardized regression coefficients. Error variances are standardized. *p<.001, **p<.05. Model fit Because there is currently little consensus concerning the best index of overall model fit, several indexes are reported. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990) and the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI, Bentler & Bonett, 1980), also referred as the Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), are two such indexes. Because they are standardized, the CFI and TLI indexes range from 0 to 1, and values close to 1 indicate good model fit. The χ 2 -test is a badness of fit index that should ideally generate a nonsignificant value for well-fitting models. The χ 2 -test tends to be sensitive to sample sizes; the larger the sample size (> 200), the more likely the rejection of the model, and thus the more likely the occurrence of a Type II error. The model χ 2 was nonsignificant (8, N = 280) = 14.86, p =.06; CFI =.99, TLI =.99), suggesting reasonable fit between the hypothesized latent path model and the data. The measurement model The latent affective communication skills construct was well represented by the four observed skill indicators with path coefficients that ranged from.69 to.81 (see Figure 1). Squared multiple correlations (R 2 ) provide further information about the percentage of variance in the dependent measure that is accounted for by the factor (affective communication skills) and were as follows: comforting =.75, expressivity =.55, listening =.53, ego support =.45. Finally, reliability analyses indicated satisfactory internal consistencies for comforting (e.g., Comforts me when I m feeling sad or depressed, α =.80), expressivity (e.g., Is open in expressing his/her thoughts and feelings to me, α =.71), listening (e.g., Is an attentive listener when I need to talk to someone, α =.75). The internal consistency for ego-support (e.g., Encourages me to

11 Western Journal of Communication 243 believe in myself, α =.67) was somewhat lower, but this scale was nevertheless kept in the analysis because this indicator is an integral part of affective communication skills (Burleson & Samter, 1990). Because the four skill indicators were nonorthogonal, a combined affective communication skills scale (α =.84) was constructed and was used in all subsequent analyses. Main Analyses Affective communication skills H1 predicted a negative association between attachment avoidance and evaluations of affective communication skills, and H2 predicted a positive relationship between attachment anxiety and evaluations of affective communication skills. Standardized path coefficients indicate that, in line with H1, attachment avoidance was negatively associated with affective communication skill evaluation (β =.20, p <.05, see Figure 1). The association between attachment anxiety and the affective communication skill evaluations was nonsignificant. Thus, H2 was not supported. H3 predicted that preoccupieds would view affective skills as more important than secures and dismissives, and this hypothesis was tested with one planned comparison. Contrast coefficients were set at 2 for preoccupieds, at 1 for secures and dismissives, and at 0 for fearful avoidants. The affective communication skills scale was used as the dependent measure. The planned comparison was nonsignificant, t(134) = 1.13, p =.26. Person-centered comforting messages H4 and H5 examined predictions regarding associations between attachment dimensions and evaluations of person-centered comforting messages. Specifically, H4 predicted that avoidance would be positively associated with evaluations of low person-centered messages. This hypothesis was examined with a simple regression in which avoidance served as the predictor and evaluations of low person-centered messages served as the dependent measure. No significant results emerged, β =.02, p =.74. H5 predicted that anxiety would be positively associated with evaluations of high person-centered messages and was also examined with a simple regression in which anxiety served as the predictor and evaluations of high person-centered messages served as the dependent measure. Once more, no significant results emerged, β =.03, p =.65. H6 predicted differences in evaluations of low person-centered messages as a function of attachment style category. Specifically, H6 predicted that dismissives and preoccupieds would evaluate low person-centered messages more positively than secures. This hypothesis was tested with a planned comparison in which contrast coefficients were set at 1 for dismissives and preoccupieds, at 2 for secures, and at 0 for fearful avoidants. A significant contrast was observed, F(3, 275) = 3.31, p <.05, η 2 =.03. As expected, dismissives and preoccupieds evaluated low person-centered comforting messages more positively (Ms = 2.40 and 2.26, SDs =.58 and.57,

12 244 S. M. Jones respectively) than did secures and fearful avoidants (Ms = 2.20 and 2.09, SDs =.44 and.54, respectively). A post hoc Tukey B range test (p <.05) indicated that fearful avoidants evaluated low person-centered comforting messages as significantly more negatively than did dismissives (RQ). H7 examined differences in evaluations of high person-centered messages as a function of attachment style category. This hypothesis was examined with a planned comparison in which contrast coefficients were set at 2 for dismissives, at 1 for preoccupieds and secures, and at 0 for fearful avoidants. Evaluation of high person-centered comforting messages was used as the dependent measure. No significant differences were observed, t(275) = 1.32, p =.19. Although no specific hypotheses were advanced for the influence of attachment style on evaluations of moderate person-centered messages, I nevertheless examined associations of avoidance and anxiety with evaluations of comforting messages, as well as categorical style differences for evaluations of comforting messages. No significant results emerged. Supplemental Analyses Because previous research has detected sex differences in evaluations of affective communication skills and comforting messages, supplemental analyses assessed the effects of participant sex. First, a 2 (participant sex) 4 (attachment style) ANOVA was conducted, with evaluations of the combined affective communication skills as the dependent measure. The ANOVA revealed a main effect for participant sex only, F(4, 133) = 28.41, p <.05, partial η 2 =.02. Women rated affective skills as more important than did men (Ms = 4.50 and 3.91, SDs =.08 and.07, respectively). Second, sex differences in evaluations of comforting messages that varied in person centeredness were examined with a 2 (participant sex) 4 (attachment style) 3 (person centeredness: high, moderate, low) mixed-model ANOVA, with level of person-centered message as the within-groups factor and comforting message ratings as the dependent measure. The ANOVA revealed a main effect for person centeredness, F(2, 267) = , p <.001, η 2 =.72. This main effect was qualified by an interaction with participant sex, F(2, 267) = 6.42, p <.05, partial η 2 =.05. Dependent samples t-tests revealed only differences for low person-centered messages, t(277) = 5.04, p <.001. Women rated low person-centered comforting messages as less comforting than did men (Ms = 2.00 and 2.42; SDs =.07). These results are identical to past research on sex differences in affective communication skills (e.g., MacGeorge, Clark, & Gillihan, 2002) and evaluations of emotional support messages that vary in person centeredness (e.g., Burleson et al., 1996). Discussion Affective Communication Skills This study showed that evaluations of affective communication skills were significantly associated with attachment avoidance but not attachment anxiety. People with

13 Western Journal of Communication 245 avoidant attachments tended to evaluate affective skills (i.e., ego-support, comforting, expressiveness, listening) as less important than people with nonavoidant attachments. These results further corroborate avoidants distanced and detached views of interpersonal relationships (Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). Because they hold negative models of others, avoidants often have difficulties in becoming close to others and relying on others. They also tend to score lower on emotional expressiveness and sociability, report dissatisfying social support, and tend to view caregiving as nonessential in interpersonal relationships, including friendships and intimate relationships (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Guerrero, 1996). Because the current study did not detect differences in evaluations of affective skills due to attachment style category, it is unclear what motivates avoidants to view affective communication skills as less important than nonavoidants. Avoidants who have negative models of self (i.e., fearful avoidants) might devalue affective skills for fear of being abandoned or rejected, whereas avoidants with positive views of self (i.e., dismissives) might view such behaviors as simply not important. These motivational differences have been examined by Duggan and Brennan (1994), who found that dismissives scored lower on sociability and shyness ratings than fearfuls, and by Guerrero and Jones (2003), who found no such differences. These contradicting results further corroborate the complex nature of people with anxious-avoidant attachments and merit further investigation. It is also noteworthy that attachment anxiety was not significantly associated with evaluations of affective communication skills. People of all four attachment styles also evaluated affective communication skills above the midpoint of the scale, that is, as equally important in close relationships. This points to the importance of relational closeness, expressed through comforting, ego support, expressivity, and listening, for all people regardless of attachment style. Indeed, past research found that people both high and low in attachment anxiety value relational closeness, although anxiously attached persons in particular tend to experience intense desires for closeness and react to threatening situations with hyperactive strategies to regain closeness (Collins & Read, 1990). Person-centered Comforting Messages Few differences due to attachment style were observed in evaluations of personcentered comforting messages. Dismissives and preoccupieds viewed low personcentered comforting messages more positively than did secures and fearful avoidants, though the effect size was rather small. In addition, fearfuls evaluated these messages more negatively than did dismissives. Cognitive models of self and other might explain these differences. Dismissives who hold positive self and negative other models might find low person-centered messages more comforting than secures and fearfuls because these messages communicate noninvolvement, something dismissives frequently desire (or expect) from others. The positive other and negative self models of preoccupieds generate a strong need to be heard. To satisfy these needs, preoccupieds might value low person-centered comfort as better than nothing. Anxiously attached

14 246 S. M. Jones individuals struggle between the desire for psychological proximity and fears of abandonment and rejection. This contradiction often leads to an on-again, off-again behavioral dynamic that interferes with the development and maintenance of secure relational bonds (Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996). Low person-centered messages might activate past unsuccessful coping efforts and might therefore have a particularly detrimental effect on fearfuls, who might be especially hurt when they receive social support that is invalidating and evaluative in nature. The current study revealed no differences due to attachment styles in evaluations of high person-centered emotional support. Though this result requires further empirical corroboration, it points to a dilemma between what insecurely attached people deem good comforting and what past failures of accessing support from others have taught them. Consider for instance, dismissives who have commonly been portrayed as distant and self-reliant when it comes to coping with emotional distress. Although dismissives might not produce and request support (Weger & Polcar, 2002) and although they usually express fewer affective behaviors (Guerrero & Jones, 2003), results of the current study indicate that dismissives value comforting efforts that foster closeness as equally as do the other three attachment styles. Avoiding attachments by devaluing affective communication skills that foster closeness and intimacy might serve as a powerful, but not necessarily desirable and satisfying defense mechanism for dismissives, who evaluated comforting messages that legitimize emotions as positively as the other three attachment styles. Preoccupieds and fearful avoidants, on the other hand, may value high person-centered messages because such comforting behaviors validate their emotions, and express and satisfy affiliative needs. Most importantly, these results suggest that although insecurely attached people might produce few high person-centered messages (Weger & Polcar, 2002), they nevertheless value such messages as much as secures, albeit they might do so for different reasons. Theoretical and Pragmatic Implications This study extends attachment theory by pointing to the importance of distinguishing between what insecurely attached people generally value in interpersonal relationships and what they appraise as relevant and necessary to their own relationships. Producing communication that expresses care and concern poses entirely different demands for insecurely attached people and requires skills that are frequently deficient in insecurely attached people (Anders & Tucker, 2000). Thus, the present results contribute to theories concerning the perception and production of comforting messages by highlighting the importance of examining the influence of psychological factors in the emotional support process, a point that has been recently made by Burleson (2002). The results of this study also have pragmatic implications. Insecurely attached people frequently report diminished social support, smaller social support networks, and less satisfaction with their support, all of which may be rooted in childhood experiences and attachment histories (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Nevertheless, the need for felt security and being cared for is a fundamental human need (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). If securely and insecurely attached people equally value

15 Western Journal of Communication 247 person-centered emotional support, then counselors and therapists would be well advised to teach insecurely attached people to rely on and to use this kind of support; after all, such support is crucial to the development and maintenance of healthy relationships and psychological well-being. Limitations and Future Directions Differences in skill and message evaluations due to attachment style category may not have been detected because people s attachment systems were not activated. The study relied on a hypothetical scenario design that required people to envision themselves in the position of a distressed target. It might be that such a design is not particularly powerful when examining attachment patterns in perceptions of emotional support messages. Nevertheless, the few results that emerged here suggest the potential for a stronger attachment effect in everyday life. Future studies could employ an experimental to induce emotional distress, which might activate people s attachments in more powerful ways (e.g., Collins & Feeney, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2001; Simpson et al., 1992). Second, though used with great frequency to measure attachment styles, single-item measures tend to be less reliable than multiple-item measures. Therefore, the single-item attachment measure used here might not be the best measure to operationalize attachment. Attachment measures, whether two- or four-factor measures, are likely best operationalized with continuous multiple items (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Guerrero, 1996). A final limitation concerns the study s focus on only one psychological factor. Undoubtedly, the perception and production of emotional support messages is influenced by other psychological factors (e.g., cognitive complexity, Weger & Polcar, 2000, 2002). Burleson s (2002) conceptual model of sex differences in the message production process highlights how these variables might be assembled in examining not only psychological, but also situational factors that shape the emotional support process. Conclusion Evaluations of affectively oriented skills shed light on how people conceive close relationships. Furthermore, how people view person-centered messages provide[s] insight into how people understand the emotional states of others, particularly the social significance of these states to be expressed or repressed, the meanings to be validated or voided, and the experiences to be explored or expunged (Burleson, 2003b, p. 10). The current investigation revealed that, regardless of their attachments, people generally valued highly person-centered messages as equally comforting. Notes [1] Data had to be collected over the course of two consecutive semesters because the CFQ was accidentally omitted from the initial survey. Therefore, the sample size for the CFQ was somewhat lower (n = 135). The second survey contained all instruments as well as the CFQ. [2] Information concerning reliabilities of the attachment measures can be obtained from the author.

16 248 S. M. Jones References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment Psychological study of the strange situation Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Anders, S., & Tucker, J. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7, Applegate, J. L. (1980). Person-centered and position-centered teacher communication in a day care center. Studies in Symbolic Interactionism, 3, Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS (version 4.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescents. Child Development, 53, Burleson, B. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, outcomes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Burleson, B. R. (2002). Afterword: Psychological mediators of sex differences in emotional support: A reflection on the mosaic. Communication Reports, 15, Burleson, B. R. (2003a). Emotional support skills. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Burleson, B. R. (2003b). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp ). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Burleson, B. R., Kunkel, A., Samter, W., & Werking, K. (1996). Men s and women s evaluations of communication skills in personal relationships: When sex differences make a difference and when they don t. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985). Individual differences in the perception of comforting messages: An exploratory investigation. Central States Speech Journal, 36, Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1990). Effects of cognitive complexity on the perceived importance of communication skills among friends. Communication Research, 17, Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationship satisfaction. Communication Reports, 9, Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and care giving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,

17 Western Journal of Communication 249 Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Types of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support. An interactional view (pp ). New York: Wiley. Duggan, E. S., & Brennan, K. A. (1994). Social avoidance and its relation to Bartholomew s adult attachment typology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. (2001). Predictors of care giving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment: Developments in the conceptualization of security and insecurity. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults. Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp ). Bristol, PA: Kingsley. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, Guerrero, L. K. (1996). Attachment-style differences in intimacy and involvement: A test of the fourcategory model. Communication Monographs, 63, Guerrero, L. K., & Jones, S. M. (2003). Differences in one s own and one s partner s perceptions of social skills as a function of attachment style. Communication Quarterly, 51, Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, Jones, S. M. (2004). Putting the person into person-centered and immediate emotional support: Emotional change and perceived helper competence as outcomes of comforting in helping situations. Communication Research, 32, Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). The impact of situational variables on helpers perceptions of comforting strategies. Communication Research, 24, Latty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice: Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, MacGeorge, E. L., Clark, R. A., & Gillihan, S. J. (2002). Sex differences in the provision of skillful emotional support: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Communication Reports, 15, MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Butler, G. L. (2003). Gender differences in the communication values of mature adults. Communication Research Reports, 20, Malinckrodt, B. (2000). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and interpersonal process in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 10, Mikulincet, M., & Sheffi, E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to positive affect: A test of mental categorization and creative problem solving. Motivation and Emotion, 24, Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (1990). Evaluations of communication skills as perdictors of peer acceptance in a group living situation. Communication Studies, 41, Samter, W., Whaley, B. B., Mortenson, S. R., & Burleson, B. R. (1997). Ethnicity and emotional support in same-sex friendship: A comparison of Asian-Americans, African-Americans, and Euro-Americans. Personal Relationships, 4, Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Dialogue on adult attachment Attachment and Human Development, 4, Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford Press. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support-seeking and support-giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, Weger, H., Jr., & Polcar, L. E. (2000). Attachment style and the cognitive representation of communication situations. Communication Studies, 51, Weger, H., Jr., & Polcar, L. E. (2002). Attachment style and person-centered comforting. Western Journal of Communication, 66,

18