The Analysis of Attachment Styles through Interpersonal Circumplex Description

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.27101

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2011. Vol.2, No.7, 665-668

The Analysis of Attachment Styles through Interpersonal

Circumplex Description

Wen Xue, Shouying Zhao

School of Educational, Guizhou Normal University, Guiyang, China.

Email: [email protected]

Received May 18th, 2011; revised July 23rd, 2011; accepted September 9th, 2011.

The study explored how the dyads with different attachment styles behave towards Leary’s circumplex in coop-

erative and competitive tasks. 100 strangers as a sample were surveyed through two experiments on computer,

by using RBQ (Riverside Behav ioral Q-sort) to examine thei r interpersonal traits through rated by experimente rs.

Relation Questionnaire (RQ) and ECR were also used to measure their attachment styles. There are three con-

clusions based on the results of this study that: 1) Individuals of different attachment styles in interpersonal in-

teraction had shown different trend of interpersonal styles; 2) Individuals of different attachment styles take up

different area in interpersonal circumplex, which proves that it is continuous not discrete of interpersonal at-

tachment style; 3) the dyads in different sex of different attachment types showed different satisfaction in these

two tasks.

Keywords: Interpersonal Circumplex, Attachment Style, Interpersonal Relationship, Dyads

Introduction

It was mentioned in Bowlby and Ainsworth’s attachment

theory that patterns of childhood attachment have examined in

the context of adult’s experience of emotion, especially in their

relationships. This extension is consistent with Bowlby’s asser-

tion that the attachment mechanism is an impact “from the cra-

dle to the grave”. Act ual ly , the continuity of infant’s attachment

style has further effect on individual’s manifestation towards

their relationships or association (such as marriage, romantic

relation, the companionship). Therefore, most attachment re-

searches have been done by the domestic and international

researchers, combined with various composition of character

about cognition, personality or trait. So further exploring will

be continued for the correlation of this individually emotional

link and individual mental state shape, interpersonal behavior,

and social cognition and support, happiness, etc.

With the gradually in-depth social science researches on

adult interpersonal attachment, studies for attachment methods

and means of measurement have become more diversified. In

China, the main measurement of interpersonal attachment is in

two ways. In the first way, individual’s attachment style was

measured to determine the differences between individuals with

different attachment styles; and the Ladder is the determination

of the one’s score on attachment dimensi ons. Individuals’ scores

on different dimension will be used to determine the extent of

their attachment avoidance and anxiety and so on. Question-

naires are highly applied in researches concerning both the

degree in dimension structure and attachment styles. Which is

used the most is the type of Adult Attachment Styles Question-

naire.

Early questionnaire survey towards adult attachment was fo-

cused on the discrete types (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), which was

developed by Ainsworth’s three infant attachment types. Since

then, a large number of adult attachment scales were emerging,

greatly promoting the research progress in this field. According

to Bowlby’s theory, the individual was referred to the self-

model and other-model, because individual’s attachment style

depends on their own positive or negative assessment about

themselves and their supporters (especially parents). So the

adult attachment styles based on the integration of these two

models, can be divided in four-categorical scheme, such as

secure, ambivalent, fearful and dismissing. Therefore, the sub-

sequent establishment of attachment scale towards two dimen-

sions—self-model and other-model, became the core content

discussed by the researchers. The individual with secure at-

tachment of cherish both the positive self-evaluation and

other-evaluation, and they want others to response their own

emotional needs; compared with that, ambivalent attachment

style owes negative self-model, whereas of positive other-model;

The individuals of dismissing attachment style possess positive

self-model, but they believe that others are not worth trusting;

The fearful attachment’s self-model and the other-model were

both negative. Based on this theoretical analysis, Bartholomew

and Horowitz developed a self-report scale—Relationship Ques-

tionnaire.

Since then, based on the RQ, Brennan developed a standard

adult intimate relationships Attachment Scale—Closed Relation

Experience scale (ECR), a scale of 36 questions, in which, at-

tachment anxiety and attachment avoidance as its the two di-

mensions composition. Currently, Attachment investigation

would be confirmed by of the combination of these two item

polls or they may use the ECR to determine the subjects’ style

while the RQ as the crit er i on for test.

Question

However, recent research suggests that rather than a three-or

four-categorical, a dimensional, more comprehensive model

may better represent adult attachment (Crowell, Fraley, &

Shaver 1999). Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that “Secure

attachment tend to describe their parents friendly and warm,

whereas Anxiety-Ambivalent attachment of the individuals

described their families aggressive, and avoidant person tend to

report their par ents cold and rejectin g”. Therefore, it is no doubt

the measurement method based on interpersonal relationship

W. XUE ET AL.

666

can be applied to the adult attachment study. For example,

Shaver and Brennan (1992) examined the association of at-

tachment with the Big Five personality model (FFM). Accord-

ing to their study, “more securely attached participants reported

higher extroversion and agreeableness. Contrarily, those indi-

viduals with anxious attachment style more likely to report

lower agreeableness, and higher neuroticism”.

Therefore, preliminary research, at least, proofed that adult

attachment style, to some extent, is related to the individuals’

interpersonal traits or personality, interpersonal communication

and social interaction. That is why insecure attachment person

may show a hostile or compliance attitude in their interpersonal

communication with others. The Figure 1 indicates the relations

between four attachment styles and two dimensions—inter-

personal anxiety and avoidance. It can also be observed from

this figure that the continuous space between these four at-

tachment styles is not mutually discrete separate, but some

among them have not been explored. The independence of

these four styles gives us some illusion that they are separate.

Indeed, participates are distributed around all the space, even

the area between two lines of canonical four styles. That is the

reason why some individuals with Preoccupation attachment

style would be changed into Secure after they fell in love or got

marriage, since they may locate originally between these two

types.

In social interaction, a successful communication is always

attributed to the interpersonal behavior of reciprocity or com-

plementarity of two parnters. Established by this theory, Inter-

personal Circumplex can accurately predict the successful

maintaining rate of a relationship between two peoples. The

IPC is divided by two dimensions, control and affiliation, into

eight parts. They are assured-dominant (PA), in the anticlock-

wise order, arrogant-calculating (BC), cold-hearted (DE), aloof-

introverted (FG), unassured-submissive (HI), unassuming-inge-

nuous (JK), and warm-agreeable (LM), and (NO) octants (see

Figure 2). IPC attempts to describe and explain the character of

a person, especially his or her interpersonal style. Carson (1969)

suggested that only the Agreeableness dimension is similar to

the position in the leading position of the interpersonal dimen-

sion of the two sides complement each other to attract each

other.

The two dimensions of The FFM that—extraversion and

agreeableness—are very similar to the affiliation and domnance

Figure 1.

The relation between attachment style and two dimensions—inter-

personal avoidance and anxiety.

Figure 2.

Leary’s interpersonal circumplex.

of IPC, respectively (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Therefore, utili-

zing the previous theory, we intend to adopt experimental tasks

with the questionnaire method, in order to examine the descrip-

tion of Leary’s interpersonal Circumplex model for interpersonal

attachment of dyads with opposite sex in different tasks. And

explore the association of individual's interpersonal attachment

and interpersonal traits, while analysis the satisfaction of dyads

with different attachment styles matching in different tasks.

Method

Subjects

Subjects were 50 men and 50 woman students at several

schools in Guizhou, some of whom came from high school, and

others are graduates or undergraduates. They were ranged in

age from 16 ~ 30. They were matched in pairs in random, and

each pair contains a man and a woman. There are two experi-

mental situations, the cooperative situation and competitive

situation, in each of which 25 dyads participated.

Performance task

In cooperative situation, each dyad was surveyed through an

experiment of detective game on computer, in which 13 things

were asked to be found by their cooperation. And in compete-

tive situation, each dyad was surveyed through an experiment

of combat game on computer, in which they should use their

skills or ability to defeat their partner.

Measure

After telling the instruction about these two tasks, the experi-

menters ran the detective or combat FLASH game on com-

puter, and asked the opposite-sex dyad to complete it together.

Each interaction lasted approximately 3 min, while the experi-

menters used RBQ (Riverside Behavioral Q-sort) to examine

their interpersonal traits.

Results and Analysis

The Distribution of Individuals with Different

Attachment Types in IPC

By the end of the experiment, subjects should complete the

W. XUE ET AL. 667

self-report scale RQ and ECR also, in order to determine their

attachment styles. There are 43 people of secure attachment, 15

of fearful attachment, whereas 22 subjects of ambivalent at-

tachment, and 20 with dismissing style. Then the subjects’ at-

tachment type was tested with their highest scores in the eight

subscales of RBQ through correlation analysis. Every subscale

would represent a trait in the circumplex, the pie charts are

shown as follow (see Figure 3).

Through the Figure 3, subjects with secure attachment tested

in two tasks mainly reflects a highly-frequency performance in

PA, JK LM, and NO. Among other three insecure attachment

styles, it is easy to find that the interpersonal performance of

ambivalent-attachment individual is similar to the secure one,

but the proportion of each trait is distinguished with it. Fearful

attachment were tested mainly in interpersonal style of BC, DE,

and FG, which is the most distinguished on compared with the

secure style ; while the subjects of dismissing attachment got

high scores in FG and JK.

In order to exclude the possibility that extreme data would be

generated by the highest scores, and to further explore the rela-

tionship between variables about the 4 types of attachment and

the 8 interpersonal traits in IPC octant, we tested the data of

100 individual of these two tasks through Pearson two-tailed

test (Table 1).

It can be well informed in Table 1 that subjects with secure

attachment style (A) was more obvious in the performance of

BC, PA, NO, LM in interpersonal interaction, which shows

significantly positive correlation in PA, but shows a signify-

cantly negative correlation with the HI. This matches the hy-

pothesis that highly positive self-model is the main character of

secure individuals. When it comes to fearful attachment style

(B), the situation may become just opposite, which shows posi-

tive relation towards the traits of BC, DE, FG, HI and a lower

scores on the affiliation dimension of the circumplex, while a

higher score in complaisance, because individuals under this

style take a part in negative self-model and other-model. Sub-

jects with ambivalent attachment take a positive correlation

with BC and DE two traits. Although it may indicate a conflict-

tion against the highest-score pie chart that DE takes no evi-

Figure 3.

The highest score’s distribution of RBQ in different attachment style

individuals. (Pies: 1-secure; 2-fearful; 3-ambivalent; 4-dismissingTrait:

from 1-PA to 8-NO).

Table 1.

The correlation coefficent of eight interpersonal traits and attachment

styles in two tasks.

PA BC DE FG HI JK LM NO

A 0.27** 0.23* –0.07 –0.18 –0.27** 0.09 0.140.17

B –0.13 –0.13 0.013 0.31** 0.03 0.01 –0.06 –0.09

C –0.13 –0.04 0.089 0.03 –0.01 0.03 0.07–0.10

D 0.01 0.025 –0.22* –0.04 –0.01 0.09 0.020.01

dence above this attachment style, it can be explained that this

characteristics is due to this type of attachment and subjects’

average score on this trait are not low, but this is not their high-

est score characteristics. What should be a surprise is that the

dismissing attachment shows similarity with the secure on.

Since individuals with this type although evaluate others nega-

tive or not worth trusting, a positive self-model was formalized

in their inner mechanisms of attachment experience in early

stage. So they may also get a not low score on control dimen-

sion, however, they may cherish less ability of an agreeable

nature, which can be indicated on the decreased correlation

coefficient compared with the secure attachment, because their

other-model are negative.

To a contrary, Figure 4 provides a clear distribution of dif-

ferent attachment styles’ location in the circumplex. And each

style is depicted as a consecutive manner in the circumplex,

which proofs the continuum of attachment style shown in hori-

zontal and vertical dimensions. Among them, three types of

attachment are in continuous interpersonal performance, with-

out being interrupted, whereas ambivalent attachment person

take a break in the circular model. In this interpersonal process,

individuals belonged to ambivalent attachment style, tended to

be divided into two forms, one of which relatively came closer

to fearful attachment, and the other form performed relatively

as the secure one, which also well confirmed the assumption

that it is the continuity rather than separation should be the

nature of attachment styles. But whether it is close to the fearful

attachment, or secure attachment, it showed high compliance

more than the dominance on the control dimension. In our daily

life it often seems as manifestation as lacking of confidence

when put it in social relation. This should be attributed to the

negative self-evaluation model of ambivalent attachment.

The Satisfaction of Dyads with Different Attachment

Styles in Cooperation Task

Calculating through variance analysis, the statistic signify-

cance (Sig) = 0.018 < 0.05 (Table 2), indicated that, between

dyads with the different attachment-style matching, at least one

group showed significant difference towards other groups. As

shown in the satisfaction mean picture (Figure 5), both partners

in the dyads were secure attachment showed the most coopera-

tion satisfaction in this interaction, followed which is the dyads

Figure 4.

The description of four attachment styles in IPC (1-secure; 2-fearful;

3-ambivalent; 4-dismissing).

W. XUE ET AL.

668

with only one secure attachment individual, and dyads with

both are insecure attachment took the lowest score compared

with the other two group.

The Satisfaction of Dyads with Different Attachment

Styles in Competition Task

Similar to the cooperative task, the statistic significance (Sig)

in competitive task is 0.018 < 0.05 (see Table 3), which also

indicated at least one group showed significant difference to-

wards other groups. We can be well informed through the linear

figure (Figure 6), that dyads of secure attachment showed sig-

nificantly higher satisfaction than dyads with insecure satisfac-

tion. But compared to cooperative tasks, the scores between the

two groups with insecure attachment style, the difference is not

distinguished. In cooperation task, to some kind of degree, in-

crease peoples’ satisfaction when it comes to exact social asso-

ciation. Figure 6.

The average score of competitive satisfaction degree towards dyads in

different attachment styles. (1-dyads of secure; 2-dyads with only one

insecure partner; 3-dyads of unsecure).

Conclusion

Three conclusions based on the results of this experimental

Table 2.

Variance analysis for cooperative satisfaction degree towards dyads in

different attachment styles.

ANOVA

Sum of squares DfMean of square s F Sig.

Between groups 10.183 2473.895 3.2560.018

In group 23.257 22145.524

Sum 33.440 24

study can be showed that: 1) Individuals of different attach-

ment styles in interpersonal interaction had shown different

trend of interpersonal styles; 2) Individuals of different at-

tachment styles take up different area in interpersonal circum-

plex, which proves that it is continuous not discrete of inter-

personal attachment style; 3) the dyads in different sex of dif-

ferent attachment types showed different satisfaction in these

two tasks. In cooperative task, dyads of secure attachment style

took the highest satisfaction, and of insecure attachment style

with the lowest one, while in competitive task, it is not distin-

guished between dyads of insecure attachment style and dyads

with only one insecure partner.

References

Gallo, L. C. et al. (2003). An interpersonal analysis of adult attachment

style: Circumplex descriptions, recalled developmental experiences,

self-representations and interpersonal functioning in adulthood.

Journal of Personalit y, 71, 141-182.

doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7102003

Li, T. G. (2005). Attachment and memory for emotional events. Jour-

nal of Peking University, 41 , 965-974.

Ansell, E. B., Kurtz, J. E., & Markey, P. M. (2008). Gender differences

in interpersonal complementarity within roommate dyads. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 502-512.

doi:10.1177/0146167207312312

Gurtman, M. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2000). Interpersonal adjective scales:

Confirmation of circumplex structure from multiple perspectives.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 374- 384.

doi:10.1177/0146167200265009

Markey, P. M., Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2003). Complementarity

Figure 5.

Average score of cooperative satisfaction degree towards dyads in

different attachment styles.

of interpersonal behaviors in dyadic interactions. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 29, 1082-1090.

Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2007). Adolescents’ attachment repre-

sentations and their capacity for intimacy in close relationships.

Journal of research on adolescence, 17, 23-50.

Table 3.

Variance analysis for competitive satisfaction degree towards dyads in

different attachment styles.

ANOVA

Sum of squares DfMean of square s F Sig.

Between groups 11.248 2473.895 4.6670.020

In group 26.512 22145.524

Sum 37.760 24

Sadler, P., & Woody, E. (2003). Is who you are who you’re talking to?

Interpersonal style and complementarity in mixed-sex interactions.

Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 84, 80-96.

doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.002

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New

York: Norton.

Zimmermann, P. (2004). Attachment representations and characteristics

of friendship relations during adolescence. Journal of Experimental

Child Psychology, 88, 83-101. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2004.02.002