examining the relationship between current attachment ... - CiteSeerX

Psychoanalytic Psychology 2010, Vol. 27, No. 1, 27– 41

© 2010 American Psychological Association 0736-9735/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018638

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CURRENT ATTACHMENT STATUS AND FREELY RECALLED AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MEMORIES OF CHILDHOOD Greg D. Haggerty, PhD

Caleb J. Siefert, PhD

Nassau University Medical Center

Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School

Joel Weinberger, PhD Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University

This study investigated the relationship between individual differences in attachment and the free recall of childhood memories. Specifically, it focuses on how attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, using the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale self-report, relate to the affective quality and the presence of caregivers in memories from childhood. Participants were 79 undergraduate and masters students attending a northeast university. Participants completed a memory task designed to elicit freely recalled memories from childhood. They then rated the affective valence (positive/negative) and intensity of each memory, and identified memories in which caretakers were present. Attachment avoidance was related to recalling more negative memories involving caretakers and was negatively related to the average intensity of memories involving caretakers. The results support and extend previous research suggesting that affect regulation strategies employed by individuals high in attachment anxiety and high in attachment avoidance are linked to differences in how information about the past is recalled. Keywords: attachment, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, childhood memories, memory recall Research suggests that memory recall is an active process involving a reconstruction of past events in present awareness (Kensinger, Garoff-Eaton, & Schacter, 2007; Greg D. Haggerty, PhD, Nassau University Medical Center; Caleb J. Siefert, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School; Joel Weinberger, PhD, Derner Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Greg D. Haggerty, PhD, Nassau University Medical Center, 18 Sexton Road, Syosset, NY 11791. E-mail: [email protected]

27

28

HAGGERTY, SIEFERT, AND WEINBERGER

Schacter, Gallo, & Kensinger, 2007; Schacter & Wiseman, 2006). This active reconstruction is constrained, in part, by information processing goals at the time of recall. The use of activation of information processing goals and of strategies to process information is organized, in large part, by an individual’s personality (Bargh, Lombardi, & Higgins, 1988; Rusting, 1998; Sedikides & Skowronski, 1990). Indeed, differences in personality traits have been linked to differences in how individuals recall past experiences (Higgins, King, & Main, 1982; King & Sorrentino, 1988; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). Further, personality traits associated with affect regulation appear to be particularly influential in structuring how the past is recalled (Mayo, 1989). This is particularly true for the recall of autobiographical memories (Rusting, 1998). Thus, individual differences along personality traits associated with the regulation and processing of emotions are likely to be related to differences in how autobiographical memories are recalled. Attachment theory is highly focused on the how individuals come to regulate emotional states and process affective information, suggesting that it may be useful in understanding individual differences in how autobiographic memories are recalled. Attachment theory provides a coherent theoretical framework for understanding how differences in information processing are related to larger goals associated with the regulation of key relationships, regulation of emotional states, and exploration of the environment. Although the relationship between attachment and cognitive processing has been a central tenet of attachment theory, only recently have empirical efforts been undertaken to examine this relationship (cf. Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003, 2007). Prior research has established links between differences in attachment and differences in memory using cued recall tasks for long-term memories (e.g., Edelstein et al., 2005; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995), recall memory tasks for attachment-relevant and emotional information (e.g., Belsky, Spritz, & Crnic, 1996; Edelstein, 2006; Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Garner, & Shaver, 2000), and tasks involving the recall of recent experiences (Feeney & Cassidy, 2003; Gentzler & Kerns, 2006; Kirsh & Cassidy, 1997; Pereg & Mikulincer, 2004; Pietromonaco & Barrett, 1997). Few previous studies, however, has examined the relationship between individual differences in attachment and the free recall of autobiographical memories. This is unfortunate since prior research focusing on other areas of personality (e.g., Mayo, 1983, 1989; MacLeod, Anderson, & Davies, 1994; Rusting, 1998; Seidelitz & Diener, 1993) suggests that the recall of autobiographical memories tends to be congruent with personality variables associated with emotional regulation. The present study addresses this conceptual gap in the literature by examining how individual differences in attachment relate to adults’ free recall of autobiographical memories from childhood. Specifically, the present study examines how attachment relates to the affective quality and intensity of autobiographical memories of childhood, and the frequency with which these memories involve caregivers. Of the studies that have looked at the relationship between memories and attachment, none, according to our search, have looked at freely recalled childhood memories. This is conceptually important because this method allows us to investigate what childhood memories come to mind in a more spontaneous, unimpeded fashion. Before presenting the methods and results of the present study, we first provide a brief introduction to attachment theory. Then, to place the present study in context, we provide a brief review of the previous research focusing on the relationships between attachment, information processing, and memory.

ATTACHMENT AND EARLY MEMORIES

29

Attachment Theory Attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1973, 1982/1969, 1988; Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007) focuses on how differences in relationships with caregivers influence interpersonal functioning and the management of distress throughout the life span. Through multiple interactions with caregivers during early childhood, children develop internal representations of attachment relationships (referred to as internal working models [IWMs]) that contain expectations and strategies for managing interpersonal relationships, exploratory behavior, and regulating distress. Because IWMs are formed from actual child-caregiver interactions, individual differences in attachment correspond to differences in the quality of child-caregiver relationships (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Historically, differences in attachment have been described using discrete categories (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main, Kaplan, & George, 1985; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Recent evidence, however, suggests that differences in attachment can be better represented by two dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley & Waller, 1998). The dimension of attachment anxiety taps the degree that the person concerns him or herself with the possible unavailability of the relationship partner in times of need. Attachment avoidance taps the degree to which a person is unable to trust his or her relationship partner’s benevolence and therefore strives for more independence and emotional detachment (Schachner, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). The differences in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance observed in later childhood and adulthood are expected to result, in large part, from differences in IWMs developed in early childhood. IWMs serve as the bridge linking early attachment experiences with subsequent attachment behaviors in later childhood and adulthood (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). Though Bowlby (1973) held that these models could change via later experiences, he also noted that they do not change easily. The relative inflexibility of IWMs is due, in part, to their influence on how new information is processed. Several authors have likened IWMs to Piaget’s (Baldwin, 1992; Fivush, 2006) notion of a schema. Both constructs are expected to filter and organize how new information is processed and interpreted, and a number of studies have demonstrated that new information is perceived and elaborated in a manner that is consistent with individuals’ IWMs (Peck, 2003). In addition to influencing how new information is processed, IWMs can influence how past experiences are reconstructed and recalled.

Attachment, Affect Regulation, Attention, and Memory Discrepancies in how individuals allocate attentional resources, encode new information, and recall past experiences have been shown to reflect differences in how individuals regulate needs associated with attachment. Individuals low in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance are able to balance their needs for closeness with others, needs to explore the environment, and needs to regulate their emotions. Their use of information processing strategies is flexible across situations allowing them to balance these goals. They are capable of suppressing distress when there is no one to turn to and capable of expressing distress when a supportive other is nearby (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). As such, they can adjust their use of emotional regulation strategies to fit the demands of a situation.

30


Individual high in attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, or both tend to utilize more rigid approaches to managing the aforementioned needs. Therefore, they have more difficulty with these needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). Individuals high in attachment anxiety are preoccupied with needs for closeness and constantly seek to maintain closeness with attachment figures. They utilize hyper-activation information processing strategies that involve a strong bias toward stimuli that are emotionally distressing and highly related to attachment. This, in effect, keeps the attachment system active and thus their attachment needs are never far from their minds. By contrast, individuals high in attachment avoidance seek to minimize their needs for closeness and strive for high levels of independence. They utilize deactivation information processing strategies that involve a strong bias toward turning attention away from emotional stimuli and related stimuli pertaining to attachment. In short, they attempt to keep the attachment system turned off and strive to keep their attachment needs far from their minds. Given the recent emphasis on examining how attachment relates to information processing, a number of investigators have examined the links between attachment and memory. Much of this research has suggested that individuals recall past experiences in a manner that reflects their management of attachment needs. Individuals low in attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, the secure prototype, are flexible in how they recall information and often recall information in highly pragmatic ways. For example, adolescents with a secure attachment style recalled conflicted interactions with a parent 6 months later in more positive and less negative terms than they initially rated the interaction. Further, when recalling past experiences, individuals low in attachment anxiety and avoidance show access to both positive and negative experiences (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). In contrast, insecure individuals, those high in attachment anxiety and/or attachment avoidance, appear to be more biased in the way past experiences are recalled. Prior research suggests that memory biases may be most pronounced in individuals high in attachment avoidance (Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Individuals high in attachment avoidance have shown recall biases that reflect the use of information processing strategies designed to deactivate the attachment system. Attachment avoidance has been associated with differences in how information is encoded at the time of the to-be-recalled event and differences in how encoded information is subsequently retrieved and recalled. Individuals high in attachment avoidance tend to utilize information processing strategies designed to turn attention away from attachment related stimuli at the time of the to-be-recalled event. This failure to encode it initially results in the information being unavailable for recall at a later time due (Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Fraley et al., 2000). For example, individuals high in attachment avoidance showed difficulty recalling stories about interpersonal loss (Fraley et al., 2000). Similarly, Edelstein (2006) recently demonstrated that individuals high in attachment avoidance evidence greater deficits on an immediate recall task designed to tap material of attachment-related themes, but not for material unrelated to attachment. This finding again suggests that these individuals’ difficulty in recalling attachment information over time may be because of preemptive processes in which the to-be-recalled information is not attended to or processed in a manner that facilitates encoding. Even when information is encoded, the use of deactivating information processing strategies at the time of recall can constrain how these experiences are recalled and reported. For example, Mikulincer and Orbach (1995)


31

found that individuals high in attachment avoidance were able to recall childhood memories of sadness and anxiety (demonstrating that they indeed had encoded them), but required longer retrieval times to access these memories as compared to individuals low in attachment avoidance. The same study showed that the affective quality of the childhood memories produced by individuals high in attachment avoidance contained low levels of emotional intensity (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995). Similarly, Edelstein et al., (2005) found that attachment avoidance was related to how adults who had been sexually abused in childhood recalled these experiences. In this study, individuals high in attachment avoidance showed the most difficulty in recalling these experiences, particularly when the to-be-recalled incidence of abuse was severe. Edelstein et al. (2005) note that these findings may suggest that, in addition to having difficulty recalling attachment-related events, individuals high in attachment avoidance may have particular difficulty recalling past experiences that are very high in emotional intensity. Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that adults high in attachment avoidance are likely to have more difficulty recalling childhood experiences associated with attachment and are likely to report childhood experiences in more emotionally bland terms. Further, such difficulties may be related to both biases in how information is encoded, as well as how it is retrieved and recalled. Research examining the relationship between attachment anxiety and memory has produced mixed results. Research has supported the hypothesis that these individuals’ recall of past experiences reflects the use of hyperactivation information processing strategies (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995), For example, Kirsh and Cassidy (1997) found that young children with an ambivalent attachment style, a style characterized by high levels of attachment anxiety, showed strong recall for stories involving responsive caregiving as compared to children with an avoidant attachment style (characterized by high levels of attachment avoidance). Similarly, a study of young adults found that individuals high in attachment avoidance recalled recent experiences (experiences they rated 8 –10 days before recall) in more negative terms than individuals low in attachment anxiety (Gentzler & Kerns, 2006). Although the above studies have done much to delineate the role of attachment in recalling memories, they have tended to rely on recall tasks that either involved the recall of recently learned information or utilized a recall task in which a specific prompt was given instructing the respondent to recall a specific type of experience. Few prior studies have examined if biases in the report of previous experiences are related to spontaneously generated autobiographical memories. This methodological difference allows the present study to address different theoretical concepts such as how attachment influences the conceptualization and affective intensity of remembering spontaneous childhood memories. Because memories used in this study are only impeded by the prompt of remembering “childhood memories” we are better able to assess how freely recalled, more naturally occurring childhood memories are influenced by attachment.

Present Study Because the recall of autobiographical memories is, in part, a reconstruction that is influenced by current information processing goals, one would expect that individuals’ recall and rating of autobiographical childhood memories would be influenced by an

32


individual’s attachment status at the time of recall. The present study seeks to investigate this hypothesis by having adults complete a free-recall task about childhood and assessing their attachment status. It is expected that attachment anxiety [H1] will be positively associated to the number of memories involving caregivers and [H2] the number of memories rated negatively. It is expected that attachment avoidance [H3] will be positively associated with the number of negatively rated memories involving caretakers and [H4] negatively associated to average intensity ratings for memories involving caregivers.

Method Participants Seventy-nine (19 men and 60 women) undergraduate (57) and masters (22) students at a large northeastern university participated in this study. Their mean age was 22.6 years (SD ⫽ 5.64) ranging from 18 to 48 years old. The participants voluntarily participated and received extra credit in their psychology course for their participation. The undergraduate students were from introduction to psychology classes. The masters students that took part in the study were from the masters in general psychology program at the same university as the undergraduate students. Although we did not explicitly collect the ethnicity of the participants almost all were White.

Materials and Procedure The participants were told that they would be participating in a study about cognitive abilities and were asked to sign an informed consent form. All participants completed the study on an individual basis. After reviewing and signing the consent form, participants were given the early memories task. They then completed a math distracter task and finally completed a self-report measure of adult attachment. Participants were offered class credit for their participation in the study.

Early Memories Task Participants were given a blank sheet of paper with the following instruction at the top of the sheet: Please think back to your childhood, up until about age 14. Describe briefly any experiences, situations or events that come to mind. A sentence or a phrase is all we are asking for. Please do not spend too much time writing about any one experience. If what you remember is personal or embarrassing, just describe it briefly and in general terms. After you have reported an experience, let your mind wander back to childhood until another comes to mind. Continue in this manner until I ask you to stop. Remember that everything you say is confidential. The instructions were read to the participants by the examiner before beginning the study. Participants were then given 4.5 min to write down as many memories as they could. We picked 4.5 min because it was used in past research utilizing a similar memory task (Weinberger, Kelner, & McClelland, 1997).

Memory Rating Procedure After the time had elapsed, participants were asked to go through the memories one at a time and put a plus sign (⫹) next to the memories that were positive and a minus sign (⫺) next to the ones that were negative. They were then instructed to go over the


33

memories once more and rate each memory’s intensity on a scale of 1 to 7. Specifically we stated “rate the memories on a scale from ⫹7 to ⫺7 where ⫹7 would be the best thing that has ever happened to you and ⫺7 would be the worst things that has ever happened to you. A ⫹1 would just be okay and a ⫺1 would just be not okay” (Weinberger, Kelner, & McClelland, 1997). It should be noted that participants were instructed to rate intensity according to the amount of affect the memory contained not the vividness of the memory. After completing the affect ratings, participants were asked to code each memory for the presence of caregivers. Participants were first asked to identify memories in which they were either physically alone or felt psychologically alone (e.g., riding on a train surrounded by people they did not know). Then they were asked a series of three questions in an effort to identify who the participants’ primary caregiver was when they were young. The three questions were as follows: When you were very little (like say age 2–5), who was most responsible for taking care of you? (e.g., spent the most time watching you, was most responsible for bringing you up). When you were very little (like say age 2–5), if you fell down and got hurt and could run to anyone in the entire world who would you run to? When you were very little (like say age 2–5), who did you trust the most in the entire world? The person that the participant identified in at least two of the three questions was coded as the primary caretaker or PC. If the participant identified three different people and one was the mother, then the mother was coded as the PC because research has overwhelmingly shown that the mother is most often the PC (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). It should be noted, however, that this was never a factor because no participants identified three different people in response to these questions. Participants then identified whether their mother or father was present in each memory. An example of five randomly selected memories is presented in Appendix A. These ratings allowed us to score memories so that the hypotheses could be examined. We calculated the total number of memories, total number of positive memories, total number of negative memories, and an average intensity rating for the participant’s memories (the mean score for the participants memory ratings accounting for sign). We did the same for memories coded alone, as well as memories involving a caretaker (i.e., mother, father, and/or PC if other than mother or father).

Math Distracter Task This task was made up of simple one and two-step arithmetic problems. The participants were told at the beginning of the task that they would be timed. This task served the purpose of a filler task to separate the early memories task from the attachment questionnaire and distract the participants from the purpose of the study. The examiner made the participants aware they had 5 min to complete as many math problems as possible.

Attachment Questionnaire The participants were given the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998). This is a 36-item self-report that measures a participant’s attachment by rating them on two dimensions, attachment-related avoidance and attachment-related anxiety. The participants were asked to rate the extent to which each item was indicative of their feelings in close relationships on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Eighteen items tap into attachment anxiety (e.g., “I worry about being abandoned,” “I worry a lot about my relationships”); the other 18 items tap into the participant’s attachment avoidance (e.g., I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep

34


down,” “I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close”). Previous research (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998) has found the two dimensions of the ECR to have excellent internal consistency and is widely used in adult attachment research. In the present sample, the internal consistency for both the avoidance scale and the anxiety scales were in the excellent range (Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .93 and .95, respectively).

Results To analyze the ratings of the participants’ memories, we first calculated, for each participant, the total number of memories and the total number of positive and negative memories. Average intensity ratings were (i.e., the average memory scores) also calculated. We further grouped the memories into memories in which a caretaker (i.e., PC, mother, or father) was present and those in which they felt alone and totaled the above calculations for those memories as well. Initially we performed independent t tests between gender and our outcome variables and found no significant differences. Because our sample had far more women than men, we investigated gender further in our analyses. To test our hypotheses, we ran simultaneous regressions to control for the overlap of variance between the two attachment dimensions (r ⫽ .12, p ⫽ .29). We entered gender in the first block as past research (Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998) has shown gender differences with regard to attachment. Next, we entered the attachment dimensions separately (avoidance and anxiety) in the second block and the interaction between the two attachment dimensions (calculated by taking the product of the z-scores of the two attachment dimensions) and the interaction between gender and the centered scores of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance in the third block. It should be noted that neither gender nor our interactions reached significance in any of our regressions. Means and standard deviations are reported on Table 1. The results of the t tests for gender are reported on Table 2.

Table 1 Means and SDs for the Attachment Dimensions and Memory Scores Attachment-related avoidance Attachment-related anxiety Total no. of memories Total no. of positive memories Total no. of negative memories Mean score of all memories Total no. alone memories Total no. of positive alone memories Total no. of negative alone memories Mean score for alone memories Total memories with caretakers No. of positive memories with caretakers No. of negative memories with caretakers Mean score for memories with caretakers

Means

SDs

2.64 3.46 11.42 8.04 3.37 2.30 2.46 1.00 1.46 ⫺1.43 6.49 4.55 1.95 2.04

1.01 1.26 5.87 5.10 2.71 2.68 1.55 1.41 1.15 3.53 3.65 3.12 1.87 2.80


35

Table 2 Gender Differences In Memory Ratings Women

Gender differences

Men

Memory

M

SD

M

SD

t

p

Rating Total memories with caretakers Total no. of negative alone memories No. of negative memories with caretakers Mean score for memories with caretakers Mean score of all memories

6.71 3.58 2.03 1.86 2.24

3.83 2.85 1.90 2.87 2.87

5.84 2.68 1.68 2.57 2.48

3.04 2.14 1.80 2.55 1.99

0.90 1.27 0.71 0.96 0.34

.25 .18 .73 .71 .28

Our first hypothesis was that attachment anxiety would be positively associated with the number of memories involving a caregiver. Our results reveal that attachment anxiety was not significantly associated with the number of memories involving a caregiver [H1], ␤ ⫽ 0.06, t(73) ⫽ 0.53, ns. Next, we looked at our second hypothesis. Attachment anxiety was positively associated with the number of negative memories remembered by participants [H2], ␤ ⫽ 0.23, t(75) ⫽ 2.05, p ⫽ .04. Following this, we looked at whether attachment avoidance was positively associated with the number of negatively rated memories involving a caregiver. We found that attachment avoidance was positively associated with the number of negatively rated memories involving caregivers [H3], ␤ ⫽ 0.39, t(73) ⫽ 3.66, p ⬍ .001. Incidentally, we looked closer and also found that there was a positive association with attachment avoidance and the ratio of negative to total number of memories involving caregivers, ␤ ⫽ 0.31, t(73) ⫽ 2.70, p ⬍ .01. The results also showed that attachment avoidance was negatively associated with the average intensity rating for memories involving caregivers [H4], ␤ ⫽ ⫺0.35, t(73) ⫽ ⫺3.29, p ⫽ .002. We also performed some secondary, exploratory analyses and found some interesting results and a trend that were not formally hypothesized. Results revealed that attachment avoidance was positively associated with the number of negatively rated memories, ␤ ⫽ 0.22, t(75) ⫽ 2.00, p ⫽ .05. This was also the only regression in which gender trended toward significance, ␤ ⫽ 0.19, t(75) ⫽ 1.77, p ⫽ .08. Attachment avoidance was also significantly positively associated with the total number of memories involving caregivers, ␤ ⫽ 0.26, t(73) ⫽ 2.26, p ⫽ .03. We also discovered that attachment anxiety was negatively associated with the average intensity rating for all memories, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.22, t(75) ⫽ ⫺1.97, p ⫽ .05.

Discussion Much of the research on attachment has looked at how this system affects the people’s interpersonal world, specifically how they react to others and to external threats and stimuli. For the most part, this part of the system can be observed through examining individuals’ behavior in interpersonal situations, as was done with children (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978) and adults (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Previous research has led to a clearer understanding of how the attachment system influences internal emotional and cognitive processes. The present study builds on previous attachment research and suggests support for the hypothesized strategies of hyperactivation and

36


deactivation which are thought to be at work in people who are insecurely attached. The results of this study show some limited support that high scores on attachment anxiety is characterized by a hypervigilant focus on attachment figures, a flooding of negative emotions and thoughts, and a failure to detach from psychological pain (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Our study suggests that individuals high in attachment anxiety may have a propensity to focus on memories that contain negative affect. Our results showed attachment anxiety was positively associated with the total number of negative memories reported. Previous studies have found that attachment anxiety is related to difficulty suppressing painful thoughts about separation and about the self (Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004). Our results extend previous research showing that those high in attachment anxiety tend to report more negative memories even when they are not prompted specifically to recall negative memories. This suggests that negative memories may be more salient and available to conscious awareness for individuals high in attachment anxiety. Because these individuals are readily able to remember past negative memories, future research should investigate whether they more readily encode negative experiences as well. Our hypothesis that attachment anxiety would be positively associated to the number of memories involving caregivers was, surprisingly, not supported by our data. We expected that because individuals high on attachment anxiety are hypervigilant to separation/abandonment and focused on attachment concerns they would more readily remember memories involving caregivers were present. This was not the case. Perhaps one reason could be that these individuals experience their caregivers as inconsistent, unreliable and unpredictable and would not report memories including caregivers with any consistency. Attachment avoidance was positively related to the number of negative memories reported in which a caretaker was present. Simply put, people who are high on attachment avoidance recalled more negative memories in which these people are present. Our results support Levy, Blatt, and Shaver’s (1998) findings that individual high in attachment avoidance have more negative representations of caregivers (i.e., primary caregiver, mother, or father), as evidenced by a greater report of negative memories involving caregivers. Consistent with past research (Edelstein, 2006; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995), we also found that there was a negative association between attachment avoidance and the average intensity rating of memories involving caregivers. We would expect these individuals to rate these memories as less intense on average because, as a function of high attachment avoidance, they are focused on keeping the attachment system deactivated. Surprisingly, the results revealed a positive association between attachment avoidance and the total number of negative memories recalled. We initially expected the reverse because deactivation of the attachment system should result in the prevention of flooding of negative memories in an effort to keep the attachment system from activating. This was not the case in our study. We speculate that perhaps this is because the sample has a high proportion of fearfully attached rather than dismissively attached individuals. There are two reasons for this assumption. First, Levy, Blatt, and Shaver (1998) state that fearfully attached individuals are disproportionally women and our sample contains a disproportional amount of women. Past research (Bartholomew, 1990; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998) shows that fearfully attached individuals do not use the deactivating strategy utilized by more dismissively attached individuals. Fearfully attached individuals are similar to fearfully attached individuals in that they both focus on avoiding close relationships. The difference lies in the fact


37

that fearfully attached individuals, as opposed to the dismissively attached, experience more ambivalence with regard to close relationships and are susceptible to depression stemming from disappointing interpersonal interactions as evidenced by their high level of attachment anxiety (Bartholomew, 1990). Because our sample only has 19 men, the present sample may not have sufficient power to detect between-groups gender differences. In addition, because the ECR is better suited as a dimensional measure of attachment and not well suited to assess attachment categorically, we were not able to accurately assess the number of dismissive versus fearful avoidant participants in our sample. Furthermore, the attachment self-report questionnaire we used, the ECR, is not able to assess the secure end of each attachment dimension with the same level of fidelity as the insecure end (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Therefore, it is possible that the ECR is less able to capture pure dismissive attachment behavior (i.e., low on attachment anxiety and high on attachment avoidance) than fearful attachment behavior (i.e., high on both dimensions of attachment). Perhaps the avoidant behavior the ECR is tapping is more fearful than dismissive in nature. If this is true than our results would make sense given the differences between the two kinds of avoidant attachment stated previously. Another potential limitation is that we asked the participants to rate their own memories. As researchers who utilize the Adult Attachment Interview can attest, dismissive people sometimes describe what most would feel is a horrible memory in very benign terms. It would be interesting to see how different an outside rater’s ratings would be of the memories but doing so also complicates the findings. The present study looked at how people rate their childhood memories. Future research could look at the differences between the participant and an outside rater in ratings of childhood memories. There are some limitations that future research should address. A main limitation of the present study is the fact that the population utilized in the study had a disproportionate ratio of women to men. Because our sample is more representative of White female college students from a northeastern university, the findings may not generalize well to the population at large. It would be important to replicate this study with a more diverse sample in regards to age, ethnicity and gender. Our study may have produced more results had the sample size been larger and we failed to perform an a priori power analyses. There is some evidence for this in the fact a couple results trended toward significance and perhaps with a greater size sample would have been significant findings. In addition, a larger sample would have also allowed for a better analysis of gender differences in the recall of childhood memories because the present samples contain only 19 men. However, our post hoc power analysis revealed the study’s power to be adequate and in the range of .86 to .88. Another limitation is that because the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) is a self-report, there is a possibility that the answers given were influenced by social desirability. Perhaps this research could be replicated using a more implicit measure of attachment such as the Adult Attachment Projective (AAP; George, West, & Pettem, 1999). Another potential complication on the free recall memory task is that the method we utilized to code alone memories did not specifically differentiate memories in which an individual was physically alone from those in which the individual was with others but felt alone (e.g., on a train surrounded by strangers). It is possible that there would be a difference between feeling alone on a train with strangers and being physically alone. Because this study made

38


no attempt to differentiate the two types of alone, future research should try to address and tease this difference out. Despite the limitations described above, this study represents an early attempt at exploring the relationship between attachment and the free recall of autobiographical childhood memories in adults. Our results suggest that individuals high in attachment anxiety may be biased toward reporting and focusing on more negative memories of childhood. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that individuals high in attachment anxiety are prone to focus on their distress (Mikulincer, & Florian, 1998; Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995) and have difficulty suppressing distressing thoughts (Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004). Previous research suggests that individuals high in attachment anxiety behave consistently across situations (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002), whereas individuals high in attachment avoidance tend to evidence deactivating strategies when confronted with attachment-related threats that activate the system (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 1998; Siefert, 2005). On a whole, the results of this show tentative support that individual differences along attachment dimensions are related internal processes, such as the recall of memories, however, the degree and manner in which they do so may differ as a function of context and individual. This is likely to be especially true for individuals high in attachment avoidance. Lastly, the present study illustrates the need to look more closely at what characteristics are related to attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance and what characteristics are more contextual and activation dependent. Future studies would also do well utilizing measures that can better differentially identify the two types of avoidant attachment (i.e., fearful and dismissive) as research (Bartholomew, 1990; Levy, Blatt, & Shaver, 1998) has found differences, among others, in complexity of parental descriptions between the two.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461– 484. Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: It’s just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599 – 605. Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178. Belsky, J., Spritz, B., & Crnic, K. (1996). Infant attachment security and affective- cognitive information processing at age 3. Psychological Science, 7, 111–114. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2 Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1 Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: NY: Basic. 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. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46 –76). New York: Guilford Press. Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In P. R. Shaver & J. Cassidy (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 89 –111). New York: Guilford Press.


39

Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical application. New York, NY: Guilford. Edelstein, R. S. (2006). Attachment and emotional memory: Investigating the source and extent of avoidant memory impairments. Emotion, 6, 340 –345. Edelstein, R. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D., & Cordon, I. M. (2005). Individual differences in emotional Memory: Adult attachment and long-term memory for child sexual abuse. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1537–1548. Feeney, B. C., & Cassidy, J. (2003). Reconstructive memory related to adolescent-parent conflict interactions: The influence of attachment-related representations on immediate perceptions and changes in perceptions over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 945–955. Fivush, R. (2006). Scripting attachment: Generalized event representations and internal working models. Attachment and Human Development, 8, 283–289. Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (p. 249 –279). New York, NY: Guilford. Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the defensive regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1–11. 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, 1198 –1212. Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York: Guilford Press. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350 –365. Gentzler, A. L., & Kerns, K. A. (2006). Adult attachment and memory of emotional reactions to negative and positive events. Cognition and Emotion, 20, 20 – 42. George, C., West, M., & Pettem, O. (1999). The Adult Attachment Projective: Disorganization of Adult Attachment at the Level of Representation. In Solomon, J., & George, C. (Eds.), Attachment disorganization (pp. 762–507). New York: Guilford Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. Higgins, E. T., King, G. A., & Mavin, G. H. (1982). Individual constructs accessibility and subjective impressions and recall. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 35– 47. Kensinger, E. A., Garoff-Eaton, R. J., & Schacter, D. L. (2007). Effects of emotion on memory specificity: Memory trade-offs elicited by negative visually arousing stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 575–591. King, G. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and the relation between individual accessible constructs and person memory. Social Cognition, 6, 128 –149. Kirsh, S. J., & Cassidy, J. (1997). Preschoolers’ attention to and memory for attachment- relevant information. Child Development, 68, 1143–1153. Levy, K. N., Blatt, S. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and parental representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 407– 419. MacLeod, A. K., Andersen, A., & Davies, A. (1994). Self-ratings of positive and negative affect and retrieval of positive and negative affect memories. Cognition and Emotion, 8, 483– 488. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985) Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2), 66 –104. Mayo, P. R. (1983). Personality traits and the retrieval of positive and negative memories. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 465– 471.

40


Mayo, P. R. (1989). A further study of the personality-congruent recall effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 247–252. Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940 –956. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 143–165). New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881– 895. Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, L. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness: The accessibility and architecture of affective memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 917–925. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experiemental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic Press. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: The Guilford Press. Peck, S. D. (2003). Measuring sensitivity moment-by-moment: A microanalytic look at the transmission of attachment. Attachment and Human Development, 5, 38 – 63. Pereg, D., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Attachment style and the regulation of negative affect: Exploring individual differences in mood congruency effects on memory and judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 67– 80. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1403–1423. Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165–196. Schachner, D. A., Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Patterns of nonverbal behavior and sensitivity in the context of attachment relationships. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 141–169. Schacter, D. L., Gallo, D. A., & Kensinger, E. A. (2007). The cognitive neuroscience of implicit and false memories: Perspectives on processing specificity. In James S. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger, III (pp. 353–377). New York: Psychology Press. Schacter, D. L., & Wiseman, A. L. (2006). Reducing memory errors: The distinctiveness heuristic. In James B. Worthen & Reed R. Hunt (Eds.), Distinctiveness and memory (pp. 89 –107). New York: Oxford University Press. Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1990). Towards reconciling personality and social psychology: A construct accessibility approach. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 531–546. Seidlitz, L., & Diener, E. (1993). Memory for positive versus negative life events: Theories for the differences between happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 654 – 663. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). What do self-report attachment measures assess? In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 17–54). New York: Guilford Press. Weinberger, J., Kelner, S., & McClelland, D. (1997). The effects of subliminal symbiotic stimulation on free-response and self-report mood. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 599 – 605.


41

Appendix A: Sample Memories and Their Respective Ratings “My sister was born when I was four. I remember running down the stairs when they brought her home.” (Rating: ⫹7) “I remember at the age of 14, my mother and father bringing me to dance. They were always there for me. They would come to my recitals. (Rating: ⫹4) “My parents separating when I was 13.” (Rating: ⫺5) “I got stitches in my chin for falling off my Bike.” (Rating: ⫺2) “My mom trying to commit suicide.” (Rating: ⫺6)