Love and Work An Attachment-Theoretical
Perspective
Author: Hazan, Cindy; Shaver, Phillip R. Source:
Tolstoy, in a letter to
Valerya Aresenyev,
We ask this question in the
context of a program of research on love (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987; Shaver
& Hazan, 1987, 1988;
Shaver,
Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988), which we have studied from the perspective of
attachment theory (Bowlby,
1969, 1973,
1980,
1988).
As we have argued elsewhere (e.g., Shaver
& Hazan, 1988), attachment theory has several advantages over other
contemporary approaches to love. Of particular interest here is the fact that
attachment theory is not limited to love. It explains where and how love fits
into the broader context of human functioning.
Just as studies of love
generally ignore its relation to work, studies of work tend to ignore its
relation to love. Research on work has focused primarily on aspects of the work
environment that influence job satisfaction (e.g., Fiedler,
1967; Kohn
& Schooler, 1973; Levinson,
1969; Parker,
1983), for the most part ignoring possible links between satisfaction with
work and satisfaction with relationships (see Piotrkowski,
1978, for an exception). Work lives and love lives have been treated
largely as nonoverlapping, a perspective Kanter
(1977) called the "myth of separate worlds."
In the present article, we
suggest that attachment theory can accommodate both love and work in a natural
way. We argue that work is functionally similar to what Bowlby calls
"exploration," that adult attachment supports work activity just as
infant attachment supports exploration, and that the balance between attachment
and exploration associated with healthy functioning early in life is, in
important respects, similar to the love/work balance that marks healthy
functioning in adulthood. By extending our research on adult attachment to
include exploration, we hope to elucidate the role of love in adult life, to
explain some of the links between love and work, and to further demonstrate the
explanatory and integrative power of attachment theory.
Attachment and Exploration
According to Bowlby,
attachment and exploration are linked as follows: To learn about and become
competent at interacting with the physical and social environment, one must
explore. But exploration can be tiring and even dangerous, so it is desirable
to have a protector nearby, a haven of safety to which one can retreat.
According to attachment theory, the tendency to form an attachment to a
protector and the tendency to explore the environment are innate tendencies
regulated by interlocking behavioral systems. The exploration system can
function optimally only when the attachment system is relatively quiescent,
namely, when an attachment figure feels sufficiently available and responsive
(a state that Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978, refer to as having a "secure
base" and that Sroufe
& Waters, 1977, call "felt security"). In other words,
attachment needs are primary; they must be met before exploration can proceed
normally.
The theorized link between
attachment and exploration was initially tested by Ainsworth
et al. (1978), who identified three patterns of infant attachment: secure,
avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent. Secure infants match Bowlby's conception of
nature's prototype in terms of both secure attachment to a caregiver and
ability to use the caregiver as a secure base for exploration. Secure infants
in Ainsworth et al.'s studies had mothers who were consistently sensitive and
responsive to their signals and so could confidently explore their environment.
(See Main,
1983, for further details concerning the secure toddler's exploratory
behavior.)
The typical mother of an
anxious/ambivalent infant exhibited inconsistency in responding to her infant's
signals, being sometimes unavailable or unresponsive and at other times
intrusive. In the Ainsworth Strange Situation, these infants were preoccupied
with their mother's availability, and this preoccupation precluded exploration.
Mothers of avoidant infants
appeared rejecting and tended to rebuff or deflect their infants' bids for
proximity, especially for close bodily contact. In the laboratory setting,
these infants did not seek contact with their mothers at times when the
attachment system would ordinarily be intensely activated. Instead, they kept
their attention directed toward toys, apparently to suppress attachment
behavior and avoid seeking contact with mother. According to Ainsworth
et al. (1978), they "turn to the neutral world of things, even though
displacement exploratory behavior is devoid of the true interest that is
inherent in nonanxious exploration" (pp. 319-320).
Love and Work
In our preliminary studies
of romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987), we attempted to identify adult versions of the three
patterns of attachment by translating Ainsworth
et al.'s (1978) descriptions into terms appropriate for adult love. The
proportions of the three types were similar to those obtained in studies of
American infants (summarized by Campos,
Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983) and similar across our own
studies: Just over half of the subjects endorsed the secure attachment type;
the rest split fairly evenly between the two insecure categories, always with
slightly more in the avoidant group. Similar proportions have been obtained in
studies by independent researchers using our measures in the United States,
Israel, and Australia (e.g., Feeney
& Noller, 1990; Levy
& Davis, 1988; Mikulincer,
Florian, & Tolmacz, 1990).
In general, our studies
have supported an attachment-theoretical approach to the study of adult love.
Attachment types relate in the manner predicted by theory to the way love is
experienced, to expectations (or internal working models) concerning love
relationships, and to memories of childhood relationships with parents. (For
details, see Hazan
& Shaver, 1987.)
Adult work activity can be
viewed as functionally parallel to what Bowlby calls exploration: For adults,
work (like early childhood play and exploration) is a major source of actual
and perceived competence. Adults' tendencies to seek and maintain proximity to
an attachment figure and to move away from that figure in order to interact
with and master the environment are expressed, among other ways, in romantic
love relationships and in productive work. We are not claiming that all or even
most jobs are well suited for maintaining interest and competence, but at this
point in human evolution and cultural organization, work necessarily provides
one of the major opportunities for exploration and mastery. Moreover, although today's
jobs may be far from ideal, they do offer important gratifications for adults,
as evidenced by the high proportion of people holding both low- and
high-prestige jobs who say they derive satisfaction and a sense of
accomplishment from their work (Robinson,
1984).
Hypotheses
Just as attachments can be
more or less healthy or secure, so can forms of work. In the same way that Ainsworth
et al.'s (1978) avoidant infants appeared to explore to avoid seeking
contact with their mothers, adults can approach their work compulsively or use
it as a distraction from relational deficiencies. For someone with
anxious/ambivalent proclivities, work can be viewed as an opportunity to
satisfy attachment needs, a sideline that may interfere with job performance.
On the basis of the documented attachment/exploration links in infancy and
early childhood and of attachment theory's predictions concerning the dynamics
of these two behavioral systems, a number of hypotheses can be derived,
concerning the likely relations between attachment and exploration in
adulthood.
Hypothesis 1
Securely attached subjects
will report a secure orientation to work. This orientation will include high
(relative to those of insecurely attached subjects) ratings of work success and
satisfaction, fewer work-related fears and worries concerning performance and
evaluation by co-workers, and work habits that do not jeopardize health or
relationships. Secure explorers, at any age, should be able to reap the most
rewards from exploratory activity because they are not distracted by concerns
over unmet attachment needs and do not explore primarily for the sake of
pleasing or avoiding others.
Hypothesis 2
Anxious/ambivalently
attached youngsters are typically too concerned with maintaining proximity to
their caregivers to explore effectively. As these children develop, they may
learn to use exploration as a means for achievement designed to attract the
caregiver's attention and approval. Exploration then becomes a means of
satisfying unmet attachment needs. Moreover, exploring merely as a means to win
others' praise leaves a person vulnerable to feeling underappreciated.
We predict, therefore, that
anxious/ambivalent attachment will be associated with an orientation to work
that includes a preference for working with others rather than alone, a
tendency to become overobligated as a way of pleasing others combined with
feeling that one's own contribution is underappreciated, daydreaming about
success and praise, and fearing failure and loss of esteem. Beyond affecting
these social aspects of work, preoccupation with attachment concerns should be distracting
and associated with inability to finish work projects, difficulty meeting
deadlines, and poorer work performance.
Hypothesis 3
Like the avoidant infant,
the avoidant adult will use exploration primarily as a means of keeping busy,
avoiding uncomfortable interactions with others, and avoiding anxiety
associated with unmet attachment needs. Because avoidant exploration is
believed to reduce anxiety, avoidant people should be reluctant to stop
working, to finish projects, or to take vacations (all nonsocial manifestations
of avoidance). Avoidant attachment should be associated with exploratory
behavior characterized by a preference for working alone, using work as an
excuse to avoid socializing, and a compulsive approach to tasks that includes
working during vacations, feeling nervous when not working, and working at the
expense of health and relationships.
In addition to our interest
in possible links between attachment and work, we want to investigate the
effect of attachment on well-being more generally. We expect secure attachment,
in relation to insecure attachment, to be associated with higher levels of
physical and psychological health.
These hypotheses were
tested in two related studies with overlapping subject samples. The first study
examined the relation between attachment type and work orientation, assessed
with measures taken from the research literature on work. This study was
conducted to relate our hypotheses to an already existing body of work-related
measures and findings. The second study was conducted in order to test our
theory-based hypotheses more precisely.
Study 1
Study 1 involved
publication of a love and work questionnaire in the Sunday magazine supplement
of one of Colorado's largest circulation newspapers, the Denver Post. The
overarching goal was to see if attachment type was related to exploration, here
conceptualized as work orientation, in ways predicted by attachment theory.
Method
Subjects.
Analyses reported here are
based on the first 670 of over 1,000 replies received within 1 week following
publication of the questionnaire. (The major findings were stable after the
first few hundred, so additional replies were not keypunched.) Of the 670
replies, 143 were from men, 522 were from women, and 5 were from respondents who
did not report their sex. The subjects ranged in age from 18 to 79, with a
median age of 38 and a mean of 39 years. Average household income was $30,000
to $40,000; average education level was "graduated college."
Ninety-six percent were heterosexual, 3% homosexual, and 1% bisexual.
Forty-nine percent were married at the time of the survey (including those who
were remarried); 27% were single; 25% were divorced or separated; 10% were
"living with a lover", and 3% were widowed. (Some respondents checked
more than one category.)
Measures and procedure.
The survey questionnaire,
mentioned on the front page of the magazine, was titled "Loving/Working:
Are they related? Tell psychologists your insights."
The measure of attachment
type, described more fully by Hazan
and Shaver (1987), offered respondents three answer alternatives, of which
they were to choose the one that best described their feelings: (a) "I am
somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them
completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when
anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate
than I feel comfortable being" (the avoidant type). (b) "I find that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my
partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to get
very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people away" (the
anxious/ambivalent type). (c) "I find it relatively easy to get close to
others and am comfortable depending on them. I don't often worry about being
abandoned or about someone getting too close to me" (the secure type). The
attachment-type measure appeared after a measure of "most important love
experiences" described by Hazan
and Shaver (1987). This placement was designed to make love experiences
salient before assessing attachment type.
Next came 21 items adapted
from the existing literature on job satisfaction (e.g., Baruch
et al., 1983; Crosby,
1984; Levinson,
1969; Parker,
1983; Smith,
Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), covering such issues as job security,
satisfaction with salary and co-workers, and opportunities for challenge.
Subjects were asked to indicate, by circling 1, 2, 3, or 4 (indicating a range
of responses from not at all to extremely) the extent to which
they felt satisfied (or dissatisfied, in the case of 10 of the items) with
each. This part of the questionnaire was followed by 8 individual questions
concerning overall job satisfaction (response alternatives ranged from extremely
satisfied to extremely dissatisfied); subject's perception of own
work performance (excellent to not very good); judgment of
co-workers' perception of subject's work performance (excellent to not
very good); experience of romantic "crushes" on co-workers (no,
never to yes, it happens often); experience of romantic affair(s)
with co-workers (no, never to yes, it happens often); the degree
to which relationship concerns interfere with work performance (not at all
to extremely); the degree to which work concerns interfere with
relationships (not at all to extremely); and the degree to which
subject and partner have work-related arguments or disagreements (not at all
to extremely).
For the next six items,
subjects were asked to circle either "my relationship" or "my
work" in relation to the following: which is more important, which usually
brings the most pleasure, which usually brings the most pain, which has the
greatest effect on overall life satisfaction, which (if forced to) would the
subject choose, and which is considered to be primary. Next was a 14-item
checklist measure of leisure activities, which was included in case such
activities provided major avenues of exploration for some people. For the first
half, subjects were asked to indicate, by circling items on an activity list
(e.g., socializing, exercising, resting), how they spend their free time. For
the second half, they were asked to say what they get from leisure activities,
again by circling one or more items from a list of seven (e.g., renewed ties
with others, improved health, relief from stress). This was followed by a
22-item symptom checklist used by Rubenstein
and Shaver (1982) in a national study of loneliness.
The final section of the
questionnaire focused entirely on demographic issues, such as age, marital
status, educational background, income, religious affiliation, and occupation.
The survey ended with a request for additional comments (the majority of
respondents attached notes or letters) and an invitation to participate in a
follow-up study, to which 58% responded by providing their name and telephone
number. Subjects were asked to mail their replies to the Denver Post
within 1 week.
Results and Discussion
Attachment type.
Half (50%) of the subjects
classified themselves as secure, 19% as anxious/ambivalent, and 30% as
avoidant. These proportions were similar to those obtained in three previous
studies (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987, Studies 1 and 2; Shaver
& Hazan, 1987) in which the frequency of self-classification as secure
ranged from 51% to 56%; that of anxious/ambivalent ranged from 19% to 21%; and
that of avoidant ranged from 23% to 28%.
Sex differences.
There were few sex
differences. Men more often than women reported having romantic crushes (once
or twice vs. never) on co-workers, t657 = 2.15, p <
.05; men reported having more frequent work-related arguments (often vs.
sometimes) with their partners, t655 = 2.35, p < .05;
and on average, women were less well educated (some college vs. graduated
college, t663 = 2.96, p < .01) and had lower income
($10,000 to $20,000 vs. $20,000 to $30,000, t 652 = 6.95 , p <
.001).
Feelings about work.
Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3
concerned the link between attachment type and work-related feelings and
experiences. We predicted that each attachment type would be associated with a
particular orientation to work which, in turn, would resemble the three
patterns of exploration identified by Ainsworth
et al. (1978). As an initial test of this hypothesized link, subjects were
asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction and dissatisfaction on a number
of items adapted from the research literature on work. 
Table 1
contains the mean item scores (each with a possible range of 1 to 4) for each
attachment type, along with the F ratio from a one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) on scores for each item. (An overall F that was based
on all the items in the table was computed, using a multivariate analysis of
variance procedure, or MANOVA, and proved to be highly significant: F 42,
1218 = 2.05 , p < .001. We report ordinary ANOVAS in the table,
rather than univariate Fs that were based on the MANOVA, so as not to
reduce the Ns because of missing data.)
1
In line with Hypothesis 1,
securely attached respondents reported relatively high levels of work
satisfaction in terms of job security, co-workers, income, and opportunities
for challenge and advancement. In line with Hypothesis 2, anxious/ambivalent
attachment was associated with feelings of job insecurity, lack of appreciation
and recognition by co-workers, and not getting desirable and deserved
promotions. Compatible with Hypothesis 3, avoidantly attached respondents
reported dissatisfaction with co-workers but were similar to secure respondents
in their satisfaction with job security and opportunities for learning.
The differences among the
attachment types in work-related feelings were generally small but in line with
predictions. There is little in the descriptions of the attachment types that
necessitates any particular pattern of responses on the work items, so the
results are unlikely to be due to a mere semantic expansion of the independent
variable. In addition, these work items, unlike the ones to be discussed later
in connection with Study 2, were not derived from attachment theory but were
taken directly from studies of work. The pattern of differences, therefore,
supports the claim that attachment type is related to feelings about work.
We predicted that the
different attachment types would differ in overall job satisfaction and the
balance between love and work. Table 2
contains the mean item scores for each attachment type and the results of a
one-way ANOVA on scores for each item. (A MANOVA including all items in the
table yielded a highly significant overall effect of attachment type: F 28,
1,130 = 3.84 , p < .001.) Secure respondents reported higher overall
work satisfaction, felt that they were good workers, and were confident that
co-workers evaluated them highly. In contrast, anxious/ambivalent respondents
expected co-workers to undervalue them, and avoidant respondents gave
themselves lower ratings on job performance and expected similarly low ratings
from co-workers.
2
In terms of the balance
between love and work, secure attachment was associated with placing a higher
value on, and deriving more pleasure from, relationships than work. Secure
subjects were also most likely to say that if forced, they would choose
relationship success over work success. This fits with the notion that security
is related to valuing and enjoying relationships. Anxious/ambivalent
respondents were most likely to claim that love concerns interfere with work,
perhaps referring to the kind of preoccupation with attachment needs that
inhibits exploration. Attachment theory makes no predictions about the possible
effects of exploration on attachment, and interestingly, the three attachment
types did not differ in rate of reporting that concerns about work interfere
with romantic relationships. Nor did the groups differ in their propensity to
argue with love partners about work. Anxious/ambivalent subjects were also
slightly, although not significantly, more likely to report romantic interest
in co-workers. In addition, this group reported experiencing more pain in
relation to love than to work. Avoidant respondents were most likely to
emphasize the importance of work over love. For example, they were more likely
to say they would choose work success over relationship success, that work has
a greater overall effect on their happiness than do relationships, and that
work success supports relationship success. Similar to avoidant infant
explorers, avoidant adult workers tend to focus on work activity instead of
relationships. In general, these findings lend additional support to the
hypotheses.
Leisure activities.
As stated earlier, not all
jobs are well suited to provide the kind of challenge and stimulation typically
associated with the term exploration, so subjects were also asked about
activities outside of work (resting, socializing, exercising, shopping,
traveling, and hobbies) and about what benefits they derive from leisure
(improved health, relief from stress, renewed social ties, excitement, new
knowledge, and sense of mastery). A MANOVA on the entire set of items proved
significant: F 28, 1290 = 2.54 , p < .001. Although scores on
the majority of the items were not related to attachment type, the few that
were are worth mentioning. Avoidant subjects were least likely to say they
spent their free time socializing (42% vs. 58% and 59% for the
anxious/ambivalent and secure subjects, respectively) and least likely to say
that leisure provided renewed social ties (34% vs. 54% and 57%). Anxious/ambivalent
subjects were most likely to report that their leisure activities provide
excitement (47% vs. 32% and 39% for the avoidant and secure types,
respectively) and to report spending free time shopping (42% vs. 33% and 29%).
(Shopping may be a form of immediate self-gratification; Rubenstein
& Shaver, 1982, found that lonely people shop as one means of coping
with negative feelings.) Avoidant subjects were least likely to report gaining
new knowledge during free time (46% vs. 62% and 59% for anxious/ambivalent and
secure subjects, respectively).
Well-being.
The well-being measure used
here was a symptom checklist previously used by Rubenstein
and Shaver (1982) in a national study of loneliness. A principal-components
analysis followed by equamax rotation was performed on the 22-item measure.
Five factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Items loading above .40 on one
of the factors were analyzed for reliability, and the resulting coefficient
alphas ranged from .52 for the Physical Illness factor to .89 for the
Loneliness and Depression factor. Table 3
contains the results of a one-way ANOVA on the scale means for the three
attachment types. Secure subjects were significantly less likely than insecure
subjects were to report all five categories of symptoms. The results of Study 1
will be discussed more fully in the General Discussion section.
3
Study 2
The purpose of Study 2 was
to pursue the effects of attachment type on work orientation, using items that
were based on attachment theory and designed especially for this purpose.
Method
Subjects.
Fifty-eight percent, or
387, of the 670 replies keypunched for Study 1 included a name and a telephone
number. A supplementary questionnaire, to be described in the next paragraph,
was mailed to the 290 respondents who, in addition, supplied a return address.
They did not differ significantly from the larger sample in the prevalence of
the three attachment types or in terms of sex, age, education, or average
income.
Measures and procedure.
A two-page love and work
questionnaire was distributed by mail. It included one page of items concerning
sexuality and caregiving (designed to pilot test measures for another research
project) in addition to 35 work-related items derived from attachment theory
and research. (These items are described in detail in a later section.)
Responses to the 35 items were indicated by circling SD, D, A, or SA on a strongly
disagree to strongly agree continuum. Subjects were asked to
complete the questionnaire and return it within a week. A stamped, preaddressed
envelope was included. Of the 290 questionnaires distributed, 260 were returned
within a week, another 3 were returned by the post office for having an
insufficient address, and 11 more arrived within a month, for a total return
rate between 90% and 94%. Only the first 260 were keypunched.
It should be noted that
these 260 subjects were not retested with the single-item attachment-type
measure. Thus, the prediction of work items from attachment type extended over
a period of more than 2 months.
Results and Discussion
The supplementary
questionnaire items were designed to further test the predicted relationship
between attachment and work (conceptualized as exploration). A
principal-components analysis followed by equamax rotation was performed on the
35-item measure. Nine factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and appeared to
the left of the elbow in a scree test. Of these nine factors, seven scales
consisting of the items that loaded above .40 on one of the factors were
analyzed for reliability; and items that reduced coefficient alpha were deleted
from the scales. Table 4
contains the names of the seven factor-based scales and sample items, the
number of items retained, coefficient alpha for each, and the results of
one-way ANOVAS on the mean scale scores for the different attachment types.
Some of the shorter scales had relatively low coefficient alphas but proved
sufficiently reliable to reveal an association with attachment type. A MANOVA
on the entire set of scales proved significant, F 14, 456 = 4.32 , p
< .001.
4
The secure orientation to work.
The securely attached
respondents reported a relatively positive approach to work. In line with
Hypothesis 1, they are least likely to put off work, least likely to have
difficulty completing tasks, and least likely to fear failure and rejection
from co-workers. They report enjoying their vacations and not allowing work to
jeopardize their relationships or health.
The anxious/ambivalent orientation to work.
Anxious/ambivalent
respondents exhibited a different pattern of responses on the work items. As
predicted, they preferred to work with others, reported feeling misunderstood
and underappreciated, were motivated by approval, and worried that others would
not be impressed with their work performance or would reject them. As
predicted, anxious/ambivalently attached subjects reported that interpersonal
concerns interfered with productivity.
Not shown in Table 4
is a significant mean difference on the item "I don't like it when others
try to become involved in my work." This item, which was not on any of the
scales because it produced its own factor, was included to see whether
anxious/ambivalent subjects, despite preferring to work with others, might
resent others' intrusions into their work. (Ainsworth
et al., 1978, characterized the mothers of anxious/ambivalent infants as
intrusive.) The means on the feelings-about-intrusiveness item were 2.67 for
secure subjects, 3.05 for avoidant subjects, and 3.20 for anxious/ambivalent
subjects, F 2, 233 = 6.20 , p < .01).
The avoidant orientation to work.
In line with Hypothesis 3,
avoidant respondents were more likely to indicate that they feel nervous when
not working and that work interferes with their relationships and health.
(Although the difference between avoidant and anxious/ambivalent subjects on
the Work Harms Health/Relationships Scale was not quite significant, it was
significant for two of the scale's individual items: "Work interferes with
relationships" and "work leaves no time for friends.") On the
single item "I prefer to work alone," which did not fit with any of
the scales, avoidant subjects obtained the highest score: 3.37, versus 3.09 for
anxious/ambivalent subjects and 2.80 for secure subjects, F 2, 233 =
4.36 , p < .05. Thus, according to avoidant subjects, work leaves
little time for close relationships, and vacations are generally pleasureless.
Discriminant analyses.
A question remains as to
whether the differences are simply unidimensional, namely, simply a matter of
security versus insecurity, rather than reflections of two distinct insecure
patterns. Of 16 individual work items yielding significant differences among
the three attachment groups, only 2 ("work leaves no time for
friends" and "difficulty finishing projects") significantly
distinguish the avoidant group from the anxious/ambivalent group. None of the
multi-item scales in Table 3
distinguish significantly between the two insecure groups, although the two
differ significantly from the secure group in distinctive ways. To address this
issue and summarize differences among the three groups, two hierarchical
discriminant-function analyses were performed to assess predictability of
membership in the three attachment categories from work variables. Subjects
with no missing data on any of the variables involved (N = 224) were
included in the analyses. In the first analysis, both discriminant functions
(two being the maximum possible, number, given three target groups) were
statistically significant, with a combined χ2 24, N = 224 = 78.35, p
< .001. After removal of the first function, χ 2 11, N = 224 =
32.38, p < .001, for the second function. The first function
accounted for 59.5% of the between-groups variability; the second accounted for
a sizable 40.5%, indicating that the differences between groups are not
reducible to a single security-insecurity dimension. As shown in Figure 1,
the first discriminant function separated secure subjects from insecure
subjects. The second function separated avoidant subjects from anxious/ambivalent
subjects. As can be seen in Table 5,
54.7% of the avoidant subjects were classified correctly, as were 55.8% of the
anxious/ambivalent subjects and 64.0% of the secure subjects, for an overall
correct classification percentage of 59.6% (in a three-category system, chance
accuracy is 33.3%).
5
Correlations of the 19
predictor variables with the two discriminant functions are shown in Table 6.
Only correlations of .20 or above are shown. The items that best discriminated
between secure and insecure subjects included (a) work leaves no time for
friends, (b) work interferes with relationships, (c) fears work failure, (d)
work efforts are misunderstood, (e) rejects others' involvement, (f) nervous when
not working, (g) prefers to work alone, and (h) work is useful for avoiding
social events.
6
Because the same items were
used for both the discrimination between secure and insecure types, on the one
hand, and the discrimination between the two insecure types, on the other hand,
we conducted a second analysis to investigate more clearly the best
discriminators between avoidant subjects and anxious/ambivalent subjects. The
discriminant function was significant, χ2 35, N = 113 = 26.56, p
< .001, and correctly classified 76.6% of the avoidant subjects and 63.5% of
the anxious/ambivalents. Correlations of the 13 predictor variables (those with
correlations of .20 or above) with the discriminant function are shown in Table 7.
The items that best discriminated between the avoidant and anxious/ambivalent
types, with positively correlated variables being those named more frequently
by anxious/ambivalent subjects, included (a) difficulty finishing work
projects, (b) work leaves no time for friends, (c) work efforts are misunderstood,
(d) vacations are pleasureless, (e) work efforts are unappreciated, (f) work
interferes with relationships, (g) works better with others, (h) slacks off
after praise, (i) uses work to avoid social events, (j) gets overinvolved in
tasks, (k) hates working alone, (1) prefers to work alone, and (m) day-dreams
about success. All of these findings were in line with theory-based
predictions.
7
Summary and comments.
The results can be
summarized by saying that secure subjects generally do not worry about work
failure or feel unappreciated. In addition, they generally do not allow work to
interfere with friendships or health and do take enjoyable vacations from work.
Anxious/ambivalent subjects, in contrast, worry about their work performance,
prefer to work with others but feel underappreciated and fear rejection for
poor performance. They are also easily distracted, have trouble completing
projects, and tend to slack off after receiving praise. Avoidant subjects
prefer to work alone, use work to avoid having friends or a social life, and do
not take enjoyable vacations from work.
Overall, the results of
Study 2 support an attachment-theoretical approach to the study of love and
work. There are three distinct patterns of feelings regarding work, and they are
functionally similar to the three patterns of exploration seen in infancy and
early childhood. Anxious/ambivalent attachment entails a preoccupation with
attachment issues and an accompanying inability to focus on tasks, except when
performance is perceived as an opportunity to work closely with others or to
gain love and respect. Such distraction and preoccupation may be costly:
Anxious/ambivalent subjects reported the lowest average income of the three
groups-$20,000 to $30,000 compared with $30,000 to $40,000 for both the secure
and avoidant subjects, F2, 644 = 24.83, p < .001. The income
difference is independent of the sex difference in income reported earlier, and
is not due simply to education. Attachment type was related to educational
level; the secure group reported a significantly higher level of education than
did the two insecure groups ("graduated college" vs. "some
college"), F2, 661 = 5.20, p < .01. However, a three-way
(Sex × Education × Attachment Type) ANOVA predicting income revealed no
significant interaction between sex and attachment type, F2, 608 = 1.04,
ns, or between education and attachment type, F 12, 608 = 1.39 , ns
.
The relatively low income
reported by anxious/ambivalent respondents may be interpreted in a number of
ways. One possibility is that anxious/ambivalent people are more likely to hold
low-status jobs. However, only 2 of the 12 occupational categories were
significantly related to attachment type: Teachers were more likely to endorse
the secure attachment type, and technicians-skilled workers were more likely to
describe themselves as anxious/ambivalent. Attachment type was not related to
occupational categories such as artist, housewife, manager, or professional.
Another possibility is that insufficient income causes relationship
dissatisfaction, which is reflected in the endorsement of an insecure
attachment type. However, this interpretation does not explain why avoidant
respondents had an average income equal to that of the secure group. A third
interpretation is that anxious/ambivalent attachment actually interferes with
job performance and productivity, as predicted by attachment theory.
Avoidant attachment is
associated with a compulsive approach to activity that serves as a way of
avoiding other people. This approach to work is costly in terms of overall
well-being, if not in terms of income. In contrast, secure attachment seems to
support the healthiest and most satisfying approach to work: one that results
in success but without the personal and social costs of the other two types.
General Discussion
Three hypotheses concerning
the relation between attachment-love and exploration-work in adulthood were
derived from attachment theory and research. We assessed adult attachment type
by using a single-item measure that asked subjects to choose the one
description among three that best summarized their feelings and behavior in
romantic love relationships. The descriptions were designed by translating into
adult terms the three patterns of attachment observed by Ainsworth
et al. (1978).
In line with Hypothesis 1,
secure respondents approach their work with the confidence associated with
secure attachment. They enjoy work activity and are relatively unburdened by
fears of failure. And, although they value work, they tend to value
relationships more and generally do not allow work to interfere with those
relationships. Securely attached people typically do not use work to satisfy
unmet needs for love, nor do they use work to avoid social interaction.
In support of Hypothesis 2,
anxious/ambivalent respondents reported that love concerns often interfere with
work performance and that they frequently fear rejection for poor performance.
They also reported a tendency to slack off following praise, which may indicate
that their main motivation at work is to gain respect and admiration from
others. Anxious/ambivalent respondents have the lowest average income of the
three groups, even when differences in education are controlled.
Consistent with Hypothesis
3, avoidant respondents use work activity to avoid social interaction. They
said that work interferes with having friends and a social life. Although they
reported an average income equal to that of the secure group, they are less
satisfied with their jobs. Nevertheless, they are least likely to take
enjoyable vacations.
Secure attachment was also
associated with greater overall well-being. In relation to insecure
respondents, secure respondents are less likely to report suffering from
loneliness and depression, anxiety, or irritability or are less likely to
report having had colds or flu.
A number of limitations of
our studies deserve discussion. First, the conceptualization of work as
exploration may be too simple. Although work is probably the major form of
exploratory behavior in adulthood, exploration could be manifested in other
ways-for instance, in one's general approach to novelty and challenge in all
domains of life. In addition, attachment type and orientation to work were
treated more as traits than as products of unique person/situation
interactions. Surely more objective features of the work environment, such as
noise levels, power hierarchies, and leave policies also affect people's
attitudes toward and satisfaction with their work.
Second, the work measures
designed for these studies were necessarily exploratory, some had insufficient
reliability, and a few failed to show the predicted associations with
attachment type. Unfortunately, attachment theory in its present form does not
make clear or precise predictions about adult exploration; thus, the
hypotheses, as well as the measures, were derived by extrapolation from the
theory and from the empirical literature on infancy and early childhood.
Further research is needed before adult exploration can be measured more
completely and reliably. Our aim in this pair of studies was to test the
feasibility of an important extension of attachment theory into research on
adulthood; the pattern of findings was sufficiently supportive of the theory to
indicate the feasibility and desirability of more extensive research efforts.
Eventually, such efforts will enable the formulation of a more powerful and
complete theory of adult attachment.
Third, our single-item
measure of attachment type also needs elaboration. Various alternatives have
been proposed recently by Levy
and Davis (1988), Collins
and Read (1990), and Brennan,
Hazan, and Shaver (1989). Note, however, that the single-item measure
produced significant results in Study 2 despite more than a 2-month gap between
its administration and the administration of items assessing orientation to
work.
Another important issue
concerns continuity and change. It is impossible to determine from the present
studies whether there is continuity in attachment type or continuity only in
the relationship between attachment and exploration. Eventually, longitudinal
research will be needed to assess the stability of attachment types and their
effects on exploration. (See Hazan
and Hutt, 1989, for preliminary findings.)
An important question that
remains unanswered concerns how attachment type relates to actual work
performance. The finding that anxious/ambivalently attached respondents had
lower incomes than the other two groups of respondents may indicate that
attachment type does affect work performance. Part of anxious/ambivalent
attachment is a preoccupation with unmet attachment needs. It is possible that
such preoccupation makes concentration on work more difficult and professional
advancement less probable. Another possibility is that anxious/ambivalent
respondents originally came disproportionately from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds, an association compatible with findings reported by Egeland
and Farber (1984).
One possible criticism of
our previous work on adult attachment (e. g., Hazan
& Shaver, 1987) is that the measures of attachment type, on the one
hand, and of relationship experiences (e. g., trust, jealousy, desire for
reciprocation), on the other hand, were part of a shared semantic network. The
supposed dependent variables may have been logical extensions or elaborations
of the independent variable (as happens so often in personality research). We
think the present studies begin to counter that criticism. Little in the
descriptions of the three attachment types necessitates any particular pattern
of responses on many of the work items. For instance, items such as feeling
distrustful of others and being reluctant to take vacations from work (both
endorsed more frequently by avoidant respondents) are semantically dissimilar
but closely connected through the theory. Other items-such as an inability to
finish tasks, slacking off after praise, or daydreaming about success-also go
beyond a mere semantic expansion of the anxious/ambivalent attachment-type
description. Note also that the same three attachment groups have been derived
from subjects' descriptions of childhood relationships with parents, features
of adult love experiences (Hazan
& Shaver, 1987), and now from orientation to work. This is an
indication of the broad integrative power of the theory and the validity of the
three types. No other social-psychological theory of love offers this kind of
integrative breadth (Shaver
& Hazan, 1988).
Scientists often treat love
and work as two separate realms, but being deeply social creatures, humans
cannot easily separate the two. Mental health, viewed as the abilities to love,
to work, and to put the two in balance, is a coherent if complex state, as
Freud may have implied when he linked lieben und arbeiten in describing
the goals of psychotherapy. Attachment theory offers a way of explaining why
love and work are so closely intertwined.
References
Bowlby J.
Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment., New York: Basic Books., 1969
Bowlby J.
Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation., New York: Basic Books., 1973
Bowlby J.
Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss., New York: Basic Books., 1980
Erikson E. H.
Childhood and society (2nd ed.)., New York: Norton., 1963
Fiedler F. E.
A theory of leadership effectiveness., New York: McGraw-Hill., 1967
Gurin G.,
Veroff J., Feld J. Americans view their mental health., New York: Basic
Books., 1960
Maslow A.
Motivation and personality., New York: Harper & Row., 1954
Parker S.
Leisure and work., London: George Allen & Unwin., 1983
Robinson J. P.
Work, free time, and the quality of life., In M. D. Lee & R. N. Kanungo
(Eds.), Management of work and personal life(pp. 67-91).
Rubenstein C.,
Shaver P. In search of intimacy., New York: Delacorte., 1982
Troyat H.
Tolstoy., New York: Doubleday., 1967