- Email: [email protected]
Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior Tsachi Ein-Dor ⇑ Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 January 2014 Received in revised form 19 September 2014 Accepted 21 September 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Attachment Anxiety Avoidance Defensive behavior
a b s t r a c t Bowlby’s (1982) attachment theory has generated an enormous body of research and conceptual elaborations. Although attachment theory and research propose that attachment security provides a person with many adaptive advantages, during all phases of the life cycle, numerous studies indicate that almost half of the human species can be classified as insecurely attached or insecure with respect to attachment. To date, the mainstream view in attachment theory and research is that attachment insecurity incurs only disadvantages. I, however, argue that each attachment disposition – security, anxiety, avoidance – has unique adaptive advantages in promoting survival. In making this argument, I extend the scope of attachment theory and research by considering a broader range of adaptive functions of insecure attachment strategies, and present data to support my argument. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982), one of the most influential contemporary theories in developmental, personality, and social psychology (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), proposes that human beings possess an innate psychobiological system (the attachment behavioral system) that motivates them to seek proximity to significant others (attachment figures) when they need protection from threats. When attachment figures regularly respond sensitively to a person’s needs, he or she develops a sense of attachment security while acquiring constructive strategies for coping with threats and regulating negative emotions. When attachment figures are often unavailable, unreliable, or rejecting of bids for support, a person may become chronically insecure with respect to close relationships. The main insecure attachment patterns in adulthood are avoidance, marked by extreme independence, and anxiety, marked by extreme dependence and hyperarousal. These attachment orientations are relatively stable over time but can be changed through natural life experiences or effective psychotherapy (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). According to both theory and research, attachment security confers adaptive advantages, compared with insecurity, in a variety of social, emotional, and behavioral domains (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). For example, secure individuals tend to have more lasting and satisfying close relationships as well as fewer psychological problems. They are also viewed by others as more ideal ⇑ Address: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel. Tel.: +972 9 9602843; fax: +972 9 9602845. E-mail address: [email protected]
relationship partners (e.g., Klohnen & Luo, 2003). These benefits of security caused researchers to wonder why a substantial portion of all large samples studied in various countries are insecure with respect to attachment. Belsky and colleagues were the first to argue that under certain conditions attachment insecurity has adaptive benefits, because it is associated with earlier menarche in females and earlier reproduction in environments where waiting for better conditions might result in failing to reproduce (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Belsky, Steinberg, Houts, & HalpernFelsher, 2010). Theory and research also suggest, however, that survival rather than early reproduction might be the major reason for the emergence of the attachment behavioral system during mammalian, especially primate, evolution (Ein-Dor, 2013; Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, Doron, & Shaver, 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Threats (e.g., natural signs of danger or threats to a close relationship; Bowlby, 1982) activate the attachment system, which is adaptive because it increases the likelihood of protection, support, and survival (Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). In keeping with this view, in the present paper, I present research showing that a person’s responses to threat are based partly on her or his attachment disposition and that these dispositions may promote survival in a unique and adaptive way. 2. Attachment theory Social and personality psychologists generally conceptualize adult attachment patterns as regions in a continuous twodimensional space (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). One dimension, attachment-related avoidance, reflects the extent to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
2
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill, strives to maintain independence, and relies on deactivating strategies for dealing with threats and negative emotions. Avoidant people cope with threats by deemphasizing distress and vulnerability and by attempting to cope independently, without seeking others’ help (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). The second dimension, attachmentrelated anxiety, reflects the extent to which a person worries that others will not be available or helpful in times of need. People high on attachment anxiety exaggerate their sense of vulnerability and insistently call on others for help and care, sometimes to the point of being intrusive (Feeney & Noller, 1990). Attachment security is defined by low scores on both anxiety and avoidance. Secure people generally cope with threats by relying on internal resources developed with the help of securityenhancing attachment figures or by effectively seeking support from others or collaborating with them (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Secure individuals generally have high self-esteem, trust other people, and perceive the world as a relatively safe place. In contrast to the dominant view in attachment theory and research (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 for extensive reviews), I contend that each of the three major attachment patterns – secure, anxious, and avoidant – confers special adaptive advantages that tend to increase the fitness of individuals when dealing with threats and danger. This view is in line with Nettle’s (2006) argument that personality variations can be understood in terms of tradeoffs among fitness costs and benefits: ‘‘Behavioral alternatives can be considered as tradeoffs, with a particular trait producing not unalloyed advantage but a mixture of costs and benefits such that the optimal value for fitness may depend on very specific local circumstances’’ (p. 625). 2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of secure individuals’ defensive reactions Attachment research has shown that secure individuals tend to collaborate with others in times of need and to use the strength of numbers to overcome threats. For example, they are generally better than insecure people at leading and coordinating group activities, and they work more effectively with other group members when solving problems (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Hinojosa, Davis-McCauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014). These advantages stem from a sense of security rooted in past supportive experiences with attachment figures (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and is closely associated with core beliefs, such as the belief that the world is a safe place, especially when significant others are present. These optimistic, comforting mental representations promote self-soothing reappraisals of threats, which help secure individuals perform better than insecure ones in many challenging situations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). In times of need, secure individuals activate schemas and scripts that promote seeking proximity to others (Mikulincer, Shaver, Sapir-Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009) because as Axelrod noted (Axelrod, 2006; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) using the prisoner’s dilemma game, cooperating with others usually outdoes asocial-based strategies. What attachment researchers call ‘‘felt security’’ (Sroufe & Waters, 1977), however, does not always reflect actual physical security. In times of danger, a sense of felt security can be maladaptive if it hinders rapid recognition of a threat or retards assembly of a rapid, effective response. For example, Mawson (2012) showed that the typical human response to danger is to seek the proximity of familiar people and places, even if this means remaining in or even approaching a dangerous situation. Therefore, proximity seeking is sometimes not the safest strategy and may, in fact, incur two disadvantages: (a) slower identification of early signs of danger and (b) slower activation of defensive behavior.
Sime (1983, 1985) examined these disadvantages in a retrospective study of reactions to a fire in a large coastal resort on the Isle of Man, Great Britain, in 1973. He found that people who were physically closer to significant others (e.g., family members) were less likely to react to ambiguous cues of danger, such as noises and shouts, which occurred during the early stages of the fire. They reacted only later, when unambiguous cues of danger, such as smoke, flames, and people running while holding fire extinguishers, occurred. Subsequent studies of survivors’ behavior during disasters also suggest that people who were together with familiar others were slow to perceive that they were in danger (Aguirre, Wenger, & Vigo, 1998; Köster, Seitz, Treml, Hartmann, & Klein, 2011). This tendency might result from secure people’s sense of safety and optimistic threat appraisals (Ein-Dor et al., 2010). Research examining reactions to real or imagined dangers also provides indirect support for the hypothesis that securely attached people react in non-optimal way to signs of danger. For example, Bowlby (1973, p. 91) noted that during and after disasters, ‘‘no member of a family is content, or indeed able to do anything else, until all members of the family are gathered together.’’ Governments and trained professionals have great difficulty getting people to evacuate before and during disasters, because ‘‘traditional family ties often keep individual members in the danger zone until it is too late’’ (Hill & Hansen, 1962, p. 217). Taken together, the evidence suggests that although people who are secure with respect to attachment are better at leading and coordinating group activities, these advantages are partially offset by their slower identification of actual and imminent dangers and their sometimes non-optimal reactions to danger because of their wish to stay close to other people. This suggests that the tendency of secure people to focus on an ongoing project irrespective of mounting danger may sometimes hamper their survival. Vigilance to danger and a quick fight-or-flight response are sometimes necessary to avert disaster. Being high on either attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance might confer these abilities. 2.2. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachment anxiety As compared with people who are secure with respect to attachment, those who score relatively high on anxious attachment often perform relatively poorly in times of need because of their tendency to be overwhelmed with stress. Specifically, they are inclined to exaggerate appraisals of threats (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2000), to have difficulties in suppressing negative thoughts and feelings (e.g., Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004), and to ruminate on distressing thoughts (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). Nevertheless, these tendencies may be of benefit to them: Anxious people are vigilant in monitoring the environment for threats and are emotionally expressive and desirous of support when a threat is detected (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1990). Therefore, they may react quickly and vocally to early, perhaps ambiguous, cues of danger (i.e., sentinel behavior; Ein-Dor et al., 2010) and be quicker, more sensitive and more accurate in detecting various threats. As Freud contended, ‘‘the paranoid person does not project onto the sky, so to speak, but onto something that is already there.’’ (Freud & Rieff, 1963, p. 163). The first evidence in favor of this notion linked attachment anxiety with heightened accessibility to core components of the sentinel schema – noticing danger quicker than others and warning them about the danger (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011a). For example, when participants were asked to write a story about a TAT-like (Thematic Apperception Test; Murray, 1943) card portraying a scary scenario in which a group of people faced a menacing beast, those higher on attachment anxiety composed stories with more sentinel-related narratives. After reading a story about
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
a person who behave in a sentinel way (same sex person as the participant), participants who scored higher on attachment anxiety were more likely to generate comprehensive inferences about the person’s thoughts, behaviors and feelings. Attachment anxiety was later linked with actual sentinelrelated behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011b). Specifically, the behavior of small groups of 3 people were observed in an experimentally-manipulated threatening situation: a room progressively filling up with nontoxic smoke from what seems like a malfunctioning computer. In line with predictions, the person with the highest score on anxiety detected the presence of smoke more often than predicted by chance alone. People high on attachment anxiety were also more likely to break off an ongoing task and take effective action when facing potential threat (Ein-Dor, Perry, & Merrin, 2014). Specifically, participants were invited to an apartment outside campus to participate in a study on visual perception. Upon their arrival, they were sat in the living room and were asked to complete an engaging computerized task on a laptop computer, in which they need to locate a pickpocket in a vendor shop. Before the onset of the task, the research assistant told them that he is cooking small refreshments in the oven, and then he excused himself, saying that he is going outside to get the mail. One minute into the task, a second research assistant, who was out of sight in the kitchen, set off the smoke alarm. Results indicated that people higher on attachment anxiety were significantly more likely to stop the task and call for help than their more secure counterparts. In a complementary self-reportbased research, participants were asked to report on the first action that they are likely to take on various threat scenarios (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014). Results indicated that attachment anxiety qualified the effects of situational features (e.g., degree of dangerousness and clarity of the threat) to increase the likelihood of sentinel (e.g., yelling) and fear-related behaviors (e.g., running away). Aside from establishing a link between attachment anxiety and reaction to potential life-engendering threats, people high on attachment anxiety were also found to have a tendency to deliver a warning message without delay (Ein-Dor & Orgad, 2012). Using a designated software, participants were led to believe that they accidently activated a Trojan horse that completely erased the experimenter’s hard drive and possibly the campus’s server. Participants were then asked to alert the computer technicians about the hazard. On their way, the researchers created four behavioral settings in which they tried to delay the participants from delivering the warning message (e.g., a confederate who asked them to help her completing a short questionnaire). Results indicated that high attachment anxiety was linked with fewer delays. Research has also shown that attachment anxiety is associated with the ability to accurately detect social-based threats. For example, people high on attachment anxiety are better apt in foretelling their partners’ true thoughts and feelings in situations that pose a threat to the relationship such as when partners rate an attractive opposite-sex person (Simpson, Ickes, & Grich, 1999; Simpson et al., 2011). People high on attachment anxiety were also more accurate in detecting deceitful statements, and in playing poker – a social game in which to win, one needs an ability to call his or her opponents’ bluffs (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014). The findings supporting the premise that attachment anxiety is associated with sentinel-related cognitions and behaviors are in keeping with Boyce and Ellis’s evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity (Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Ellis, Essex, & Boyce, 2005). Specifically, research on human (Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000; Hanson et al., in press), nonhuman primates, such as Rhesus monkeys (Suomi, 2014), and on other mammalian species, such as prairie voles (Perkeybile, Griffin, Seelke, Krubitzer, & Bales, 2010), has indicated that early life stress affect the activation of various brain regions
3
that were perfected by evolution to deal with threats. For example, early life stress fosters high reactivity in the hippocampus and amygdala (Hanson et al., in press), which govern the fear system (Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio, & Tranel, 2011), and in the corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) and the locus coeruleus norepinephrine (LC-NE) systems (Meaney, 2001) that enable effective anxiety and fear-related responses in times of need (Gold, Goodwin, & Chrousos, 1988). Thus, early life stress seems to promote the development of both the attachment anxiety disposition (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2004) and related sentinel cognitions and behaviors. 2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachmentrelated avoidance Avoidant people tend to dismiss threats, pain, and vulnerability and to cognitively or behaviorally withdraw from sources of stress and distress (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Therefore, they might be less vigilant to threat and perceive that they are in danger later than others. They also do not perform well as teammates and have lower expectations of contributing to a team effort (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). In times of need, in fact, they tend to look out for their own interests and take care of themselves, even if this sometimes occurs at other people’s expense (Feeney & Collins, 2001). Thus, they may be more likely to rely on self-protective fight-or-flight responses in times of danger, without hesitating or needing to deliberate with other group members, a reaction that Ein-Dor and colleagues (2010) called rapid fight-or-flight behavior. As a result, avoidant individuals’ primary motivation to save themselves may allow them to quickly discover a way to effectively deal with a threat. Meanwhile, anxiously and securely attached individuals may focus much of their attention on the whereabouts and welfare of close associates without focusing quickly and fully on how to escape. These self-centered behaviors may aid people high on attachment avoidance in eluding threats and dangers by taking quick and to some extent asocial actions. The first evidence in favor of this notion linked attachmentrelated avoidance with the following core narratives of the rapid fight-or-flight schema when writing a story about a scary scenario: (a) escaping a perilous event without helping others, (b) acting without collaborating or deliberating with others, and (c) reacting quickly. After reading a story about a person who behave in a rapid fight-or-flight way, participants high on attachment avoidance generated more inferences about the person’s behaviors and thoughts than people low on avoidance. Attachment avoidance was later linked with actual rapid fightor-flight behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor et al., 2011b). Specifically, research has indicated that the typical response to a room progressively filling up with smoke was fleeing to the adjunct corridor. In line with predictions, attachment avoidance was linked with quicker escape time and with better appraisals of effective reactions when dealing with the situation. People high on attachment avoidance, similarly to people high on attachment anxiety, were also more likely to break off an ongoing task and take effective action when facing potential threat (Ein-Dor et al., 2014). Specifically, people higher on attachment avoidance were significantly more likely to stop the task and take action upon hearing the fire alarm (go to the kitchen with allegedly burning food in the oven) than their more secure counterparts. In a complementary self-report-based research, attachment avoidance was found to qualify the effects of situational features (e.g., degree of dangerousness and clarity of the threat) to increase the likelihood of rapid-responder (e.g., attacking; which relates to fight responses), fear-related (e.g., running away; which relates to flight reactions), and anxiety-related (e.g., risk assessment) reactions (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014).
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
4
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
The findings supporting the premise that attachment avoidance is associated with self-serving rapid fight-or-flight cognitions and behaviors are in keeping with theory and research on the advantages of people high on other asocial personality types as the predatory aggressive personalities – psychopaths (Book & Quinsey, 2004; Coyne & Thomas, 2008; Gervais, Kline, Ludmer, George, & Manson, 2013) and sociopaths (Mealey, 1995). For example, psychopathy may confer adaptive benefits by promoting defection on people who interrupt the establishment of profitable cooperation and on people with whom one fails to find common ground (Gervais et al., 2013). 3. Concluding comments Research indicates that people who score high on measures of anxious or avoidant attachment display poorer adjustment in various social, emotional, and behavioral domains than people who score relatively low (i.e., those who are relatively secure with respect to attachment). Over 2500 attachment studies have been published during the past few decades, with only several empirical studies linking insecure attachment to adaptive outcomes (Ein-Dor et al., 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). One possible reason for failing to find evidence of benefits associated with insecure attachment patterns is that the outcomes of interest have usually been in the domain of social adjustment or subjective well-being (Belsky, 1997, 1999; Ein-Dor et al., 2010; Simpson & Belsky, 2008). This emphasis may have deflected attention from possible adaptive advantages of insecure attachment patterns. My line of research adds to the literature suggesting that variations in attachment orientations in particular, and in personality differences more generally, have important implications for adaptation in different life domains – a possibility that attachment researchers have generally neglected. Specifically, it highlights the proposition that individual differences in attachment dispositions are related to different adaptive outcomes that are, in turn, based on varying ecological cues and circumstances. Studies like the ones reported here, offer a new perspective on the strengths of individuals who have long been viewed as deficient and poorly adapted. References Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. In Paper presented at the Sociological Forum. Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. Basic books. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. Belsky, J. (1997). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility to rearing influence: The case of mothering and attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 598–600. Belsky, J. (1999). Modern evolutionary theory and patterns of attachment. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., Houts, R. M., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2010). The development of reproductive strategy in females: Early maternal harshness ? earlier menarche ? increased sexual risk taking. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 120. Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 33–45. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation: Anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books (2nd ed.). Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary– developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(02), 271–301. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. A., & 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. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the
complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 829. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment, 2nd ed.: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Coyne, S. M., & Thomas, T. J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: A test of the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1105–1115. Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632. Ein-Dor, T. (2013). Social defense theory: How a mixture of personality traits in group contexts may promote our survival. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 357–372). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123–141. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011a). Attachment insecurities and the processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 78–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022503. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011b). Effective reaction to danger: Attachment insecurities predict behavioral reactions to an experimentally induced threat above and beyond general personality traits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 467–473. Ein-Dor, T., & Orgad, T. (2012). Scared saviors: Evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more effective in alerting others to threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 667–671. Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Full house of fears: Evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more accurate in detecting deceit. Journal of Personality, 82, 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12035. Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Human reaction to threats: Examining the interplay between personality dispositions and situational features. Psychology Research, 4, 599–622. Ein-Dor, T., Perry, A., & Merrin, J. (2014). Effective disengagement: Evidence that insecure people are more likely to disengage from an ongoing task and take effective action when facing danger, Submitted for publication. Ellis, B. J., Essex, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary–developmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 17(02), 303–328. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972–994. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291. Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear. Current Biology, 21(1), 34–38. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080–1091. Freud, S., & Rieff, P. (1963). Sexuality and the psychology of love. New York: Collier Books. Gervais, M. M., Kline, M., Ludmer, M., George, R., & Manson, J. H. (2013). The strategy of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1757), 20122773. Gold, P. W., Goodwin, F. K., & Chrousos, G. P. (1988). Clinical and biochemical manifestations of depression: Relations to the neurobiology of stress. The New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 413–420. Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K. D., et al. (in press). Behavior problems after early life stress: Contributions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry. Hill, R., & Hansen, D. A. (1962). Families in disaster. Man and Society in Disaster, 185, 221. Hinojosa, A. S., Davis-McCauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader– follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 595–610. Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive–self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709. Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., Hartmann, D., & Klein, W. (2011). On modelling the influence of group formations in a crowd. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3), 397–414. Mawson, A. R. (2012). Mass panic and social attachment: The dynamics of human behavior. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(03), 523–541. Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 1161–1192. Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509–523. Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought-suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable selfrepresentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940–956.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 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., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). What’s inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 615. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. Perkeybile, A. M., Griffin, L., Seelke, A. M. H., Krubitzer, L., & Bales, K. L. (2010). Social behavior and S1 representation in prairie voles are altered by variation in early parental care. San Diego, CA: Society for Neuroscience. Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1220–1235.
5
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161. Sime, J. D. (1983). Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–41. Sime, J. D. (1985). Movement toward the familiar person and place affiliation in a fire entrapment setting. Environment and Behavior, 17(6), 697–724. Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 754–769. Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., et al. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationshipthreatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 242–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210394368. Sroufe, A. L., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 1184–1199. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. (2004). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. Suomi, S. J. (2014). Development in Rhesus Monkeys. Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development, p. 35.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior Tsachi Ein-Dor ⇑ Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 19 January 2014 Received in revised form 19 September 2014 Accepted 21 September 2014 Available online xxxx Keywords: Attachment Anxiety Avoidance Defensive behavior
a b s t r a c t Bowlby’s (1982) attachment theory has generated an enormous body of research and conceptual elaborations. Although attachment theory and research propose that attachment security provides a person with many adaptive advantages, during all phases of the life cycle, numerous studies indicate that almost half of the human species can be classified as insecurely attached or insecure with respect to attachment. To date, the mainstream view in attachment theory and research is that attachment insecurity incurs only disadvantages. I, however, argue that each attachment disposition – security, anxiety, avoidance – has unique adaptive advantages in promoting survival. In making this argument, I extend the scope of attachment theory and research by considering a broader range of adaptive functions of insecure attachment strategies, and present data to support my argument. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982), one of the most influential contemporary theories in developmental, personality, and social psychology (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), proposes that human beings possess an innate psychobiological system (the attachment behavioral system) that motivates them to seek proximity to significant others (attachment figures) when they need protection from threats. When attachment figures regularly respond sensitively to a person’s needs, he or she develops a sense of attachment security while acquiring constructive strategies for coping with threats and regulating negative emotions. When attachment figures are often unavailable, unreliable, or rejecting of bids for support, a person may become chronically insecure with respect to close relationships. The main insecure attachment patterns in adulthood are avoidance, marked by extreme independence, and anxiety, marked by extreme dependence and hyperarousal. These attachment orientations are relatively stable over time but can be changed through natural life experiences or effective psychotherapy (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). According to both theory and research, attachment security confers adaptive advantages, compared with insecurity, in a variety of social, emotional, and behavioral domains (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). For example, secure individuals tend to have more lasting and satisfying close relationships as well as fewer psychological problems. They are also viewed by others as more ideal ⇑ Address: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box 167, Herzliya 46150, Israel. Tel.: +972 9 9602843; fax: +972 9 9602845. E-mail address: [email protected]
relationship partners (e.g., Klohnen & Luo, 2003). These benefits of security caused researchers to wonder why a substantial portion of all large samples studied in various countries are insecure with respect to attachment. Belsky and colleagues were the first to argue that under certain conditions attachment insecurity has adaptive benefits, because it is associated with earlier menarche in females and earlier reproduction in environments where waiting for better conditions might result in failing to reproduce (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Belsky, Steinberg, Houts, & HalpernFelsher, 2010). Theory and research also suggest, however, that survival rather than early reproduction might be the major reason for the emergence of the attachment behavioral system during mammalian, especially primate, evolution (Ein-Dor, 2013; Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, Doron, & Shaver, 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Threats (e.g., natural signs of danger or threats to a close relationship; Bowlby, 1982) activate the attachment system, which is adaptive because it increases the likelihood of protection, support, and survival (Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). In keeping with this view, in the present paper, I present research showing that a person’s responses to threat are based partly on her or his attachment disposition and that these dispositions may promote survival in a unique and adaptive way. 2. Attachment theory Social and personality psychologists generally conceptualize adult attachment patterns as regions in a continuous twodimensional space (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). One dimension, attachment-related avoidance, reflects the extent to
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033 0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
2
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
which a person distrusts relationship partners’ goodwill, strives to maintain independence, and relies on deactivating strategies for dealing with threats and negative emotions. Avoidant people cope with threats by deemphasizing distress and vulnerability and by attempting to cope independently, without seeking others’ help (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). The second dimension, attachmentrelated anxiety, reflects the extent to which a person worries that others will not be available or helpful in times of need. People high on attachment anxiety exaggerate their sense of vulnerability and insistently call on others for help and care, sometimes to the point of being intrusive (Feeney & Noller, 1990). Attachment security is defined by low scores on both anxiety and avoidance. Secure people generally cope with threats by relying on internal resources developed with the help of securityenhancing attachment figures or by effectively seeking support from others or collaborating with them (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002). Secure individuals generally have high self-esteem, trust other people, and perceive the world as a relatively safe place. In contrast to the dominant view in attachment theory and research (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 for extensive reviews), I contend that each of the three major attachment patterns – secure, anxious, and avoidant – confers special adaptive advantages that tend to increase the fitness of individuals when dealing with threats and danger. This view is in line with Nettle’s (2006) argument that personality variations can be understood in terms of tradeoffs among fitness costs and benefits: ‘‘Behavioral alternatives can be considered as tradeoffs, with a particular trait producing not unalloyed advantage but a mixture of costs and benefits such that the optimal value for fitness may depend on very specific local circumstances’’ (p. 625). 2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of secure individuals’ defensive reactions Attachment research has shown that secure individuals tend to collaborate with others in times of need and to use the strength of numbers to overcome threats. For example, they are generally better than insecure people at leading and coordinating group activities, and they work more effectively with other group members when solving problems (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Hinojosa, Davis-McCauley, Randolph-Seng, & Gardner, 2014). These advantages stem from a sense of security rooted in past supportive experiences with attachment figures (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and is closely associated with core beliefs, such as the belief that the world is a safe place, especially when significant others are present. These optimistic, comforting mental representations promote self-soothing reappraisals of threats, which help secure individuals perform better than insecure ones in many challenging situations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). In times of need, secure individuals activate schemas and scripts that promote seeking proximity to others (Mikulincer, Shaver, Sapir-Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009) because as Axelrod noted (Axelrod, 2006; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) using the prisoner’s dilemma game, cooperating with others usually outdoes asocial-based strategies. What attachment researchers call ‘‘felt security’’ (Sroufe & Waters, 1977), however, does not always reflect actual physical security. In times of danger, a sense of felt security can be maladaptive if it hinders rapid recognition of a threat or retards assembly of a rapid, effective response. For example, Mawson (2012) showed that the typical human response to danger is to seek the proximity of familiar people and places, even if this means remaining in or even approaching a dangerous situation. Therefore, proximity seeking is sometimes not the safest strategy and may, in fact, incur two disadvantages: (a) slower identification of early signs of danger and (b) slower activation of defensive behavior.
Sime (1983, 1985) examined these disadvantages in a retrospective study of reactions to a fire in a large coastal resort on the Isle of Man, Great Britain, in 1973. He found that people who were physically closer to significant others (e.g., family members) were less likely to react to ambiguous cues of danger, such as noises and shouts, which occurred during the early stages of the fire. They reacted only later, when unambiguous cues of danger, such as smoke, flames, and people running while holding fire extinguishers, occurred. Subsequent studies of survivors’ behavior during disasters also suggest that people who were together with familiar others were slow to perceive that they were in danger (Aguirre, Wenger, & Vigo, 1998; Köster, Seitz, Treml, Hartmann, & Klein, 2011). This tendency might result from secure people’s sense of safety and optimistic threat appraisals (Ein-Dor et al., 2010). Research examining reactions to real or imagined dangers also provides indirect support for the hypothesis that securely attached people react in non-optimal way to signs of danger. For example, Bowlby (1973, p. 91) noted that during and after disasters, ‘‘no member of a family is content, or indeed able to do anything else, until all members of the family are gathered together.’’ Governments and trained professionals have great difficulty getting people to evacuate before and during disasters, because ‘‘traditional family ties often keep individual members in the danger zone until it is too late’’ (Hill & Hansen, 1962, p. 217). Taken together, the evidence suggests that although people who are secure with respect to attachment are better at leading and coordinating group activities, these advantages are partially offset by their slower identification of actual and imminent dangers and their sometimes non-optimal reactions to danger because of their wish to stay close to other people. This suggests that the tendency of secure people to focus on an ongoing project irrespective of mounting danger may sometimes hamper their survival. Vigilance to danger and a quick fight-or-flight response are sometimes necessary to avert disaster. Being high on either attachment anxiety or attachment avoidance might confer these abilities. 2.2. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachment anxiety As compared with people who are secure with respect to attachment, those who score relatively high on anxious attachment often perform relatively poorly in times of need because of their tendency to be overwhelmed with stress. Specifically, they are inclined to exaggerate appraisals of threats (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2000), to have difficulties in suppressing negative thoughts and feelings (e.g., Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004), and to ruminate on distressing thoughts (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). Nevertheless, these tendencies may be of benefit to them: Anxious people are vigilant in monitoring the environment for threats and are emotionally expressive and desirous of support when a threat is detected (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1990). Therefore, they may react quickly and vocally to early, perhaps ambiguous, cues of danger (i.e., sentinel behavior; Ein-Dor et al., 2010) and be quicker, more sensitive and more accurate in detecting various threats. As Freud contended, ‘‘the paranoid person does not project onto the sky, so to speak, but onto something that is already there.’’ (Freud & Rieff, 1963, p. 163). The first evidence in favor of this notion linked attachment anxiety with heightened accessibility to core components of the sentinel schema – noticing danger quicker than others and warning them about the danger (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011a). For example, when participants were asked to write a story about a TAT-like (Thematic Apperception Test; Murray, 1943) card portraying a scary scenario in which a group of people faced a menacing beast, those higher on attachment anxiety composed stories with more sentinel-related narratives. After reading a story about
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
a person who behave in a sentinel way (same sex person as the participant), participants who scored higher on attachment anxiety were more likely to generate comprehensive inferences about the person’s thoughts, behaviors and feelings. Attachment anxiety was later linked with actual sentinelrelated behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011b). Specifically, the behavior of small groups of 3 people were observed in an experimentally-manipulated threatening situation: a room progressively filling up with nontoxic smoke from what seems like a malfunctioning computer. In line with predictions, the person with the highest score on anxiety detected the presence of smoke more often than predicted by chance alone. People high on attachment anxiety were also more likely to break off an ongoing task and take effective action when facing potential threat (Ein-Dor, Perry, & Merrin, 2014). Specifically, participants were invited to an apartment outside campus to participate in a study on visual perception. Upon their arrival, they were sat in the living room and were asked to complete an engaging computerized task on a laptop computer, in which they need to locate a pickpocket in a vendor shop. Before the onset of the task, the research assistant told them that he is cooking small refreshments in the oven, and then he excused himself, saying that he is going outside to get the mail. One minute into the task, a second research assistant, who was out of sight in the kitchen, set off the smoke alarm. Results indicated that people higher on attachment anxiety were significantly more likely to stop the task and call for help than their more secure counterparts. In a complementary self-reportbased research, participants were asked to report on the first action that they are likely to take on various threat scenarios (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014). Results indicated that attachment anxiety qualified the effects of situational features (e.g., degree of dangerousness and clarity of the threat) to increase the likelihood of sentinel (e.g., yelling) and fear-related behaviors (e.g., running away). Aside from establishing a link between attachment anxiety and reaction to potential life-engendering threats, people high on attachment anxiety were also found to have a tendency to deliver a warning message without delay (Ein-Dor & Orgad, 2012). Using a designated software, participants were led to believe that they accidently activated a Trojan horse that completely erased the experimenter’s hard drive and possibly the campus’s server. Participants were then asked to alert the computer technicians about the hazard. On their way, the researchers created four behavioral settings in which they tried to delay the participants from delivering the warning message (e.g., a confederate who asked them to help her completing a short questionnaire). Results indicated that high attachment anxiety was linked with fewer delays. Research has also shown that attachment anxiety is associated with the ability to accurately detect social-based threats. For example, people high on attachment anxiety are better apt in foretelling their partners’ true thoughts and feelings in situations that pose a threat to the relationship such as when partners rate an attractive opposite-sex person (Simpson, Ickes, & Grich, 1999; Simpson et al., 2011). People high on attachment anxiety were also more accurate in detecting deceitful statements, and in playing poker – a social game in which to win, one needs an ability to call his or her opponents’ bluffs (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014). The findings supporting the premise that attachment anxiety is associated with sentinel-related cognitions and behaviors are in keeping with Boyce and Ellis’s evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity (Boyce & Ellis, 2005; Ellis, Essex, & Boyce, 2005). Specifically, research on human (Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000; Hanson et al., in press), nonhuman primates, such as Rhesus monkeys (Suomi, 2014), and on other mammalian species, such as prairie voles (Perkeybile, Griffin, Seelke, Krubitzer, & Bales, 2010), has indicated that early life stress affect the activation of various brain regions
3
that were perfected by evolution to deal with threats. For example, early life stress fosters high reactivity in the hippocampus and amygdala (Hanson et al., in press), which govern the fear system (Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio, & Tranel, 2011), and in the corticotropin releasing hormone (CRH) and the locus coeruleus norepinephrine (LC-NE) systems (Meaney, 2001) that enable effective anxiety and fear-related responses in times of need (Gold, Goodwin, & Chrousos, 1988). Thus, early life stress seems to promote the development of both the attachment anxiety disposition (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2004) and related sentinel cognitions and behaviors. 2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachmentrelated avoidance Avoidant people tend to dismiss threats, pain, and vulnerability and to cognitively or behaviorally withdraw from sources of stress and distress (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Therefore, they might be less vigilant to threat and perceive that they are in danger later than others. They also do not perform well as teammates and have lower expectations of contributing to a team effort (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). In times of need, in fact, they tend to look out for their own interests and take care of themselves, even if this sometimes occurs at other people’s expense (Feeney & Collins, 2001). Thus, they may be more likely to rely on self-protective fight-or-flight responses in times of danger, without hesitating or needing to deliberate with other group members, a reaction that Ein-Dor and colleagues (2010) called rapid fight-or-flight behavior. As a result, avoidant individuals’ primary motivation to save themselves may allow them to quickly discover a way to effectively deal with a threat. Meanwhile, anxiously and securely attached individuals may focus much of their attention on the whereabouts and welfare of close associates without focusing quickly and fully on how to escape. These self-centered behaviors may aid people high on attachment avoidance in eluding threats and dangers by taking quick and to some extent asocial actions. The first evidence in favor of this notion linked attachmentrelated avoidance with the following core narratives of the rapid fight-or-flight schema when writing a story about a scary scenario: (a) escaping a perilous event without helping others, (b) acting without collaborating or deliberating with others, and (c) reacting quickly. After reading a story about a person who behave in a rapid fight-or-flight way, participants high on attachment avoidance generated more inferences about the person’s behaviors and thoughts than people low on avoidance. Attachment avoidance was later linked with actual rapid fightor-flight behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor et al., 2011b). Specifically, research has indicated that the typical response to a room progressively filling up with smoke was fleeing to the adjunct corridor. In line with predictions, attachment avoidance was linked with quicker escape time and with better appraisals of effective reactions when dealing with the situation. People high on attachment avoidance, similarly to people high on attachment anxiety, were also more likely to break off an ongoing task and take effective action when facing potential threat (Ein-Dor et al., 2014). Specifically, people higher on attachment avoidance were significantly more likely to stop the task and take action upon hearing the fire alarm (go to the kitchen with allegedly burning food in the oven) than their more secure counterparts. In a complementary self-report-based research, attachment avoidance was found to qualify the effects of situational features (e.g., degree of dangerousness and clarity of the threat) to increase the likelihood of rapid-responder (e.g., attacking; which relates to fight responses), fear-related (e.g., running away; which relates to flight reactions), and anxiety-related (e.g., risk assessment) reactions (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014).
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
4
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
The findings supporting the premise that attachment avoidance is associated with self-serving rapid fight-or-flight cognitions and behaviors are in keeping with theory and research on the advantages of people high on other asocial personality types as the predatory aggressive personalities – psychopaths (Book & Quinsey, 2004; Coyne & Thomas, 2008; Gervais, Kline, Ludmer, George, & Manson, 2013) and sociopaths (Mealey, 1995). For example, psychopathy may confer adaptive benefits by promoting defection on people who interrupt the establishment of profitable cooperation and on people with whom one fails to find common ground (Gervais et al., 2013). 3. Concluding comments Research indicates that people who score high on measures of anxious or avoidant attachment display poorer adjustment in various social, emotional, and behavioral domains than people who score relatively low (i.e., those who are relatively secure with respect to attachment). Over 2500 attachment studies have been published during the past few decades, with only several empirical studies linking insecure attachment to adaptive outcomes (Ein-Dor et al., 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). One possible reason for failing to find evidence of benefits associated with insecure attachment patterns is that the outcomes of interest have usually been in the domain of social adjustment or subjective well-being (Belsky, 1997, 1999; Ein-Dor et al., 2010; Simpson & Belsky, 2008). This emphasis may have deflected attention from possible adaptive advantages of insecure attachment patterns. My line of research adds to the literature suggesting that variations in attachment orientations in particular, and in personality differences more generally, have important implications for adaptation in different life domains – a possibility that attachment researchers have generally neglected. Specifically, it highlights the proposition that individual differences in attachment dispositions are related to different adaptive outcomes that are, in turn, based on varying ecological cues and circumstances. Studies like the ones reported here, offer a new perspective on the strengths of individuals who have long been viewed as deficient and poorly adapted. References Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the emergent norm theory of collective behavior. In Paper presented at the Sociological Forum. Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. Basic books. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396. Belsky, J. (1997). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility to rearing influence: The case of mothering and attachment. Child Development, 68(4), 598–600. Belsky, J. (1999). Modern evolutionary theory and patterns of attachment. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., Houts, R. M., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2010). The development of reproductive strategy in females: Early maternal harshness ? earlier menarche ? increased sexual risk taking. Developmental Psychology, 46(1), 120. Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks? Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 33–45. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation: Anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books (2nd ed.). Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary– developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17(02), 271–301. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. A., & 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. Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the
complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 829. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment, 2nd ed.: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Coyne, S. M., & Thomas, T. J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: A test of the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(5), 1105–1115. Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632. Ein-Dor, T. (2013). Social defense theory: How a mixture of personality traits in group contexts may promote our survival. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 357–372). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123–141. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011a). Attachment insecurities and the processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 78–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022503. Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011b). Effective reaction to danger: Attachment insecurities predict behavioral reactions to an experimentally induced threat above and beyond general personality traits. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 467–473. Ein-Dor, T., & Orgad, T. (2012). Scared saviors: Evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more effective in alerting others to threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 667–671. Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Full house of fears: Evidence that people high in attachment anxiety are more accurate in detecting deceit. Journal of Personality, 82, 83–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12035. Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Human reaction to threats: Examining the interplay between personality dispositions and situational features. Psychology Research, 4, 599–622. Ein-Dor, T., Perry, A., & Merrin, J. (2014). Effective disengagement: Evidence that insecure people are more likely to disengage from an ongoing task and take effective action when facing danger, Submitted for publication. Ellis, B. J., Essex, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary–developmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 17(02), 303–328. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 972–994. Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291. Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala and the induction and experience of fear. Current Biology, 21(1), 34–38. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080–1091. Freud, S., & Rieff, P. (1963). Sexuality and the psychology of love. New York: Collier Books. Gervais, M. M., Kline, M., Ludmer, M., George, R., & Manson, J. H. (2013). The strategy of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1757), 20122773. Gold, P. W., Goodwin, F. K., & Chrousos, G. P. (1988). Clinical and biochemical manifestations of depression: Relations to the neurobiology of stress. The New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 413–420. Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K. D., et al. (in press). Behavior problems after early life stress: Contributions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry. Hill, R., & Hansen, D. A. (1962). Families in disaster. Man and Society in Disaster, 185, 221. Hinojosa, A. S., Davis-McCauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014). Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader– follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 595–610. Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive–self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709. Köster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., Hartmann, D., & Klein, W. (2011). On modelling the influence of group formations in a crowd. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3), 397–414. Mawson, A. R. (2012). Mass panic and social attachment: The dynamics of human behavior. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(03), 523–541. Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 1161–1192. Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509–523. Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies during thought-suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable selfrepresentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940–956.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 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., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). What’s inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 615. Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. Perkeybile, A. M., Griffin, L., Seelke, A. M. H., Krubitzer, L., & Bales, K. L. (2010). Social behavior and S1 representation in prairie voles are altered by variation in early parental care. San Diego, CA: Society for Neuroscience. Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1220–1235.
5
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161. Sime, J. D. (1983). Affiliative behaviour during escape to building exits. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 21–41. Sime, J. D. (1985). Movement toward the familiar person and place affiliation in a fire entrapment setting. Environment and Behavior, 17(6), 697–724. Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework. Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 754–769. Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., et al. (2011). Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationshipthreatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 242–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210394368. Sroufe, A. L., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 1184–1199. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. (2004). The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York: Guilford Press. Suomi, S. J. (2014). Development in Rhesus Monkeys. Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development, p. 35.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033