Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes

Attachment Styles and Loving Attitudes among Turkish University Students Asl Bugay Esin Tezer
Abstract The aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of attachment categories (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing) on the six love types (Eros, Ludus, Storage, Pragma, Mania, Agape, and Eros) as a function of gender. Turkish versions of The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) and Love Attitude Scale (LAS) were administered to 467 (252 female, 215 male) undergraduate university students at Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. The mean age of the participants was 21.5 (SD = 1.58). A 2 (female, male) X 4 (secure, fearful, preoccupied and dismissing attachment styles) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed to six love attitude scores, namely, Eros (passionate love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), Pragma (practical love), Agape (selfless love), Ludus (game-playing love), and Storge (companionate love). The results yielded no significant gender X attachment styles (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied and Dismissing) interaction effect on types of love. However, a significant main effect for gender and attachment styles (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing) was found. Specifically, males had significantly higher in Agape scores than females. The results also showed that secure participants had significantly higher in Agape scores than preoccupied and fearful participants whereas preoccupied participants had significantly higher in Mania scores than secure and dismissing participants. The findings of the study were discussed in the light of cultural context. Key words: Love types, Attachment styles, Gender Attachment style has a vital role in individuals life, accounting for individual differences in the formation and maintenance of close relationships (Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Bowlby (1979) once proclaimed that attachment relationships were important for humans across the life span. Since everybody needs to establish close relationships in their personal lives, how they attach to others and form interpersonal relationships become very crucial. The first and most well known view on attachment theory is that of Bowlby, who is known as the father of the attachment theory (Lee, 2003). In Bowlby's approach, the human infant has a need for a secure relationship

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes with adult caregivers without which normal social and emotional development will not occur. However, different relationship experiences can lead to different developmental outcomes. Hazan and Shaver (1987) extended attachment theory to adult romantic relationships. It was originally characterized by three dimensions: secure, anxious/ambivalent and avoidant. Later, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed four different adult attachment patterns based on an individuals anxiety and avoidance. These dimensions are often drawn as an X and Y axis as shown in Figure 1.

Thus, four categories were named as secure, anxious-ambivalent (preoccupied), avoidant (dismissive), and fearful-avoidant. The first style, secure, refers to a sense of worthiness as well as a perception of others being generally responsive and accepting. In this model secure individuals are low in both anxiety and avoidance, indicating comfort with intimacy and autonomy. The first insecure style, preoccupied, includes individuals who view themselves as being unworthy of love. Preoccupied people tend to base their self-worth on whether significant people in their lives accept them. The fearful-avoidant style refers to both a feeling of unworthiness as well as a distrust of intimacy. Fearful-avoidant individuals feel that by avoiding intimacy with others, they are protected from the rejection they anticipate in close relationships. Finally, the dismissive-avoidant style describes a selflove combined with negative perception of others trustworthiness and responsiveness. According to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), dismissiveavoidant individuals protect themselves against disappointment and invulnerability. In the literature, the effects of attachment styles on various aspects of individuals later intimate relationships have been the concern of several studies. Besides, there have been many investigations exploring the relationship between love and attachment. These studies have widely utilized both Hendrick and Hendricks (1986) the Love Attitude Scale (LAS) to

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes measure the six love styles based on Lee's typology of love ( Eros, Ludus, and Storge, Mania, Pragma, and Agape) and Hazan and Shavers (1987) The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). For instance, Levy and Davis (1988) suggest that Hazan and Shavers (1987) attachment measure and Hendrick and Hendricks (1986) love styles measure have theoretical value. In their research, secure attachment did predict positive relationship characteristics, and the avoidant and anxious-avoidant styles predicted negative relationship characteristics. The study revealed consisted patterns between love styles and attachment styles. In addition, Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) assessed a number of measures of love, including the Hazan and Shavers (1987) attachment measure. Secure attachment was generally related to positive relationship experience, and the two forms of insecure attachment also showed theoretically meaningful patterns (e.g., Avoidance and Ludus, Anxiousness and Mania). Finally, although the correlations between the LAS and the Adult Attachment Scale (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) were not so strong, Eros and Agape were positively correlated with secure attachment style and negatively correlated with avoidant attachment style, and Ludus showed a completely opposite pattern. In addition, Pragma was positively related to avoidant attachment style and Mania was positively related to ambivalent attachment style. The literature review showed that attachment styles are important for individuals in shaping their beliefs and attitudes toward close relationships. Somewhat surprisingly, there has been a limited number of studies examining the relationships between attachment styles and loving styles. Thus, to extend the current literature in a different culture, this study examined the effects of attachment categories (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing) on the six love types (Eros, Ludus, Storage, Pragma, Mania, Agape, and Eros) as a function of gender.

Method
Participants Participants were 467 (252 female, 215 male) university students enrolled different undergraduate programs at Middle East Technical University. The mean age of the participants was 21.54 years ranging from 17 to 28 (SD= 1.58). Instruments The data were gathered by administering three instruments, namely, Love attitudes scale (LAS) and The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form-LA. was developed by Hendrick Hendrick and Dicke (1998) as the short form of Love Attitude Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986) to examine the six love types of individuals

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes based on Lees (1973) Color of Love Theory. LAS-Short form consists of 24 items with a 5 point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly Agree; 5 = Strongly Disagree). Four items in the scale represents each of six major love styles named as Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (companiate love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), and Agape (all-giving, selfless love). High scores obtained from each subscale indicate the love attitude of that individual. Reported test-retest reliabilities ranged from .60 and .78 (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986) and Alpha Coefficient range from .62 and .88 (Hendrick, Hendrick, & Dicke, 1998). LAS was adapted to Turkish by Bykahin and Hovardaolu (2004). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was reported as ranging from .47 to .80. In the present study Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales ranged from .51 to .81. The Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) was developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987). The RQ consists of four short paragraphs, each reflecting one of Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, and Dismissing attachment orientations. Participants are asked to rate each paragraph as to how well the paragraph describes them in their close relationships. Each respondent is asked to make ratings on a 7-point scale. This procedure results in four continuous attachment style scores. The paragraph assigned the highest rating by the participant is the paragraph used by the researcher to define the participant's attachment style, either generally, or in reference to a specific relationship. In Turkey, Smer and Gngr (1999) conducted the reliability and validity studies of RQ and have found satisfactory level of reliability, stability and convergent validity. Procedure The data collection procedure was conducted in classrooms, on a voluntary basis after a brief description of the purpose of the study. Details about the completion of both measures and the importance of providing sincere answers to both instruments were explained. The data was collected during the 2006 spring semester. Data Analysis Prior to analyses, a missing value analysis was conducted with the data set consisting of 467 cases. Since missing values of the cases were not greater than 5%, missing values were replaced by the series mean method. Before conducting Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), the participants were assigned into Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing categories. Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) for Windows (version 11.5) was used to perform all the analyses (Copyright, SPSS Inc., 19892003).

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes

Results
Mean scores and standard deviations of the six love scores as a function of attachment styles of males and females are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Love Scores as a Function of Attachment Styles of Males and Females
Male SD 2.57 2.82 2.46 2.22 2.45 3.65 3.63 3.07 3.37 3.42 3.50 2.92 3.43 3.86 3.56 3.25 2.71 3.26 2.93 3.11 2.03 2.64 2.60 2.97 2.70 3.19 3.83 2.77 3.08 3.17 Female SD 3.02 2.41 2.73 2.64 2.75 2.88 3.21 3.34 2.94 3.07 3.43 3.40 3.80 3.99 3.69 2.89 3.26 3.07 2.94 3.02 3.03 2.91 2.76 2.86 2.98 3.41 3.71 3.00 3.47 3.52 Total SD 2.85 2.56 2.58 2.47 2.62 3.19 3.40 3.18 3.27 3.25 3.44 3.29 3.62 3.93 3.63 3.07 3.06 3.16 2.98 3.08 2.67 2.81 2.67 2.90 2.85 3.44 4.05 3.04 3.53 3.59

Eros

Ludus

Storge

Pragma

Mania

Agape

Attachment Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total Secure Preoccupied Dismissing Fearful Total

M 13.82 14.10 14.44 14.41 14.25 9.46 9.94 8.97 10.43 9.75 11.72 12.79 13.09 11.87 12.32 10.51 11.46 11.41 9.92 10.69 12.74 14.20 13.14 12.86 13.28 15.01 13.67 14.01 13.83 14.18

n 42 32 60 77 211 42 32 60 77 211 42 32 60 77 211 42 32 60 77 211 42 32 60 77 211 42 32 60 77 211

M 14.27 13.86 14.78 15.21 14.59 9.52 8.77 8.99 8.68 8.98 11.90 11.33 12.16 12.54 12.03 11.67 11.28 11.46 11.02 11.33 12.17 14.36 13.58 12.79 13.17 12.98 10.42 12.11 11.22 11.62

n 64 56 50 81 251 64 56 50 81 251 64 56 50 81 251 64 56 50 81 251 64 56 50 81 251 64 56 50 81 251

M 14.09 13.95 14.60 14.82 14.43 9.49 9.19 8.98 9.53 9.33 11.83 11.86 12.67 12.21 12.16 11.21 11.34 11.43 10.48 11.04 12.38 14.27 13.40 12.82 13.22 14.09 11.60 12.86 12.50 12.79

n 106 88 110 158 462 106 88 110 158 462 106 88 110 158 462 106 88 110 158 462 106 88 110 158 462 106 88 110 158 462

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes In order to examine the effects attachment styles on types of love as a function of gender, a 2 (female, male) X 4 (secure, fearful, preoccupied and dismissing of attachment styles) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed to six love styles scores, namely, Eros (passionate love), Ludus (game-playing love), Storge (companionate love), Pragma (practical love), Mania (possessive, dependent love), and Agape (selfless love). Bonferroni approach was taken into consideration while deciding the significance of the MANOVA results. In other words, we used ( / 6) .008 level of significance to find out the effects of secure, fearful, preoccupied and dismissing of attachment styles, and gender X attachment styles interaction on the six love types. The results yielded no significant gender X attachment styles interaction effect, multivariate F (18, 1270) = 1.13, p = .30, partial 2 = .015, Wilks Lambda = .95 on types of love. However, a significant main effect for gender F (6, 449) = 17.61, p = .00, partial 2 = .191, Wilks Lambda = .80, and attachment styles, multivariate F (18, 1270) = 2.94, p = .00, partial 2 = .038, Wilks Lambda = .89 was found. The results showed that there was significant difference between female and male in terms of Agape love type. Males (M = 14.2; SD = 3.17) had higher scores in Agape love type than females (M = 11.6; SD = 3.52). A univariate analysis indicated differences in Mania, F (3, 65) = 8.40, p = .000, partial 2 = .053, and Agape love types, F (3, 71) = 6.57, p = .000 partial 2 = .042. The post hoc comparison by using Bonferroni test indicated that participants who were Preoccupied (M = 14.3; SD = 2.81) reported higher in Mania love types scores than the other groups who were Secure (M = 12.4; SD = 2.67) and Fearful (M = 12.8; SD = 2.90); and participants who were Secure (M = 14.1; SD = 3.44) reported higher in Agape love types, than the other groups who were Preoccupied (M = 11.6; SD = 4.05) and Dismissing (M = 12.9; SD = 3.04).

Discussion
Present study investigated the differences in six love types (Eros, Ludus, Storage, Pragma, Mania, Agape, and Eros) of male and female university students as a function of attachment categories (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, and Dismissing). Results yielded that participants who were preoccupied reported higher in mania love types than secure and fearful ones whereas participants who were secure reported higher in agape love types than those who were preoccupied and dismissing. Results regarding gender differences showed that males had higher scores in agape love type than females. The findings regarding the relationships between attachment styles and love types seemed to generally suggest that love styles may vary as function of attachment styles. More specifically, in the present sample,

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes preoccupied and secured participants reported high preferences in mania and agape love types, respectively. Considering that preoccupied and secure attachment styles are in the low avoidance dimension (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), the characteristics of individuals from both styles might have some similarities particularly in terms of seeking closeness. Although they are different in terms of anxiety that they experience in their relationship, preoccupied individuals typically need to be approved and seek greater closeness with attachment partners. Similarly, secure individuals tend to be more satisfied in their relationships than insecure ones; their relationships are characterized by greater longevity, trust, commitment, and interdependence (e.g., Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994), and they are more likely to use romantic partners as a secure base from which to explore the world (e.g., Fraley & Davis, 1997). When we examine the characteristics of mania and agape love styles, mania is a combination of eros and ludus love. It is also known as the troubled love. This love has jealousy and dependence (often called co-dependency), great intensity, some intimacy, and many psychological symptoms related to the relationship. Thus, it is perhaps not surprising those preoccupied individuals had higher scores in Mania loving style. This finding was supported by the study of Collins and Read (1990) who found those high on anxiety were also high on Mania. Agape, on the other hand, is a blend of two other types of love, Eros and Storge. This is the love of altruism, of giving without asking anything in return, and of sacrificing oneself for one's partner. Many would consider it to be the purest form of love. Thus, it is expected that secure individuals had higher scores in Agape loving style. Similar to expectations, Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that agape was positively correlated with secure attachment style and negatively correlated with avoidant attachment style. Moreover, Collins and Read (1990) found those comfortable with closeness scored high on Agape. Overall, it can be concluded that the findings regarding the relationships between attachment styles and love types seem to be supported by most of the studies conducted in Western literature. Another finding of the present study was related with gender differences yielding that males reported higher agape love than females. This finding is not supported by the previous studies carried out with North American samples which found that men scored higher than women in Ludus (e.g., Hall, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1991; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). However, males higher preference of agape love style than females is also found both in another Turkish study (Bykahin & Hovardaolu, 2004) and in a study conducted with a Portuguese sample (Bernardes, Mendes, Sarmento, Silva, & Moreira, 1999). Based on these findings it can be speculated that, in some cultures, men are in need of increasing their chances of attracting women. Although some other cultural issues such as socialization of males can be discussed, these results suggest that gender

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes differences (or similarities) in love may not be as universal as has been thought. Socialization, attachment experiences, and social roles of males and females may vary across cultures. More research is needed regarding the role of these issues on love styles. This study is not without its limitations, including the nonrepresentativeness of the sample and the fact that the data are based on selfreports. In addition, the present results are based on a cross-sectional design, leaving unanswered the extent to which a longitudinal design would have delivered the same results.

Reference
1. Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1991 226-244. Bernardes,D., Mendes,M., Sarmento, P. ,Silva, S. & Moreira, J. Gender Differences in Love and Sex: A Cross-Cultural Study, The International Network on Personal Relationships Young Scholars Pre-Conference, University of Louisville, Kentucky, USA, June 2425, 1999. Bykahin, A. & Hovardaolu, S. iftlerin aka ilikin tutumlarnn Leenin ok boyutlu ak biimleri kapsamnda incelenmesi (The.. Trk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Psychology Journal), 19 (54), 2004, 59-72. Collins, N. & Read S.J. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58, 1990, 644663. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P. & Callan, V. J. Attachment style, communication and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. Advances in Personal Relationships, 5, 1994. 269 308. Fraley, R. F. & Davis, K. E. Attachment formation and transfer in young adults close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 1997, 131-144. Hall, A. G., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. Personal construct systems and love styles. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 1991, 137-155. Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1987, 511-524. Hendrick, S. S. & Hendrick, C. A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1986, 392-402.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Attachment Styles And Loving Attitudes 10. Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, S. Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 1989, 784794. 11. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. The Love Attitude Scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 1998, 147-159. 12. Lee, J. A. The colors of love: An exploration of the ways of loving. New Press, Toronto, 1973

Author Affiliation: Asl Bugay is PhD student and Research Assistant at Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Ph: 0090 312 2104042, bugay@metu.edu.tr Dr. Esin Tezer is Professor at Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. Ph: 0090 312 2104041, esin@metu.edu.tr