(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 131

Are attachment styles general

interpersonal orientations?
Applicants’ perceptions and
emotions in interaction with
evaluators in a college entrance
examination

Ritva Horppu & Merja Ikonen-Varila

University of Helsinki

ABSTRACT
This study examined whether attachment styles, constructed
in close relationships, are related to applicants’ perceptions
and emotions in a substantially different relationship with
evaluators in a college entrance examination. The findings
suggest that secure and fearful styles may consist of some-
what stable interpersonal orientations that are evident across
relationships. Fearful attachment was related to lower an-
ticipatory challenge appraisal, more negative emotional
reactions, and a less positive view of evaluators during the
examination. Secure attachment was related to more positive
views of self and evaluators. Interview boards assessed more
fearful applicants as less suitable, and more secure applicants
as more suitable for kindergarten teacher education. The only
significant findings for preoccupied and dismissing attach-
ment styles were obtained in the context of close relation-
ships.

KEY WORDS: adult attachment • attachment styles • inter-

personal orientation

According to adult attachment theorists (Bartholomew, 1990; Shaver,

Collins, & Clark, 1996), people develop cognitive representations, or in-
ternal working models of themselves and others, from experiences in close
relationships. These working models of attachment consist of beliefs,

This research was supported in part by the Academy of Finland. All correspondence con-
cerning this article should be addressed to Ritva Horppu, Department of Social Psychology,
University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland [e-mail:
ritva.horppu@helsinki.fi]. John Harvey was the Action Editor on this article.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright © 2001 SAGE Publications (London,
Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol. 18(1): 131–148. [0265–4075 (200102) 18:1; 015532]
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 132

132 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

attitudes, and expectations about self, others, and the relation between the
two. Working models of attachment are likely to be activated automatically
whenever attachment-related events occur (i.e., when individuals feel
threatened, vulnerable, or distressed). Attachment-related events are con-
ditions of apparent threat, such as an individual’s internal states (e.g., pain
or ill health), frightening events, and stressful or threatening social inter-
actions.
Depending on the nature of experiences with close others, individuals
develop either positive or negative models of self and others (Bartholo-
mew, 1990; Shaver et al., 1996). With regard to the model of self, a key
aspect is the notion of how acceptable or unacceptable individuals see
themselves in the eyes of others. Individuals with a positive model of self
see themselves as worthy of love, attention, and support. Individuals with
a positive model of others consider others as mostly trustworthy, caring,
and available, whereas individuals with a negative model of others see
other people as unreliable, uncaring, distant, and rejecting. Bartholomew
(1990) conceptualized four distinct attachment styles, or prototypic strat-
egies, for regulating felt security in close relationships, based on Bowlby’s
(1973) definition of working models. Each attachment style is characterized
by relatively coherent and stable patterns of emotion, appraisals, and
behavior exhibited in close relationships, and these patterns are thought to
reflect the underlying models of self and others. Secure attachment is
characterized by positive models of both self and others, and preoccupied
attachment is characterized by a negative model of self and a positive
model of others. Bartholomew (1990) distinguished between two avoidant
attachment styles: dismissing-avoidant attachment, characterized by a posi-
tive model of self and a negative model of others, and fearful-avoidant
attachment, characterized by negative models of both self and others.
One question in adult attachment theory is whether attachment styles
should be considered as relationship variables rather than more general
interpersonal styles. Several theorists (e.g., Bowlby, 1973; Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Shaver et al., 1996) suggest that adults may possess sepa-
rate and differentiated working models and attachment styles in their
different close relationships because they may have dissimilar experiences
with different close others. For example, when Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr,
Enns, and Koh-Rangarajoo (1996) asked people to assess their 10 signifi-
cant relationships with regard to attachment style, most people reported
different attachment styles in different relationships. Although most of the
relationships were assessed as secure, many people had experienced mul-
tiple attachment orientations even in their closest relationships with
parents and romantic partners. In addition, Baldwin et al. found that indi-
viduals’ expectations of the quality of interaction in different relationships
were relationship specific rather than manifestations of a dispositional
attachment style.
Although Baldwin et al. (1996) argue that attachment styles should be
considered as relationship variables rather than person variables, they also
suggest that individuals may have some more articulated relational schemas
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 133

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 133

based on their most dominant or frequent relational experiences. If indi-

viduals have much experience with, for example, mutually warm and
supporting relationships, a secure attachment orientation may be most avail-
able and accessible to them in new relationships or when they are asked to
assess their most typical way of relating in close relationships on an attach-
ment questionnaire.
Much less is known about whether adults’ working models of attach-
ment, constructed in close relationships, influence their perceptions, emo-
tions, and behaviors in less close social relationships. Shaver et al. (1996)
suggest that models of self may overlap across different relationships.
Tidwell, Reis, and Shaver (1996) found some attachment-style effects in
students’ everyday social life, although these styles were manifested pri-
marily in the context of interactions involving actual or potential romantic
partners. Pietromonaco and Barrett (1997) found that preoccupied
students, who evidence negative models of self in close relationships, also
reported more negative views of self (i.e., how much they felt worthwhile,
competent, and accepted by their interaction partners) in daily social inter-
actions including all types of partners (e.g., close others, acquaintances,
strangers). In addition, secure students, who evidence positive models of
self in close relationships, reported the most positive view of self in these
relationships. No significant associations emerged between dismissing and
fearful students’ models of self or all students’ models of others in these
two contexts.
The present study investigated whether attachment working models,
constructed in close relationships, may consist of somewhat stable inter-
personal orientations and interaction patterns that are evident in a differ-
ent type of relationship. First, we studied individuals’ views of self and
others with regard to two essentially distinct types of relationships (i.e., inti-
mate relationships with close others and a non-attachment relationship
with strangers in an evaluator role in a college entrance examination). The
present study extended past research in at least one important way: all
participants were involved in an identical type of relationship and inter-
action in the non-attachment context.
Deutsch (1985) distinguishes four basic dimensions of interpersonal
relations: cooperative–competitive/conflictual, hierarchical–egalitarian,
task-oriented–socio-emotional, and formal–informal. Deutsch suggests that
each dimension induces a distinctive psychological orientation: different
cognitive processes, motivational tendencies, and moral dispositions are
characteristic of different types of social relations. Different types of inter-
personal relationships can be constructed in terms of their positions on
these four dimensions. Deutsch argues that individuals have structured
beliefs and expectations about themselves and others, but that these expec-
tations are characteristic of particular types of relationships. The present
study investigated how individuals experience themselves and others in a
cooperative, but markedly hierarchical, task-oriented, and formal relation-
ship with members of examination boards in a college entrance examin-
ation. The entrance examination included three different tests, two of
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 134

134 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

which consisted of face-to-face interaction with the board members.

Applying Deutsch’s (1985) theorizing, this type of relationship should
induce the following psychological orientation: because the relationship is
formal, the individuals in the subordinate position can expect that the inter-
action follows certain well-known and predictable forms. A task-oriented
relationship should evoke mainly achievement-oriented goals and moti-
vations, instead of concerns related to affiliation, affection, and nurturance.
Because the relationship is cooperative, the persons in the subordinate role
are predisposed to expect that the person higher in power respects their
goals and intentions and helps them to achieve them. This should be mani-
fested in a sense of self-esteem and self-respect. The person in a high power
position is expected to be responsible and treat the persons in the sub-
ordinate role fairly. They, in turn, are expected to show respectful compli-
ance. Accordingly, the subordinate participants (i.e., the applicants) in an
entrance examination, irrespective of their actual success in the examin-
ation, should have a relatively positive view of self in a sense of having been
able to do one’s best. Supposing that the board members treat the appli-
cants fairly, the applicants should have relatively positive views of their
evaluators.
First, we examined two contrasting hypotheses. The hypothesis based on
Deutsch’s (1985) theorizing predicted that, because different types of
relationships induce typical psychological orientations, participants’ attach-
ment working models would not be valid predictors of their views of self
and others in the examination context. The contrasting hypothesis pre-
dicted that attachment styles have characteristics of general interpersonal
styles. Thus, participants would evidence consistent views of self and others
in their relationships with close others and the members of the examination
boards. Following this hypothesis, we predicted that secure and dismissing
attachment styles (positive models of self constructed in close relation-
ships) would be related to more positive views of self after the interaction
with the board members, whereas preoccupied and fearful attachment
styles (negative models of self constructed in close relationships) would be
related to more negative views of self in the examination context. Accord-
ingly, we predicted that secure and preoccupied attachment styles (positive
models of others constructed in close relationships) would be related to
more positive views of the members of the examination boards, whereas
dismissing and fearful attachment styles (negative models of others con-
structed in close relationships) would be related to viewing the board
members as more malevolent, distant, and unfriendly.
To study further the question of whether attachment styles consist of
features of general interpersonal orientations, we investigated whether
attachment-style effects would emerge in participants’ appraisals and
emotional reactions during the entrance examination. Previous studies
suggest that working models of attachment guide individuals’ social per-
ception and influence the level of distress that individuals experience
during stressful events (e.g., Fuendeling, 1998; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995;
Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993; Shaver et al., 1996). Secure and
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 135

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 135

dismissing individuals tend to appraise stressful situations more optimisti-

cally than preoccupied individuals. Preoccupied individuals tend to respond
to stressful events with stronger negative emotions than secure and
avoidant individuals. The present study explored whether contextual
factors (e.g., being treated fairly by the examiners, and well-known and
predictable forms for the interaction) might delimit the effect of these
models. We were able to control for differences in the stressful experience
by providing an identical event for all participants. In addition, instead of
relying on participants’ memories of interactions or reports on hypotheti-
cal situations, we were able to investigate their experiences in a real-life
stressful situation (i.e. in a college entrance examination that is a highly
significant life task for young people). Again we made two contrasting
hypotheses. Following Deutsch’s (1985) theorizing, we predicted that indi-
viduals’ attachment working models would not predict their appraisals and
emotions in a different context (i.e., in interaction with non-attachment
figures during the entrance examination). The contrasting hypothesis,
based on previous studies, predicted that secure and dismissing attachment
styles would be related to appraising a difficult situation (the entrance
examination) more as a challenge than as a threat and to more positive
emotional reactions, whereas preoccupied and fearful attachment styles
would be associated with higher threat appraisals and lower challenge
appraisals, and to more negative emotional reactions during the examin-
ation.
Previous findings (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 1993; Mikulincer & Florian,
1995; Ognibene & Collins, 1998; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992;
Wallace & Vaux, 1993) have suggested that attachment working models
may influence the selection of coping strategies for dealing with stressful
events. Because our participants would be anticipating their behavior in the
context of their close relationships, we explored whether similar attach-
ment-style differences would emerge in their anticipated ways of coping as
has been found in previous studies. We predicted that secure attachment
styles would be related to more support-seeking from close others, and to
less emotion-focused coping and suppression and denial of negative
thoughts and emotions after the examination. Dismissing and fearful styles
were expected to be related to less support-seeking and emotion-focused
coping, and to more suppression and denial, whereas preoccupied attach-
ment was expected to be related to more emotion-focused coping and
support-seeking and less suppression and denial.
Finally, we were also promised access to the grades the applicants would
receive from the three entrance examination tests. We had no prior reason
to expect that applicants’ attachment styles would be related to their
qualifications for kindergarten teacher education.
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 136

136 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

Method

Participants
The sample consisted of 231 female participants in an entrance examination to
kindergarten teacher college in the University of Helsinki. Participants’ ages
ranged from 18 to 39 years; the mean age was 21.9 years (SD = 4.0). From a
total of 519 applicants for the kindergarten teacher education, 312 candidates
were called to participate in the entrance examination, based on their high-
school matriculation grades and prior work experience with children. Thirteen
men and 233 women took part in the examination, of whom 100 applicants
were eventually accepted for training. Preliminary analyses showed no signifi-
cant sex differences in attachment styles, and both sexes were equally likely to
be accepted for training. However, because of the small number of male appli-
cants, they were discarded from our final sample.

Procedure. The entrance examination consisted of three different tests: an oral

presentation, an interview, and a written examination. The examination boards
were composed of the staff of the kindergarten teacher education. Applicants
took part first in a 20-minute oral presentation of a plan for an educational
event in kindergarten, which they had constructed during an hour’s preparation
time from a topic drawn by lot. Approximately half of the time of the presen-
tation test was spent on the applicant’s presentation of her plan, and the rest
of the time was spent by a 2-member board asking more details about the pre-
sented plan. After the presentation test, applicants moved immediately to the
second test, an unstructured interview conducted by another 2-member board.
Personal questions were asked about applicants’ life-history, work-history,
hobbies, and so forth, in order to assess their personality and motivation to be
educated as kindergarten teachers. After 2–4 days, depending on their indi-
vidual testing day, applicants took part in a written examination, which was
based on two books on child development and care.
We provided the participants with the overview of the study in a general
information session for all applicants at the beginning of their examination day,
and contacted them immediately after they had finished both their oral presen-
tation and the interview, and asked them to complete a short questionnaire at
their own pace. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to
write down their names so that we could compare the reports from the appli-
cants who passed the entrance examination to those from the failed applicants.
Participants were assured that their responses on the questionnaires would not
be accessible to the members of the examination boards, and thus would not
affect their evaluations of the applicants. Because one man and two women
refused to fill out the questionnaire, our final sample consisted of 231 female
applicants.

Measures

Attachment styles. Participants’ attachment styles were assessed using a trans-

lation of Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) adult attachment measure. Par-
ticipants read descriptions of the four attachment-style categories (dismissing,
secure, fearful, and preoccupied), and rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not
at all like me, 7 = very much like me) how well each of the prototypes described
them in their close relationships. The mean values of women’s attachment
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 137

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 137

ratings in our sample were somewhat different from those reported earlier
(Cozzarelli, Sumer, & Major, 1998; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994; Shaver et
al., 1996). The women in the Scharfe and Bartholemew and Shaver et al. studies
were mostly students, whereas Cozzarelli et al. (1998) studied women who
underwent abortion. The mean secure rating in our sample (M = 5.7, SD =1.2)
was substantially higher than those reported in previous samples (ranging from
3.8 to 4.6), whereas participants in our sample reported much lower fearful
avoidance (M = 2.2, SD = 1.4) and dismissing avoidance (M = 1.9, SD = 1.1)
than participants in previous samples (ranging from 3.4 to 3.9, and from 2.7 to
3.7, respectively). The mean preoccupied rating in our sample (M = 3.1, SD =
1.5) did not differ from those reported in previous samples (ranging from 2.8
to 3.3). Secure attachment style ratings correlated significantly with fearful
attachment style ratings (r = –.19, p < .01), and dismissing attachment style
ratings correlated significantly with preoccupied style ratings (r = –.19, p < .01).
Participants’ models of self and others in close relationships were calculated
by the procedures outlined by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994). A model of self
score was obtained by summing participants’ ratings on the two attachment
patterns with positive self-models (secure and dismissing) and subtracting their
ratings on the two patterns with negative self-models (fearful and preoccupied).
In similar fashion, a model of others score was obtained by summing the scores
on the two attachment patterns with positive models of others (secure and pre-
occupied) and subtracting ratings on the two attachment patterns that have
negative models of others (fearful and dismissing). The mean values of the
model of self in close relationships (M = 2.3, SD = 2.9) and the model of others
in close relationships (M = 4.8, SD = 2.8) were substantially higher in our
sample than those reported earlier (0.9 and –0.2, respectively) by Cozzarelli et
al. (1998).

Models of self and others in the context of the entrance examination. Partici-
pants’ models of self and others in the examination context were assessed by
14 items constructed for this study. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-
point Likert scale (1 = does not apply, 5 = applies a great deal) how much each
item applied to them during their interaction with the board members in the
presentation and interview tests. Seven items assessed the view of self (I could
not think clearly; I managed to highlight my best characteristics to the jury; I
tried to please the jury; I could not control my emotions; I could argue my
points at least as cleverly as other participants; I was at least as good a candi-
date as other participants; I acted in a natural way (was myself) with the
members of the jury). Seven items assessed the view of others (Board members
concentrated primarily in finding out my best characteristics; I was treated
badly (arrogantly, rudely, etc.); Board members were interested in my opinions
and thoughts; Board members did not seem fully competent; I was treated
respectfully; Board members were primarily interested in finding out my weak-
nesses; Board members seemed distant). The view of self scale was formed by
averaging the ratings for six items. One item (‘I tried to please the jury’)
lowered reliability enough to warrant dropping it. Accordingly, the view of
others scale was formed by averaging the ratings for the seven items. The reli-
abilities for the scales were .78 and .72, respectively.

Threat and challenge appraisals. The intensities of participants’ threat and

challenge appraisals were assessed by Folkman and Lazarus’ (1985) Stress
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 138

138 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

Questionnaire. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale (1

= not at all, 5 = a great deal) the extent to which they had felt each of the follow-
ing six emotions when waiting for their appointment with the examination
board: worried, fearful, and anxious (anticipatory threat), and confident,
hopeful, and eager (anticipatory challenge). Two scales were formed by aver-
aging the ratings for the three corresponding items. The reliabilities in Folkman
and Lazarus’s (1985) study were .80 for the threat scale and .59 for the chal-
lenge scale. The reliabilities in the current study were .78 for the threat
appraisal scale and .74 for the challenge appraisal scale.

Emotional reactions. Participants’ emotional reactions during the entrance

examination were assessed with a 24-item scale applied from Mayer, Salovey,
Gomberg-Kaufman, and Blainey’s (1991) study. Seven items were pleasant
emotions or internal states (happy, glad, self-satisfied, enthusiastic, certain, in
control, successful), nine items were unpleasant emotions or internal states
(blue, angry, fear, disgust, shameful, baffled, cautious, indignant, helpless), and
eight items were unpleasant bodily sensations (awareness of heartbeat, burning
face, dry mouth, dizzy, shaky hands, sweaty, tense body, upset stomach). Par-
ticipants were asked to estimate on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 =
very much) how much they had felt each of the following emotions and bodily
sensations during the entrance examination. The positive emotional reactions
scale, the negative emotional reactions scale, and the bodily sensations scale
were formed by averaging the ratings for the corresponding items. The relia-
bilities for the three scales were .90, .81, and .79, respectively.

Anticipated ways of coping. Participants’ anticipated ways of coping after the

examination were assessed on a 14-item scale, applied from Mayer et al.’s
(1991) study. Participants were asked to estimate on a 5-point Likert scale (1
= definitely not, 5 = highly probable) how they would feel or act after the
entrance examination as described by the items. Support-seeking was
measured by four items (‘I want to share my experience of success or failure
with somebody’; ‘I will discuss with others about their similar experiences’; ‘I
will talk about my feelings aroused in the examination to somebody I know
well’; ‘I will describe the episodes of the examination to somebody I know
well’). Emotion-focused coping was measured by four items (‘I will reward or
comfort myself with food, drinks, etc.’; ‘I will analyze in detail what I did well
and not well in the examination’; ‘I will analyze by myself the feelings that the
examination aroused’; ‘I will think about by myself what I could have done
better in the examination’). Suppression of emotions and memories was
measured by three items (‘I will try to think about something else if memories
of the examination come to mind’; ‘I will try to forget the examination alto-
gether’; ‘I will do something nice in order to forget the examination alto-
gether’). Denial of emotions was measured by three items (‘The examination
did not evoke any special feelings’; ‘I never recall past events afterwards’; ‘The
examination did not arouse any need to act in some special way afterwards’).
The four coping scales were formed by averaging the ratings for the corre-
sponding items. The reliabilities for the scales were .68 for support-seeking, .68
for emotion-focused coping, .81 for suppression, and .64 for denial.
The members of the presentation test board assessed from 0 to 5 the good-
ness of the candidate’s educational plan, and the interview boards assessed
from 0 to 5 the candidate’s suitability (i.e., motivation and personality) for
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 139

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 139

TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, and ranges for the major variables

Variable M SD Possible range Obtained range

Examination context
View of self 3.65 .70 1.0–5.0 1.2–5.0
View of others 3.95 .58 1.0–5.0 2.0–5.0
Anticipatory appraisal
Threat appraisal 2.74 .99 1.0–5.0 1.0–5.0
Challenge appraisal 3.58 .77 1.0–5.0 1.7–5.0
Emotional reactions
Positive emotions 3.21 .78 1.0–5.0 1.3–5.0
Negative emotions 1.62 .56 1.0–5.0 1.0–4.0
Bodily sensations 2.14 .74 1.0–5.0 1.0–4.3
Ways of coping
Support-seeking 4.27 .65 1.0–5.0 1.5–5.0
Emotion-focused coping 3.40 .92 1.0–5.0 1.0–5.0
Suppression 1.85 .93 1.0–5.0 1.0–5.0
Denial 1.78 .79 1.0–5.0 1.0–5.0
Received grades
Presentation 2.98 .98 0.0–5.0 0.0–5.0
Interview 3.23 .98 0.0–5.0 0.0–5.0
Written exam 2.43 1.20 0.0–5.0 0.0–5.0

kindergarten teacher education. The written examination was marked from 0

to 5.

Results

Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the main variables. Par-
ticipants appraised the examination more as a challenge than as a threat, and
they reported rather low intensity of negative emotional reactions and bodily
sensations and a moderate intensity of positive emotional reactions during the
examination. Participants also had rather positive views of themselves and of
the members of the examination boards.
First, we examined whether individuals’ views of self and others were con-
sistent in two distinct types of relationships. Pearson correlations for the main
variables are shown in Table 2. The self-model index (constructed from par-
ticipants’ ratings on the four attachment scales in close relationships) was un-
related to the view of self in the examination context (r = .13, ns). However, as
shown in Table 2, separate analyses for the four attachment styles revealed that
the secure attachment style was related to a more positive view of self in the
examination context. The other-model index of close relationships correlated
significantly with the view of the members of the examination boards (r = .17,
p < .01). Separate analyses for the four attachment styles revealed that a secure
attachment style was related to a more positive view of the examiners, whereas
a fearful style was related to a more negative view of the examiners.
Second, we investigated whether attachment-style effects would emerge in
participants’ appraisals of threat and challenge, and in emotional reactions (i.e.,
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 140

140 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

TABLE 2
Correlations between dimensional attachment ratings and examination
context variables
Attachment style
——————————————————————–
Variables Dismissing Secure Fearful Preoccupied

Examination context
View of self –.02 .23** –.09 –.01
View of others –.02 .20* –.26** –.10
Anticipatory appraisal
Threat appraisal –.13 –.14 .16 .08
Challenge appraisal .02 .15 –.19* –.08
Emotional reactions
Positive emotions –.03 .17 –.17 –.05
Negative emotions .03 –.14 .24** .10
Bodily sensations –.13 –.08 .07 .02
Ways of coping
Support-seeking –.19* .14 –.15 –.04
Emotion-focused coping –.18* .08 –.01 .18*
Suppression .13 –.13 .22** .19*
Denial .15 .00 .12 .07
Received grades
Presentation –.07 –.06 –.09 .01
Interview –.08 .20* –.22** –.13
Written examination –.04 –.05 –.03 .09

Note. Minimum pairwise N = 209.

* p < .01; ** p < .001

positive and negative emotions, and bodily sensations) during the entrance
examination. As shown in Table 2, the intensity of threat appraisal was unre-
lated to attachment styles, but participants who rated themselves as more
fearful in close relationships tended to report significantly lower challenge
appraisal (i.e., less confidence, hope, and eagerness when waiting for their
appointment with the examination board). Only one attachment-based relation
emerged in participants’ emotional reactions during the examination: higher
scores on fearful attachment style were related to higher scores on negative
emotional reactions during the examination.
Third, we explored relations between attachment styles and participants’
anticipated ways of coping with their close others after the examination.
Several significant associations were detected (see Table 2). Individuals with a
more dismissing attachment style anticipated using less support-seeking and
emotion-focused coping. Individuals with a more preoccupied style anticipated
using more emotion-focused coping and more suppression, and individuals
with a more fearful style anticipated using more suppression for coping after
the examination.
Fourth, we studied whether applicants’ attachment styles were related to the
grades they received from the three entrance examination tests. As shown in
Table 2, attachment styles were not associated with the grades the applicants
received from the presentation test and from the written examination.
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 141

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 141

However, higher scores on the secure attachment style were significantly

related to higher grades received from the interview, whereas higher scores on
fearful attachment style were related to lower grades from the interview. t-tests
comparing applicants who passed the entrance examination and those who
failed indicated no significant attachment-style differences.

Discussion

The present study investigated whether adults’ attachment styles, con-

structed in close relationships, could be considered as general interpersonal
orientations that guide how people construe and respond to social inter-
action in a different type of relationship. We utilized Deutsch’s (1985)
theorizing on four basic dimensions of interpersonal relations and different
types of interpersonal relationships that can be constructed in terms of their
positions on these four dimensions.
First, we investigated whether individuals possess consistent views of self
and others in two types of relationships: in cooperative, egalitarian, socio-
emotional, and informal close relationships on the one hand, and in a co-
operative, but hierarchical, task-oriented, and formal relationship with the
members of the examination boards in a college entrance examination on
the other hand. The hypothesis based on Deutsch’s (1985) theorizing stated
that attachment working models, constructed in close relationships, would
not be valid predictors of participants’ views of self and others in inter-
action with non-attachment figures in the examination context. Instead, the
majority of applicants, irrespective of their actual success in the examin-
ation, should have relatively positive views of self in the sense of having
been able to do one’s best, and, supposing that the applicants are treated
fairly, the majority of them should have relatively positive views of the
board members. The contrasting hypothesis predicted that secure and dis-
missing attachment styles would be related to more positive views of self
in the examination context, whereas preoccupied and fearful attachment
styles would be related to more negative views of self, and secure and pre-
occupied attachment styles would be related to more positive views of the
members of the examination boards, whereas fearful and dismissing styles
would be related to more negative views of the examiners.
Our findings on the view of self in the two contexts give more support to
the first hypothesis. The majority of participants reported relatively posi-
tive views of themselves. Only one of the predictions concerning attach-
ment styles was confirmed: secure attachment style was significantly related
to a more positive view of self in the examination context. Our findings
suggest that individuals with negative models of self in close relationships
(i.e., those with more preoccupied and fearful tendencies) may worry
whether they are acceptable and worthy of love and care in the eyes of their
significant others, but, nevertheless, they may not be more likely than
others to view themselves extremely negatively in a formal, task-oriented
relationship, where those higher in power treat them well.
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 142

142 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

It must be noted, however, that our measure of the view of self in the
examination context focused on self-competence, particularly in the sense
of being able to do one’s best, whereas the model of self in close relation-
ships focuses more on self-liking (conceptions of one’s lovability and
worthiness of care and support). Deutsch (1985) assumes that task-oriented
relationships typically evoke more achievement-oriented than affection-
oriented concerns. Our findings are, nevertheless, surprising compared with
Brennan and Morris’s (1997) finding of significant associations between
attachment styles and self-competence. In their study, preoccupied and
fearful attachment styles were related to lower self-competence and dis-
missing attachment was related to higher self-competence, but no relation-
ship was found between secure attachment and self-competence in women.
In contrast to Brennan and Morris’s study, the only significant relationship
between attachment styles and the sense of being able to do one’s best in
the examination was found in our study for women with more secure
attachment styles. However, Brennan and Morris (1997) measured self-
competence as a generalized retrospective report of various competence-
relevant experiences, whereas participants in our study assessed their
self-views immediately after one specific event.
With regard to the view of others in the two contexts, we found partial
support for the second hypothesis. Although the majority of participants
reported rather positive views of the board members, a secure attachment
style was significantly related to more positive views of the board members,
whereas a fearful attachment style was significantly related to less positive
views of the board members. However, individuals with more preoccupied
tendencies were not likely to report exceptionally positive views of others
in the examination context, and those with more dismissing tendencies
were not likely to evidence more negative views of others.
To study further the question of whether attachment styles, constructed
in close relationships, are features of interpersonal orientations, we inves-
tigated whether attachment-style effects would emerge in participants’ per-
ceptions and emotions in a real-life, stressful event that was identical for
all participants. Again we made two contrasting hypotheses. Following
Deutsch’s (1985) theorizing, we predicted, first, that attachment working
models would not predict participants’ experiences in a distinct type of
relationship. The contrasting hypothesis, based on previous studies, pre-
dicted significant attachment-style effects on participants’ appraisals of
threat and challenge and on their emotional experiences during the
examination. We found only two significant attachment-style effects in par-
ticipants’ perceptions and emotions during the examination, and for the
fearful attachment style only. Participants with more fearful attachment
styles reported lower anticipatory challenge appraisal and more negative
emotional reactions during the examination. No significant associations
were revealed between attachment styles and the intensity of threat
appraisal, and attachment styles were not related to bodily sensations or
positive emotional reactions during the examination. Thus, our findings
suggest that contextual factors (e.g., being treated fairly by the examiners,
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 143

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 143

and well-known and predictable forms for the interaction) may delimit the
effect of attachment styles on individuals’ experiences in stressful events,
but individuals with more fearful attachment style may be more vulnerable
in diverse contexts.
The present study mostly replicated previous findings on the relationship
between attachment styles and ways of coping in the context of close
relationships. These results confirm that we were not studying any highly
exceptional sample of young women. Consistent with earlier studies, a dis-
missing attachment style was related to less support-seeking and emotion-
focused coping, a preoccupied style was related to more emotion-focused
coping and suppression of negative emotions and thoughts, and a fearful
style was related to more suppression. Participants with a more secure style
had particularly positive views of themselves and the board members after
the examination and, therefore, may not have anticipated any special way
of coping.
Finally, we did not expect participants’ attachment styles to be related to
the grades they received from the tests in the entrance examination. As
expected, applicants’ attachment styles were not related to their assessed
ability to plan and present an educational event to kindergarten children,
as observed in the presentation test, or in their knowledge of child develop-
ment and care, as measured in a written examination. However, applicants
with more secure attachment styles were likely to receive higher grades
from the interview, whereas applicants with more fearful attachment styles
were likely to receive lower grades from the interview. The purpose of the
interview was to assess applicants’ motivation, as well as to detect appli-
cants whose personality would be unsuitable for a kindergarten teacher.
However, as the members of the juries did not receive any exact opera-
tionalizations of either acceptable motivation or personality, the assess-
ments that each member gave must have been highly subjective. Because
all applicants wanted to attend the entrance examination, and because
attachment styles were unrelated to applicants’ grades from the presen-
tation test and from the written examination, it is highly unlikely that appli-
cants with more secure attachment styles would have been more motivated
and applicants with more fearful tendencies less motivated to enter the
training. This leaves us with the suspicion that when the members of the
juries assessed the suitability of the applicants, they actually assessed their
‘personality.’
It is plausible that individuals who evidence more secure attachment
styles in close adult relationships will be good kindergarten teachers, but
does fearful attachment style make individuals significantly less suitable to
work with children? Findings on the relationship between adult attachment
styles and conceptions of and behavior with children suggest that individuals
with more avoidant attachment tendencies in close adult relationships may
find it difficult to be sensitive attachment figures to their own children (e.g.,
Rholes, Simpson, & Blakely, 1995; Rholes, Simpson, Blakely, Lanigan, &
Allen, 1997). More avoidant mothers reported less emotional closeness to
their preschool children, and behaved less supportively toward them during
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 144

144 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

a laboratory teaching task. More avoidant college students reported more

uncertainty about willingness to have children of their own and about their
ability to relate to young children, as well as more dysfunctional expec-
tations and attitudes about caring for young children. However, these
studies did not distinguish between dismissing-avoidant and fearful-
avoidant attachment styles.
How could the members of the interview boards form an impression of
an applicants’ personality during a 20-minute interview? It is possible that
the applicants with a more secure attachment style reported the most func-
tional expectations and attitudes about caring for young children, whereas
applicants with a more fearful style reported the least functional expec-
tations and attitudes. We suspect that the board members were also influ-
enced by the way the applicants interacted with them during the interview.
Several studies have revealed associations between secure and fearful
attachment styles and behavior in social interactions (e.g., Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Duggan & Brennan, 1994; Guerrero & Burgoon, 1996).
Fearful individuals were portrayed by their friends and by themselves as
rather passive, lacking assertiveness, and socially inhibited, whereas secure
individuals were portrayed as warm and expressive. During a laboratory
conversation, secure individuals exhibited more gaze, facial pleasantness,
vocal pleasantness, general interest, and attention than fearful individuals.
Fearful individuals sat further from their partners and displayed less
fluency and longer response latencies, and were assessed as more vocally
anxious.
Because we have no video-recordings from the interviews, we do not
know whether similar associations as reported in previous studies appeared
during the interaction in the examination. We do, however, know that
applicants with more fearful tendencies were likely to report more nega-
tive emotions during the examination. In order to detect whether some par-
ticular emotional reactions were especially related to secure and fearful
attachment, the earlier analyses were repeated separately on each of the
seven positive emotions and nine negative emotions. Secure attachment
was related to feeling more self-satisfied (r = .18, p < .01) and successful
(r = .21, p < .01), and less disgusted (r = –.18, p < .01), shameful (r = –.18,
p < .01), and helpless (r = –.22, p < .001) during the examination. Fearful
attachment was related to feeling more angry (r = .19, p < .01), fearful (r =
.18, p < .01), disgusted (r = .28, p < .001), and indignant (r = .24, p < .001),
and less excited (r = –.20, p < .01) during the examination. In particular,
the negative feelings of anger, disgust, and indignation, accompanied with
low excitement, may have been noticeable to the examiners, and may have
influenced their assessments.
Our findings underline the need to investigate whether attachment styles
influence the assessments people make of applicants in various evaluative
situations, such as applying for different kinds of jobs or education. Is it
more the actual qualifications applicants possess for the given post or the
way they interact during the interview that influences how their compe-
tence is judged by the persons in the evaluator role?
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 145

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 145

Taken together, our findings give modest support to the hypothesis that
attachment styles, but only the secure and fearful attachment styles, may
consist of somewhat stable interpersonal orientations and interaction
patterns that are evident not only in close relationships, but also more
generally across social situations and relationships. The only significant
findings for the preoccupied and dismissing attachment styles were
obtained in our sample in the realm of close relationships (i.e., when par-
ticipants anticipated their coping strategies after the examination). These
two attachment styles may show fewer characteristics of general inter-
personal styles, but be activated primarily in the context of interactions
involving potential attachment figures.
Participants with more secure attachment styles in close relationships
have, according to Bartholomew’s (1990) model, an internalized sense of
self-worth and a positive model of others. Their anticipatory positive
models may have been confirmed during the examination, as reflected in
these participants’ particularly positive views of themselves and others, and
may have been manifested in their behavior when interacting with the
members of the interview boards. Individuals with a more fearful attach-
ment orientation evidence high fear of rejection in close relationships, and
their models of close others are negative. These participants’ negative
orientations to others may have predisposed them to interpret the inter-
action in the examination more negatively and to exhibit defensive behav-
iors that were noticeable to the members of the interview boards.
Individuals with more preoccupied attachment tendencies in close relation-
ships evidence high anxiety regarding acceptance and rejection, but their
positive other-models induce them to seek out support in relationships. In
the examination context, the supposedly benevolent and friendly behavior
exhibited by the examiners may have reduced the activation of the pre-
occupied attachment style. Individuals with more dismissing tendencies in
close relationships view themselves positively as self-reliant and they prefer
to keep a rather high interpersonal distance. When there is no threat to the
interpersonal distance between the interaction partners, as was the case in
the formal and task-related relationship with the board members in the
entrance examination, individuals with more avoidant tendencies may not
be any more likely than others to perceive the relationships negatively or
to exhibit noticeably defensive behaviors.
A secure attachment orientation is characteristic of individuals who
probably have much experience with warm and supporting close relation-
ships, whereas in order to develop a fearful attachment orientation, indi-
viduals may have predominantly disappointing experiences in close
relationships. Thus, secure and fearful attachment styles may consist of
relational schemas that tend to be chronically accessible across various
relationships. Maybe the experiences with close others that induce the pre-
occupied and dismissing attachment orientations are not so exclusively
positive or negative. Therefore, the schemas that are typical of preoccupied
and dismissing attachment styles in close relationships may be less chroni-
cally accessible in other types of relationships.
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 146

146 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

We acknowledge several limitations of the current research. More

research with broader populations and using many different types of social
situations and relationships is needed to investigate further whether attach-
ment styles constructed in close relationships consist of features of broader
interpersonal styles. However, the contribution of the present research lies,
first, in exploring explicitly this so far rarely studied question, and, second,
in examining participants in a meaningful real-world situation that was
identical for all. Interesting findings also emerged of the presumably mani-
fest interaction patterns related to secure and fearful attachment styles, as
observed by the examiners.
We also acknowledge that the statistically significant correlations found
in our study were of only moderate magnitude. It is plausible that the rela-
tively homogenous sample of young women suppressed the magnitude of
the possible links among our variables. In addition, all self-reported data
in this study are vulnerable to all of the limitations associated with self-
report measures. Because the present study was cross-sectional and corre-
lational in nature, no causal conclusions can be drawn from the present
data. Nevertheless, it is logical to assume that individuals’ attachment styles
constructed over time in close relationships influence their perceptions and
emotions in this solitary encounter with the board members. However, it
is also possible that some personality traits or psychological processes influ-
ence individuals’ reactions and actions in both types of relationships.
Overall, we suggest that Deutsch’s (1985) framework would make a con-
tribution to future studies on adult attachment. Future research might
benefit from taking explicitly into account the different dimensions of inter-
personal relations when exploring the consistency of models of self and
others, not only across different types of relationships but across different
close relationships also. Deutsch’s description of typical cognitive schemas
and motivational orientations that should emerge in an ideal-typical close
relationship (i.e., in a cooperative, egalitarian, socio-emotional, and infor-
mal relationship) resembles highly the prototype of a secure attachment
style. Deutsch suggests that an ideal-typical close relationship should
induce a typical psychological orientation to a majority of individuals, and,
indeed, a majority of participants usually selects a secure attachment style
as the most descriptive of them in close relationships (e.g., Bartholomew,
1997; Shaver et al., 1996). Nevertheless, a large minority, sometimes even
the majority, of participants choose one of the insecure attachment styles
as the most descriptive of them in close relationships. Adults’ close
relationships are not, however, probably similar with regard to the four
basic dimensions of interpersonal relations. Even if all close relationships
are socio-emotional and informal, they may differ with regard to co-
operation versus competition or equality versus hierarchy. Would the
majority of individuals describe themselves, for example, in a competitive
and hierarchical close relationship with an identical insecure attachment
style, suggesting that attachment orientations may be largely reactions to
the current type of relationship? Or would we find individual differences
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 147

Horppu & Ikonen-Varila: Attachment styles as interpersonal orientations 147

in self-reported attachment styles even when adults were in an identical

type of close relationship?

REFERENCES

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-
cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 5, 147–178.
Bartholomew, K. (1997). Adult attachment processes: Individual and couple perspectives.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 249–263.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test
of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., & Morris, K. A. (1997). Attachment styles, self-esteem, and patterns of
seeking feedback from romantic partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
23–31.
Cozzarelli, C., Sumer, N., & Major, B. (1998). Mental models of attachment and coping with
abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 453–467.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Duggan, E. S., & Brennan, K. A. (1994). Social avoidance and its relation to Bartholomew’s
adult attachment typology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 147–153.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and
coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 48, 150–170.
Fuendeling, J. M. (1998). Affect regulation as a stylistic process within adult attachment.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 291–322.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of self and others: Fundamental dimensions
underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
430–445.
Guerrero, L. K., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Attachment styles and reactions to nonverbal
involvement change in romantic dyads. Human Communication Research, 22, 335–370.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Gomberg-Kaufman, S., & Blainey, K. (1991). A broader conception
of mood experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 100–111.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful situ-
ation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
406–414.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and
posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 817–826.
Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support,
and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 323–345.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social
interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1409–1423.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Blakely, B. S. (1995). Adult attachment styles and mothers’
relationships with their young children. Personal Relationships, 2, 35–54.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Blakely, B. S., Lanigan, I., & Allen, E. A. (1997). Adult attach-
ment styles, the desire to have children, and working models of parenthood. Journal of Per-
sonality, 65, 357–385.
Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns.
Personal Relationships, 1, 23–43.
(6) Horppu dm (d) 2/1/01 9:42 am Page 148

148 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 18(1)

Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working
models of self and relationship partners. In. G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Know-
ledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 25–62). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving
within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.
Tidwell, M-C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and social
interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 729–745.
Wallace, J. L., & Vaux, A. (1993). Social support network orientation: The role of adult attach-
ment style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 12, 354–365.