Attachment Dimensions And The Big Ve Personality Traits .
Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–208www.elsevier.com/locate/jrpAttachment dimensions and the big Wvepersonality traits: Associations and comparativeability to predict relationship qualityErik E. Noftle , Phillip R. ShaverDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8686, USAAvailable online 18 March 2005AbstractSeveral studies have explored associations between measures of adult attachment style andthe Big Five personality traits or factors, but the studies have not included current dimensionalmeasures of attachment style (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) or the most complete (NEOPI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and frequently used (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991)measures of the Big Five. Moreover, most studies after Shaver and Brennan’s (1992) have notcompared attachment style and Big Five measures as predictors of relationship quality. Here,we summarize past research and report two studies comparing Brennan et al.’s two-dimensional measure of attachment style with the BFI and NEO-PI-R measures of the Big Five.There are consistent and theoretically meaningful associations between the attachment-styleand personality trait measures, but attachment-style dimensions still predict relationship quality better than measures of the Big Five. Implications are discussed. 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Keywords: Adult attachment; Personality; Big Five; Relationship quality; Traits Corresponding author.E-mail address: eenoftle@ucdavis.edu (E.E. Noftle).0092-6566/ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2004.11.003
180E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–2081. IntroductionAdult attachment theory (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer& Shaver, 2003) is an extension of Bowlby and Ainsworth’s attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Bowlby, 1969), designed to explain individual diVerences in cognitions, feelings, and behaviors that occur in the context of adolescent and adult closerelationships. According to the theory, individual diVerences in “attachment style”emerge from experiences in previous close relationships, beginning with the attachmentrelationships between children and their primary caregivers. Since 1987, when the theory was Wrst proposed, scores of studies (reviewed by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) haveshown that measures of attachment style are associated in theoretically predictableways with mental processes related to close relationships, behaviors observed in suchrelationships, and outcomes of such relationships, both subjective (e.g., satisfaction)and objective (e.g., breakup or divorce). In recent years, many studies have includedboth individual-diVerence measures and experimental manipulations, and have illuminated some of the mental processes, many of them implicit, that underlie variations inattachment style (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).In their early research, Hazan and Shaver (1987, 1990) used a simple three-category self-report measure of attachment style based on hypothesized parallels betweenAinsworth’s (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) three-category typology ofinfants’ patterns of attachment to their parents. The three patterns were called secure,anxious (or anxious/ambivalent), and avoidant. This measure, which produced bothself-ratings of the three category descriptions and selection of the most self-descriptive category, was used by Shaver and Brennan (1992) in an early longitudinal studyof predictors of relationship quality and outcomes. In that study, the three categoryratings were systematically associated with the then-current measure of the “BigFive” personality traits,1 the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985); but the attachmentratings proved to be better predictors of relationship outcomes over time. The studywas important in the history of adult attachment research, because it was interpretedas a license to pursue attachment theory as a conceptual framework that was not easily or completely assimilated to the Big Five framework.As is well known, the Big Five personality traits—Neuroticism, Extraversion,Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness—have emerged as an overarching,empirically based framework capturing major between-person diVerences in personality (John & Srivastava, 1999). It is therefore considered parsimonious and sensibleto make sure, when any new individual-diVerence variables are introduced, that theyare not simply clones of the Big Five variables bearing new names (the so-called“jangle fallacy”; Block, 2000). Shaver and Brennan’s (1992) study accomplished thistask for the early measure of adult attachment style.1Although Costa and McCrae (1992) used the term “Five Factor Model” to refer to the traits instead of the“Big Five” (which is more associated with the lexical approach to identifying the traits; e.g., Saucier & Goldberg, 1996), we generally use the term Big Five in the present article because the Five Factor Model refers speciWcally to a formal theory of personality (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1999), rather than the Wve constructs per se.
E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–208181Over the years, many improvements in the measurement of attachment style havebeen proposed (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Carver, 1997; Collins & Read,1990; Simpson, 1990). Some of the improvement eVorts are based on the assumptionthat dimensional measures are more accurate and valid than categorical measures;some are based on dimensional theoretical conceptions of the attachment-styledomain, which supersede a simple categorical conception. The most inXuential of thedimensional schemes is Bartholomew’s (1990), which posits two essentially orthogonal dimensions, model of self (or attachment anxiety) and model of partner (orattachment avoidance) as the factors deWning four adult attachment styles.In 1998, Brennan, Clark, and Shaver reported a large factor-analytic study involving virtually all of the self-report attachment style measures proposed up to that time.They found that a two-dimensional, continuous measure of attachment style (theExperiences in Close Relationships scale, or ECR), compatible with the conceptualscheme proposed by Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), couldrepresent all of the existing measures while adding considerably to measurement precision. Brenan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) called the two dimensions “attachmentrelated anxiety” and “attachment-related avoidance,” the Wrst referring to anxietyabout rejection, abandonment, and unlovability, and the second to avoidance of intimacy and dependency. Recent research has supported this two-dimensional representation of adult attachment (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 2000), and also of infantattachment to parents (Fraley & Spieker, 2003).In the personality arena, John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991), coming from the lexical tradition of personality research (rather than the questionnaire approach ofCosta and McCrae), introduced their Big Five Inventory (BFI), which has becomeone of the most commonly used measures of the Big Five traits. During the sameperiod, Costa and McCrae (1992) also improved their NEO-PI, creating the NEO-PIR (for “revised”), which included six “facet” subscales for each of the Big Five traits.In the 1985 version of the NEO-PI, there were no facet scales for two of the traits,agreeableness and conscientiousness; now there are. For each major trait, thecorresponding six facet scales correlate substantially with each other and, together,provide a microanalytic interpretation of the overarching trait.The studies reported here had two main purposes. First, building on a brief reviewof studies that have examined the relation between attachment style and the Big Fivetraits (a review summarized in Table 1), we wished to examine how the ECR measureof attachment style relates to the BFI and the NEO-PI-R, two measures that havenot been examined previously in association with attachment style. Second, wewanted to update Shaver and Brennan’s (1992) conclusions by seeing whether theECR, a dimensional measure of attachment style, provides unique predictive powerwith respect to a measure of relationship quality when the Big Five trait scales or the30 facet scales of the NEO-PI-R are taken into account. Few studies since Shaver andBrennan (1992) have addressed this question, but since most studies Wnd thatattachment style measures and scales assessing the Big Five traits are only modestlyor moderately related, it seems likely that the ECR attachment scales will stillaccount for unique variance in relationship quality even after the Big Five traits arestatistically controlled (but see Kurdek, 2002).
182Table 1A summary of past Wndings on attachment categories/dimensions and the big WveAttachment category/dimensionAttachment measure Big Five measure Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness232172BD1KK¡¡¡¡¡¡ 00 1181169256256250404187200HIIEGAAJNMMMOPMQ¡¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ 000 0 0 ¡¡ 0 �¡ ¡0¡¡AverageAnxious/Negative model of selfShaver and Brennan (1992)232GriYn & Bartholomew (1994)470GriYn & Bartholomew (1994)470Shaver et al. (1996)172Shaver et al. (1996)172Becker et al. (1997)1181Carver (study 3, 1997)169Carver (study 4, 1997)256Carver (study 3, 1997)169Carver (study 4, 1997)256Carver (1997)256Baeckstroem and Holmes (2001) 515250Shafer (2001)aGallo, Smith, and Ruiz (2003)294BEFD1D2HI (merger)I (merger)I (worry)I (worry)EFGCKKKKKNMMMMMKOLAverageE.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–208SecureShaver and Brennan (1992)Shaver, Billings, Eveleth, andGilbert (1996)Becker et al. (1997)Carver (study 3, 1997)Carver (study 4, 1997)Carver (1997)Shafer (2001)aWilkinson and Walford (2001)Beitel and Cecero (2003)Neyer and Voigt (2004)N
2324704701721721721181169256256256515250294BEFD1 (fearful)D1 (dismissing)D2HIIE (fearful)E (dismissing)FGCKKKKKKNMMMMKOLAverage 0 0 0 ¡¡ �¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡0¡¡0000¡¡ ¡¡0¡¡00 refers to a non-signiWcant correlation; ¡ refers to a correlation between 0 and ¡.20; ¡ ¡ refers to a correlation between ¡.20 and ¡.40; ¡ ¡ ¡ refers to a correlation between ¡.40 and ¡1.00; similarly, the pluses refer to the parallel ranges of positive correlation coeYcients; all correlations marked with minuses or pluses,p .05.Attachment measures: A D Inventory of Peer Attachment (Armsden and Greenberg, 1987), B D attachment-style rating scale (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), C D adultattachment scale (Collins & Read, 1990) D1 D attachment-style categories (“secure,” “preoccupied,” and two avoidance-related scales: “dismissing” and “fearful;”Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), D2 D attachment-style dimensions (“model of self,” “model of others;” Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). E D RelationshipQualities (same scales as D1; GriYn & Bartholomew, 1994), F D Relationship Scales Questionnaire (GriYn & Bartholomew, 1994), G D adult attachment measure(Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994), H D composite of B, C, D1, and new items (Becker et al., 1997), I D Measure of Attachment Qualities (includes two anxietyrelated scales, “ambivalence-merger” and “ambivalence-worry”; Carver, 1997); J D Relationship-speciWc attachment scales for adults (Asendorpf, Banse, Wilpers,& Neyer, 1997).Big Five measures: K D NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985), L D Big Five version of the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Trapnell andWiggins, 1990), M D NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) N D Big Five Markers (Goldberg, 1992), O D Brief Bipolar Markers (Shafer, 1999),P D Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975); Q D German version of the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (Borkenau and Ostendorf, 1993).aShafer (2001) did not report the correlations between Attachment scales and the Big Five and they were obtained directly from the author (Shafer, personalcommunication, August 8th, 2004).E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–208Avoidant/Negative model of othersShaver and Brennan (1992)GriYn & Bartholomew (1994)GriYn & Bartholomew (1994)Shaver et al. (1996)Shaver et al. (1996)Shaver et al. (1996)Becker et al. (1997)Carver (study 3, 1997)Carver (study 4, 1997)Carver (1997)Carver (1997)Baeckstroem and Holmes (2001)Shafer (2001)aGallo et al. (2003)183
184E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–208For the purpose of this research, we selected a recent, carefully validated measureof relationship quality, the Perceived Relationship Quality Component Inventory(PRQC; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000). The PRQC is a highly reliable 18-itemLikert-format scale that includes three items to measure each of six facets of relationship quality: satisfaction, commitment, intimacy, trust, passion, and love. (The logicand properties of the scale were well described by Fletcher et al., 2000.)Shaver and Brennan (1992) were the Wrst to report correlations between attachment-style ratings and the Big Five traits. Their Wndings, which included several signiWcant correlations between the attachment and Big Five measures, indicated somedegree of overlap or association between the two sets of constructs. As expected,attachment anxiety (measured by a single Likert-format rating) was positively associated with Big-Five neuroticism, but not to a degree indicating complete redundancyor substitutability (r D .33). Attachment anxiety speciWcally involves feelings andbehaviors that arise in the context of close relationships, whereas neuroticism is conceptualized and measured as a broad trait connected with a range of negative emotions in relational and non-relational situations. Attachment anxiety, avoidance, andsecurity were also modestly to moderately correlated with some of the Big Five traitscales, as summarized in Table 1.Since the publication of Shaver and Brennan’s (1992) study, several otherresearchers have reported correlations between a variety of diVerent attachment measures and diVerent measures of the Big Five (see Table 1). In general, the studies showthat attachment security is moderately negatively correlated with neuroticism andmoderately positively correlated with extraversion and agreeableness, modestly positively correlated with conscientiousness, and not correlated with openness. Attachment anxiety is moderately to strongly correlated with neuroticism and notcorrelated with openness. The relation of attachment anxiety to the other threedimensions is less certain; it has been modestly correlated with extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness in some studies, but just as often not signiWcantlycorrelated with these dimensions. Attachment avoidance has been modestly to moderately correlated (negatively) with extraversion and agreeableness, but not correlated with openness. Some studies, but not others, have found avoidance to bepositively correlated with neuroticism and negatively with conscientiousness.In the present study, we expected results similar to the trends between attachmentand the Big Five consistently found by past researchers, despite the variety of attachment and Big Five measures used. In particular, we expected Attachment Anxiety,now measured by an 18-item scale with high internal consistency and strong test–retest reliability, to correlate with Neuroticism. We expected Attachment Avoidance,also measured by a reliable 18-item scale, to correlate negatively with Agreeablenessand Extraversion. We expected neither Attachment Anxiety nor Avoidance to becorrelated with Openness. We made no predictions about how Attachment Anxietywould be related to Extraversion, Agreeableness, or Conscientiousness, or about howAttachment Avoidance would be related to Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Paststudies have measured and conceptualized attachment in a number of ways (categorically, in terms of rated prototypes, and dimensionally), which may explain the inconsistent results.
E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–2081852. Study 1: Attachment and the BFIIn Study 1, we examined how the two ECR attachment dimensions and the BigFive traits, as assessed with the BFI, were related in a large sample of undergraduates. We examined these relations in detail using three diVerent kinds of analyses:correlations between attachment dimensions and the Big Five, regression equationspredicting Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance from the Big Five, and correlationsbetween the attachment dimensions and each BFI item, to gain a more detailedunderstanding of associations between attachment dimensions and detailed aspectsof the personality traits.2.1. ParticipantsParticipants were 8318 students (5417 women, 2901 men) at a large West Coastresearch university, who were asked to complete a number of personality measureson the Internet in exchange for extra credit points in an introductory psychologyclass. The participants were ethnically diverse: 40% White/Caucasian, 38% Asian/PaciWc Islander/Filipino, 6% Hispanic/Chicano/Latino, 1% Black/African American,14% “other” or multicultural (identifying with more than one ethnic group). Lessthan 1% of the participants declined to answer the ethnicity question. About 43% ofthe participants were single (i.e., not currently dating, in a committed relationship, ormarried). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 years (Mdn D 19).22.2. Measures2.2.1. Big FiveThe 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999)was used to measure the Wve broad personality traits. CoeYcient reliabilities for theWve trait scales in the present study were .86 for Neuroticism, .76 for Extraversion, .80for Openness, .81 for Agreeableness, and .78 for Conscientiousness.2.2.2. Adult attachmentThe 36-item Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998)was used to assess the two major dimensions of adult attachment style, AttachmentAnxiety (sample item: “I worry a fair amount about losing my partner”) andAttachment Avoidance (sample item: “I don’t feel comfortable opening up toromantic partners”). Participants were asked to complete the measures in terms ofhow they generally experience relationships, rather than their speciWc experience in acurrent relationship. In the present study the coeYcient s were .92 for AttachmentAnxiety and .93 for Avoidance. The two scales were modestly correlated (r D .22).2In this study and in Study 2, the number of participants diVers slightly across analyses and variablesbecause of missing data. The sample size involved in a speciWc analysis is always noted in the relevanttable.
186E.E. Noftle, P.R. Shaver / Journal of Research in Personality 40 (2006) 179–2083. Results3.1. Zero-order correlations3.1.1. Demographic variablesZero-order correlations among all the variables, including gender, age, and relationship status, are shown in Table 2. Most of the correlations, although statisticallysigniWcant because of the large sample size, were small. It is perhaps worth notingthat people who were not involved in a relationship at the time of the study weremore avoidant than those who were involved in a relationship (r D ¡.35), and thatmen were less neurotic than women (r D ¡.24).3.1.2. Attachment dimensions and the Big FiveTable 2 displays zero-order correlations between Attachment Anxiety and Avoidance and the Big Five. Each of the Big Five traits is signiWcantly correlated with eachattachment dimension, but the magnitude of the correlations varies, with some constructs being moderately related whereas others are only modestly related. Asexpected, Attachment Anxiety is most strongly correlated with Neuroticism (r D .42),whereas Avoidance is most strongly correlated with Agreeablen
ily or completely assimilated to the Big Five framework. As is well known, the Big Five personality traits—Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness—have emerged as an overarching, empirically based framework capturing major between-person diVerences in
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
To: Metalogix International GmbH ( kathleen@ansarilaw.com ) Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85255200 - METALOGIX - N/A Sent: 3/14/2013 12:13:23 PM Sent As: ECOM112@USPTO.GOV Attachments: Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 .
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
BUDGET, FINANCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 23, 2022, TIME: 10:15 AM to 12:15 PM THE CAROLINA INN OPEN SESSION FOR ACTION Attachment A Attachment B . Attachment C . Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G . Attachment H. 1. All-Funds Budget Model. Nathan Knuffman, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations 2.
