ATTACHMENT SECURITY AND FACTORS OF AUTHENTICITY
By
Ahimsa Tiana
A Thesis Presented to
The Faculty of Humboldt State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Psychology: Counseling
Committee Membership
Dr. Emily Sommerman, Committee Chair
Dr. Gregg Gold, Committee Member
Sheri Whitt, Committee Member
May 2015
Abstract
ATTACHMENT SECURITY AND FACTORS OF AUTHENTICITY
Ahimsa Tiana
Attachment theory concerns the influence of early childhood experience with
caregivers on long-lasting patterns with regard to close relationships. The study of
authenticity concerns the level of awareness and expression of one's true self. Though
previous research suggests a relationship between attachment and authenticity, such
research is scant and historically has been limited by lack of clear definitions and/or
available measures. The present study examines the relationship between two dimensions
of attachment-related insecurity (anxiety and avoidance) and three factors of authenticity
(self-alienation, authentic living, accepting external influence) using established measures
with strong psychometric properties. Attachment-related insecurity was measured using
the Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised questionnaire. Authenticity factors were
measured using the Authenticity Scale. Participants completed both measures via an
online survey. Results were analyzed using bivariate correlations. Attachment-related
anxiety was found to be positively associated with self-alienation and accepting external
influence. Attachment-related avoidance was found to be positively associated with selfalienation and accepting external influence, and negatively associated with authentic
living. Results are discussed along with implications for future research.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii
List of Appendices .............................................................................................................. v
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 26
Attachment ...................................................................................................................... 1
Authenticity .................................................................................................................. 14
Attachment and Authenticity ........................................................................................ 20
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 26
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 31
H1 .......................................................................................................................... 11
H2 .......................................................................................................................... 12
H3 .......................................................................................................................... 13
H4 .......................................................................................................................... 14
H5 .......................................................................................................................... 15
H6 .......................................................................................................................... 15
Method ............................................................................................................................ 267
Participants.................................................................................................................... 37
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 17
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 18
Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R) ...................................... 18
Authenticity Scale (AS) ........................................................................................ 19
iii
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................................. 40
Statistical Analysis ........................................................................................................ 41
Risks and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 42
Results ............................................................................................................................... 43
Demographics ............................................................................................................... 43
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 45
Implications for Future Research .................................................................................. 47
Clinical Applications .................................................................................................... 47
References ......................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A ....................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix B ....................................................................................................................... 61
Appendix C ....................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix D ....................................................................................................................... 64
Appendix E ....................................................................................................................... 65
Appendix F........................................................................................................................ 66
Appendix G ....................................................................................................................... 68
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Authenticity Scale (AS)
Appendix B. Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R)
Appendix C. Facebook Recruitment Notice
Appendix D. Participant Recruitment Email to Psychology Department at Humboldt
State University
Appendix E. Study Submission Email to Hanover College
Appendix F. Certificate of Informed Consent
Appendix G. Demographic Questionnaire
v
1
Introduction
One aspect of human experience commonly known to play a major role in
determining psychological outcomes is the experience of childhood. It is widely
understood and accepted that certain types of childhood experience promote healthy
development and well-being while others contribute to the development of
psychopathology and suffering. From a developmental perspective, early life experiences
can cause structural and functional changes in the developing brain which lay the
foundation for lifelong physiological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral patterns.
The influence of childhood experience is a main focus of attachment theory, a
popular approach to understanding the development of relational styles and tendencies.
According to attachment theory, supportive relationships with primary caregivers in
infancy and early childhood promote the development of patterns of secure attachment
later in life, while unsupportive and abusive relationships with caregivers can set the
stage for a lifetime of interpersonal difficulties. However, any number of factors may
influence an individual’s developmental trajectory such that individuals with similar
beginnings with regard to attachment may experience vastly different outcomes in the
end. These factors represent an enormous area of possibility for prevention and healing of
distress and impairment via psychotherapy.
Another aspect of human experience which plays a major role in determining
psychological outcomes is the degree to which an individual is able to engage
authentically in his/her life experiences. The fact that differences in authenticity are
2
viewed as critically important to understanding well-being across a wide variety of
theoretical approaches in psychology, including the psychodynamic, humanistic,
existential, positive, social, and clinical, speaks to the relevance of authenticity
concerning the human condition. Authenticity has been discussed as the very essence of
well-being (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008) and has been shown to be
inversely related to various forms of psychopathology.
Individuals with attachment-related insecurity may have a difficult time
recognizing their own needs and behaving authentically in relationship to others. As
authenticity is generally viewed as an important prerequisite to true fulfillment in life and
most of life involves interpersonal interactions, this tendency may translate into a general
lack of ability to exist in an authentic manner and an overall low level of life satisfaction
and well-being. Focused interventions aimed at promoting a deeper and more
comprehensive awareness of one’s own needs and desires as well as authentic selfexpression of those needs and desires may in turn promote higher levels of well-being.
As attachment and authenticity are viewed as core aspects of the human
condition, the deepening pool of information regarding the relationships between these
constructs helps to illuminate the overall experience of what it means to be human. Also,
from a practical standpoint, developing a more thorough understanding of the interactive
relationship between attachment-related experiences and tendencies regarding
authenticity may help to inform clinicians and direct psychotherapeutic interventions to
best serve clients.
3
Review of the Literature
Attachment
Attachment theory is an area of significant interest and prolific empirical research
in the field of psychology, which comes as no surprise considering that it centers on one
of the most fundamental aspects of human existence: relationships. Since the dawn of
humanity human beings have lived in groups, with interpersonal relationships forming
the core of everyday experience. Historically and in many present day life situations,
belonging to a group offers powerful advantages in terms of survival, and existing
without group affiliation may in many cases be dangerous. The configuration of one’s
relationships within one or more groups of affiliation forms the structure of daily life, and
the quality of such relationships may have a profound impact on one’s ability to navigate
through life experiences successfully.
According to attachment theory, the nature of our early experience with primary
caregivers plays a foundational role in determining how we will develop affectional
bonds with others throughout life. We are social creatures, and our development is
largely based upon our experiences with others who, through loving us, teach us how to
love. Healthy and secure experiences of love in childhood pave the way to feelings of
safety and fulfillment in relationships later on, while disruptions in the formation of early
bonds may set the stage for the development of deeply ingrained insecurities, resulting in
dysfunctional attachment-related behaviors which influence later relationships.
4
Early attachment theorists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth focused exclusively
on relationships and variation in attachment-related behaviors among infants and children
and their caregivers. According to Bowlby’s (1958) ethological framework for
understanding attachment behavior in infants and children, maternally-directed
attachment behaviors promote survival of offspring and are therefore advantageous from
an evolutionary standpoint. Absence of the primary attachment figure (e.g. mother)
automatically triggers a set of ingrained responses in the child toward reconnection with
the attachment figure, including an emotional state known as separation anxiety. While
this response system promotes survival and is therefore inherently protective, in the event
of prolonged absence or loss of the attachment figure the initial anxiety transforms into
profound despair and grief. These feelings may become prolonged and take on an
appearance commonly associated with forms of psychopathology such as depression
(Bowlby, 1960).
A central aspect of attachment theory set forth by Bowlby (1958) and developed
by prominent theorist and researcher Mary Main and colleagues involves the concept of
internal working models, which are mental representations of aspects of the world, the
self, other people, and relationships that arise out of the experience of events and guide
appraisal and interpretation of experience as well as behavior (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy,
1985). Experiences in infancy and early childhood with consistently responsive,
available, and supportive caregivers contribute to the development of internal working
models in which the self is viewed as worthy of love and attention, others are viewed as
consistent, responsive, available, and supportive, and relationships are sources of
5
connectedness and comfort. Such internal working models are conducive to the
development of a secure attachment style. In contrast, experiences in infancy and early
childhood with inconsistent, unavailable, rejecting, neglectful, and/or abusive caregivers
contribute to the development of internal working models in which the self may not be
viewed as worthy of love and attention, others may be viewed as inconsistent,
unavailable, rejecting, neglectful, and/or dangerous, and relationships are sources of
confusion, disappointment, frustration, grief, and/or trauma. Such internal working
models are not conducive to secure attachment but rather to various types of attachmentrelated insecurity.
In his early work involving delinquent and maladjusted children, Bowlby (1956)
identified patterns of two types of attachment-related insecurity: anxiety and avoidance.
He described children with high attachment-related anxiety (i.e., those tending to be
preoccupied with continually seeking emotional support, affection, and attention from
others) as frequently having histories in which they did not form a satisfactory attachment
within the first three years of life. In contrast, he described children with high attachmentrelated avoidance (i.e., those tending to form only shallow emotional bonds with others,
or none at all) as frequently having histories in which there were no opportunities to form
any attachments whatsoever, as in the case of neglected hospitalized orphans. He viewed
the avoidant condition, which he defined as an inability to form deep relational bonds, as
more serious and rare than the anxious condition.
Ainsworth (1979) conducted experimental studies of infant-mother dyads
examining infants’ exploration of the environment in relation to the presence and absence
6
of their mothers. She found strong evidence supporting the concept of the infant-mother
relationship as both a ‘secure base’ and a ‘safe haven’ from which the developing child
may derive the feelings of confidence necessary to go out and explore the world
(Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). She also observed profound differences in how infants
reacted when separated from their mothers, and based on these observations she
identified three distinct attachment styles: secure, ambivalent, and avoidant.
According to Ainsworth’s conceptualization, each infant attachment category is
associated with a specific behavioral presentation. Secure infants tend to react with
anxiety and distress when separated from their mothers but respond positively to being
reunited and demonstrate interest, curiosity, enthusiasm, persistence, competence, and
self-direction during exploration of the environment. In contrast, ambivalent infants also
tend to react with distress to separation but this distress continues and may escalate. They
respond with ambivalence to being reunited and demonstrate increased frustration and
decreased persistence and competence in exploration. Avoidant infants tend to react with
distress to separation but respond to being reunited by ignoring the mother and
demonstrate increased aggression, noncompliance, and avoidance in exploration
(Ainsworth, 1979). A fourth attachment category identified and studied by Main and
Solomon (1986) is the disorganized style, which is primarily found in infants who have
been subjected to maltreatment by caregivers. Disorganized infants lack a coherent
relational strategy and may exhibit contradictory and/or stereotyped behaviors such as
freezing, rocking, and approaching with the back turned toward their caregiver,
evidencing an internal state of confusion and conflict (Hesse & Main, 2000).
7
According to Bowlby’s original conceptualization of attachment theory, an
individual’s attachment style tends to remain stable across the life span but may change
in some cases with time and experience. Ainsworth (1989) discussed the usefulness of
attachment theory in understanding relational bonds beyond infancy and into adulthood,
including its applicability to parent-child, sexual pair, kinship, and friendship bonds.
Empirical research concerning attachment in adults began with the work of Hazan and
Shaver (1987), who studied attachment theory as it applies to adult romantic love using
the three-category model proposed by Ainsworth (1979). They examined the prevalence
and characteristics of secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant attachment styles among
adults and identified a similar prevalence of secure and insecure attachment styles in
comparison with infants, with 56% of adult participants reporting secure, 19-20%
reporting ambivalent, and 23-25% reporting avoidant. Adults with a secure attachment
style described their most important romantic love experience as happy, friendly, and
trusting, and described themselves as able to accept and support their partner despite the
partner’s faults. Anxious-ambivalent adults described their most important romantic love
experience as involving extreme sexual attraction, desire for reciprocation and union,
obsession, jealousy, and emotional highs and lows. Avoidant adults described their most
important romantic love experience as characterized by fear of intimacy, jealousy, and
emotional highs and lows.
Bartholomew (1990) emphasized the importance of Bowlby’s concept of internal
working models in her design of a four-category attachment classification system.
According to this system individuals may be classified as having a secure, preoccupied,
8
dismissing, or fearful attachment style. Each of the four categories is defined in terms of
two dimensions which reflect the nature of an individual’s internal working models of the
self and of other people. Secure individuals have positive working models of the self and
of others; they tend to have a healthy sense of self-worth and believe that others will
generally be available and supportive. Preoccupied individuals have a negative working
model of the self but a positive working model of others; they tend to feel anxious and
uncertain of the self’s lovability and seek validation and acceptance from others, and they
tend to believe that others will generally be available and supportive. Dismissing
individuals have a positive working model of the self but a negative working model of
others; they tend to have a healthy sense of self-worth which is maintained by defensive
denial of the importance of interpersonal relationships, as they generally believe that
others will not be available or supportive. Fearful individuals tend to have negative
working models of the self and of others; they tend to feel anxious and uncertain of the
self’s lovability and are dependent on others’ validation and acceptance, but they
generally believe that others will not be available or supportive and so they avoid
intimacy to avoid what they perceive to be the inevitable pain of rejection or loss.
While much research on attachment in adulthood utilizes a categorical approach
to understanding and assessing differences in attachment-related behavior,
Bartholomew’s (1990) model offers a conceptualization of these differences in terms of
both categories and dimensions. Another model for conceptualizing attachment
dimensionally introduced by Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) focuses on two
orthogonal dimensions of attachment-related insecurity which are reflective of Bowlby’s
9
original conceptualization: anxiety and avoidance. These dimensional models reflect core
concepts of the categorical approach to attachment research and offer the additional
benefit of allowing for assessment along continua.
Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) address the advantages of using a dimensional
approach in their development of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) scale,
which identifies and focuses on two orthogonal dimensions of attachment-related
insecurity reflective of Bowlby’s original conceptualization: attachment-related anxiety
and attachment-related avoidance. In a review of several works which use a categorical
approach to assessing attachment including those of Ainsworth, Main, and Hazan and
Shaver, they argue that these categorical approaches can be reframed to reflect
measurement of anxiety and avoidance. They also demonstrate that the two dimensions
of Bartholomew’s (1990) conceptualization concerning internal working models are
comparable to the dimensions of anxiety and avoidance, with a negative self-oriented
internal working model being closely associated with attachment-related anxiety and a
negative other-oriented model closely associated with attachment-related avoidance.
Brennan et al. found their conceptualization of attachment-related anxiety to be positively
correlated with scales measuring preoccupation, romantic obsession, jealousy/fear of
abandonment, fear of rejection, anxiety, worry, clinging to partners, proximity seeking,
desire to merge with partner, feared loss of partner, need for approval, dependent selfesteem, compulsive careseeking, separation protest, angry withdrawal, and alienation.
They found attachment-related avoidance to be positively correlated with scales
measuring avoidance of intimacy, avoidance, self-reliance, discomfort with closeness,
10
discomfort with disclosure, fearfulness, dismissiveness, defensiveness, ambivalence,
distrust, relationships as secondary, and frustration with partners.
Studies examining relationships between forms of attachment-related insecurity
and variables such as interpersonal behaviors and psychological and physical factors
affecting well-being have found both attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related
avoidance to be associated with maladaptive behaviors, negative emotional and cognitive
experiences, and dysfunctional coping. Attachment-related anxiety has been found to be
positively correlated with dishonesty and lying behavior (Gillath, Sesko, Shaver, & Chun,
2010); frequency of telling self- and other-centered lies to strangers and best friends as
well as altruistic lies about strangers, best friends, and romantic partners (Ennis, Vrij, &
Chance, 2008); subjective personal distress while viewing the suffering of others
(Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005); self-doubt and feelings of being
misunderstood and underappreciated in romantic relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987);
diagnosis of depressive (Hammen, Burge, Daley, Davila, & Paley, 1995; MacWilliams &
Bailey, 2010), anxiety, and substance use disorders (MacWilliams & Bailey, 2010);
depressive symptoms, disability, pain intensity, pain behaviors, and negative responses to
pain (Forsythe, Romano, Jensen, & Thorn, 2012); and increased risk for developing a
wide range of physical health conditions including those involving the cardiovascular
system (MacWilliams & Bailey, 2010). Attachment-related anxiety has been negatively
correlated with authenticity in relationships (Gillath et al., 2010) and relationship
satisfaction (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
11
Attachment-related avoidance has been positively correlated with biased
information processing, dishonesty, and lying behavior (Gillath et al., 2010); frequency
of telling other-oriented lies to strangers, best friends, and romantic partners as well as
self-centered lies to romantic partners (Ennis et al., 2008); fear of closeness and feeling a
need to ‘watch out’ when dealing with others (Hazan & Shaver, 1987); defensive
suppression of loss-related thoughts in adults (Fraley & Shaver, 1997), detached behavior
accompanied by the inability to block covert activation of the attachment system and
corresponding physiological arousal in response to separation from caregivers in children
(Spangler & Grossman, 1993), and deactivation of the attachment system and reduced
physiological arousal in response to loss-related thoughts in adults (Fraley & Shaver,
1997); depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders; and increased risk for developing
physical health conditions, particularly those primarily defined by pain (MacWilliams &
Bailey, 2010). Attachment-related avoidance has been negatively correlated with
willingness and agreement to engage in helping behaviors (Mikulincer et al., 2005) and
authenticity in relationships (Gillath et al., 2010).
A central aspect of attachment theory concerns the stability and change of
attachment style over time. While relational patterns established in early childhood
continue to affect experience throughout the life span, studies have demonstrated that
attachment style is not necessarily fixed throughout life and may change over time. In
their longitudinal study, Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, and Albersheim (2000)
found that a majority of participants retained the same attachment style classification over
a period of 20 years, from 12 months to 21 years of age, while 36 percent of participants
12
changed attachment style classification, with stressful life events positively associated
with frequency of changing from secure to insecure and negatively associated with
frequency of changing from insecure to secure. Scharfe and Bartholomew (1994) found
attachment to be moderately stable in adults over a period of eight months. They also
found that by interview 15% of women and 19% of men, by self-report 30% of women
and 32% of men, and by partner report 17% of women and 21% of men initially rated as
secure later rated as insecure, while by interview 20% of women and 12% of men, by
self-report 29% of women and 48% of men, and by partner report 21% of women and
21% of men who initially rated as insecure rated as secure at 8-month follow-up. Davila,
Burge, and Hammen (1997) found that 28% of participants endorsed a different
attachment style at 6-month follow-up and 34% endorsed a different style at 2-year
follow-up than at initial assessment. At 6 months, 16% of those who initially rated as
secure changed to insecure, while 41% of those who initially rated as insecure (i.e.,
avoidant or ambivalent) changed to secure. At 2 years, 21% of those who initially rated
as secure changed to insecure, while 42% of those who initially rated as insecure changed
to secure. Lopez and Gormley (2002) found that 43% of participants endorsed a different
attachment style at follow-up in comparison with initial assessment. Of those who had
initially rated as secure 35% later rated as insecure (i.e., preoccupied, fearful, or
dismissing) and of those who had initially rated as insecure 31% later rated as secure.
Davila et al. (1997) investigated potential factors associated with changes in
attachment style over time and found individuals who were continuously insecure and
those who changed from secure to insecure reported greater disturbances in personality
13
than those who remained secure. However, no relationship was found between episodic
or chronic stress and attachment style over time, suggesting that changes in attachment
style over time may be more closely related to internal factors than external events.
Lopez and Gormley (2002) found that individuals who remained secure over time scored
significantly higher on self-confidence related to personal appearance, social skills, and
romantic relationships than those who remained insecure and those who changed from
secure to insecure. Those who remained secure also showed less reactive coping over
time while those who changed from secure showed more reactive coping over time, and
those who changed from secure to insecure demonstrated significant increases in distress,
particularly depression.
Research has demonstrated that feelings associated with attachment security can
be intentionally primed in an experimental or other setting. Primed attachment security
has been found to be positively associated with compassion and caregiving behavior
(Mikulincer et al., 2005) and willingness to be authentic (Gillath et al., 2010), and
negatively associated with lying and cheating behavior (Gillath et al., 2010). Changes in
attachment in response to priming suggest that attachment-related security and insecurity
may be influenced quickly by events, and it seems reasonable to consider that attachment
scores may be influenced by immediate life circumstances and experiences. It is possible
that this may account for some of the changes found in attachment-related security and
insecurity over time.
14
Authenticity
The concept of authenticity has been discussed as an issue of central importance
by many authors from a variety of theoretical perspectives in the field of psychology.
Kernis and Goldman (2006) discuss the ancestral origins of the term authenticity as
meaning “to have full power” and thus be master of one’s own domain. From a personcentered perspective, authenticity involves consistency between physiological states,
emotions, and cognitions originating from a deep internal level; conscious awareness of
these physiological states, emotions, and conditions; and behavior that is reflective of this
awareness (Barrett-Lennard, 1998). Humanistic theorist Abraham Maslow (1968) defined
authentic selfhood in part as the ability to understand and connect with one’s own inner
feelings, needs, desires, and tendencies. He believed that all human beings have an innate
tendency which drives toward actualization of the authentic self. According to Maslow, a
self-actualizing individual is oriented toward recognition and realization of his or her own
full potential, self-fulfillment, and seeking peak experiences which contribute to personal
growth.
A significant contribution to the theoretical understanding of the importance of
authenticity was made by person-centered psychologist Carl Rogers, who identified and
distinguished between the concepts of the real self and the ideal self and described issues
concerning the relationship between the two. Rogers defined the real self as the aspect of
an individual which is founded in the self-actualizing tendency and follows organismic
valuing, and the ideal self as the aspect which has been created in response to the
15
experience of others’ conditional positive regard and the ensuing development of
conditions of worth. His concepts of congruence and incongruence concern the degree of
alignment between the real and ideal selves. Congruence refers to a high degree of
alignment between the real and ideal selves which is conducive to authentic experience
and behavior, while incongruence refers to a low degree of alignment between the real
and ideal selves which is associated with patterns of denial and distortion of experience
and is not conducive to authenticity. Rogers discussed congruence in the context of the
therapeutic relationship extensively and emphasized its importance as a primary goal in
client-centered therapy (Rogers, 1950, 1951) as well as a therapeutic quality (Rogers,
1949, 1961).
Authenticity may be conceptualized as an experiential connection with the true
self, a concept similar to Rogers’ concept of the real self. Psychodynamic theorist Donald
Winnicott (1960) believed that children are born with an innate central self which
requires a normal period of isolation for healthy development. Violation of this isolation
requirement may result in the construction of a false self to protect and hide the true self.
According to Winnicott, when the false self functions as a mask with which the
individual interacts with the world the true self remains hidden and unable to fully guide
the individual’s behavior. As the individual grows and matures, s/he may inwardly feel
inauthentic and disconnected from his/her experience in life.
New age philosopher Deepak Chopra (2012) describes the true self as stable, at
peace, certain and clear about things, driven by a deep sense of truth, and comprised of
love. Schlegel, Hicks, Davis, Hirsch, and Smith (2013) found the true self to be rated as
16
the most important source of guidance in decision making, in comparison with nine other
potential sources of information including religion, intuition, perceived influence on
others, and information from others. Kernis and Goldman (2006) describe authenticity as
the unobstructed operation of the true self in daily life through self-understanding,
openness to objectively recognizing phenomena such as undesirable and desirable selfaspects, actions, and orientation toward interpersonal relationships.
The concept of authenticity with regard to behavior is a major focus of selfdetermination theory, which maintains that the nature of an individual’s goals and the
self-regulatory processes through which these goals are pursued have a major impact on
well-being. According to Deci and Ryan (2000), goals may be either intrinsic or extrinsic
in nature. Intrinsic goals are directly concerned with satisfaction of one or more of three
basic needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) and may be related to issues
concerning these needs such as personal growth, meaningful relationships, community
contributions, physical fitness, and other factors. Extrinsic goals are less directly related
to basic need satisfaction and may concern issues such as wealth, fame, image, and other
factors that are not directly associated with autonomy, competence, or relatedness.
Research has found intrinsic goals to be associated with greater need satisfaction and
well-being than extrinsic goals (Williams, Cox, Hedberg, & Deci, 2000).
Self-determination theory distinguishes between autonomous and controlled
regulatory processes. Autonomous processes arise directly from within the self and from
values that are integrated and viewed as one’s own, and are done wholeheartedly to
promote one’s own well-being. These types of processes are informed by, and therefore
17
naturally require, an experiential connection with the true self. Controlled regulatory
processes tend to arise from external values that are introjected into the self but are not
accepted as one’s own; they are experienced as an imposition of internal control over the
self and result in feelings of inner conflict, pressure, and tension (Ryan, 1982; Ryan &
Connell, 1989). This inner conflict is reminiscent of Rogers’ concept of incongruence
between the real and ideal selves, and research has demonstrated that the use of
autonomous, self-determined regulatory processes is associated with greater need
satisfaction, better health, and greater well-being than the use of controlled regulatory
processes (Carver & Baird, 1998).
Several conceptualizations of authenticity have been proposed and used in
empirical research. Kernis and Goldman (2006) offer a definition which includes four
distinct facets as aspects of the overall authenticity construct in their development of the
Authenticity Inventory (AI-3). These facets are awareness, which concerns the level of
knowledge and trust an individual possesses regarding personal characteristics (e.g.,
feelings, thoughts, desires, motives, goals, strengths, and weaknesses), his/her
understanding of the self as complex and multifaceted, and his/her willingness and
motivation to increase self-knowledge; unbiased processing (of self-relevant
information), which refers to objectivity regarding all personal characteristics and
experiences including those that may be construed as negative as well as those construed
as positive without self-serving biases or reality distortions; behavior, which refers to
intrinsically motivated action which arises out of the needs, values, and preferences of the
true self, as opposed to extrinsically motivated action performed as a manipulation to
18
experience positive and avoid negative consequences; and relational orientation, which
involves engaging as the true self in close personal relationships with honesty and clarity
concerning the self and others. (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). Total authenticity as
conceptualized by Kernis and Goldman has been found to be associated with numerous
positive outcomes including life satisfaction, positive affect, autonomy, environmental
mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, self-acceptance, self-esteem, and various
measures of relationship functioning and satisfaction. (Kernis & Goldman, 2006).
Wood et al. (2008) offer a tripartite definition of authenticity based on the personcentered approach in their development of the Authenticity Scale (AS; Appendix A).
They suggest that authenticity can be understood in terms of self-alienation, accepting
external influence, and authentic living. Self-alienation is defined as incongruence
between conscious awareness and the actual experience of the true self, experienced as
feelings of not knowing oneself or feeling out of touch with the true self. Wood et al.
(2008) found self-alienation to be significantly and positively associated with anxiety,
stress, and negative affect, and significantly and negatively associated with self-esteem,
satisfaction with life, positive affect, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations
with others, personal growth, self-acceptance, and gratitude. Authentic living is defined
as congruence between actual experience of the true self and behavior, and involves
behaving and expressing emotions in a way that is consistent with conscious awareness
of inner experiences such as physiological states, emotions, thoughts, and beliefs. Wood
et al. (2008) found authentic living to be significantly and positively associated with selfesteem, satisfaction with life, positive affect, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive
19
relations with others, personal growth, self-acceptance, and gratitude, and significantly
and negatively associated with stress and negative affect. Accepting external influence is
defined as the extent to which one accepts, introjects, and is thus influenced by the views
of others in the social environment. Wood et al. (2008) found accepting external
influence to be significantly and positively associated with anxiety, stress, and negative
affect, and significantly and negatively associated with self-esteem, satisfaction with life,
positive affect, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relations with others, personal
growth, purpose in life, and self-acceptance.
Lopez and Rice (2006) conceptualize authenticity as a relational construct which
may vary from one relationship to another. They focus specifically on authenticity within
the context of intimate relationships in their development of the Authenticity in
Relationships Scale (AIRS). They define relationship authenticity as a relational schema
that favors mutual and accurate self-disclosure with one’s intimate partner in spite of
accompanying risks such as personal discomfort, partner disapproval, or relationship
instability. This conceptualization of relationship authenticity includes two primary
factors: unacceptability of deception, defined as lack of willingness to engage in and
accept deceptive and inaccurate representations of the self and partner within the context
of an intimate relationship; and intimate risk taking, defined as a preference or disposition
toward uninhibited intimate self-disclosure and risk taking with one’s partner. Lopez and
Rice (2006) found unacceptability of deception to be significantly and negatively related
to splitting, self-concealment, and depression, and significantly and positively related to
self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. They found intimate risk taking to be
20
significantly and negatively related to splitting, self-concealment, and depression, and
significantly and positively related to self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.
Harter, Marold, Whitesell, and Cobbs (1996) discussed authenticity as concerning
the level of behavior reflecting the true v. false self. They highlighted three different
motives which may underlie false self behaviors: those involving devaluation
of/alienation from the true self, those involving a desire to please other people, and those
involving developmentally appropriate role experimentation. They examined the
relationships between these different reported motivations for true v. false self behavior
and found that individuals who reported motivations involving devaluation of the true
self reported the least true self behavior, the least knowledge of the true self, and the
lowest level of psychological adjustment in comparison with those who reported
motivations concerning a desire to please others and make a certain impression and those
who reported motivations concerning role experimentation.
Attachment and Authenticity
Authentic self-actualization as defined by Maslow (1968) involves a constant
state of actively reaching for and engaging in experiences which foster growth toward
one’s full potential as a human being. Maslow believed that, despite the fact that all
human beings have an innate self-actualizing tendency, certain basic needs must be met
before an individual can focus on self-actualization. These needs exist in a hierarchy,
with self-actualization as the highest goal. The basic needs include biological and
physiological needs, such as air, water, food, shelter, warmth, and sleep; safety needs,
21
such as protection from elements, security, stability, limits, and law and order; social
needs, such as belongingness, love and affection from individuals and groups of
affiliation; and esteem needs, such as a sense of achievement, mastery, independence,
status and prestige, self-respect, and respect from others. According to this model, social
needs which involve relationships must be met before an individual can focus on
actualization of the authentic self (Maslow, 1943).
According to the self-determination theoretical framework, an individual’s
motivational style to initiate and maintain an intimate interpersonal relationship strongly
influences his/her behavior within that relationship, thereby impacting both partners’
experience of the relationship. One’s motivational style may be defined as intrinsic or
extrinsic; intrinsic motivational forces and goals are oriented toward pleasure of activities
in the relationship, while extrinsic motivational forces and goals are typically of an
instrumental nature and concern a desire to obtain positive and/or avoid negative
consequences. When motivational forces are intrinsic, the relationship is initiated and/or
maintained for its own sake because it is satisfying and enjoyable; specific intrinsic
motivations might include having fun with one’s partner, working together to promote
mutual self-development, and/or sharing in an intimate experience of love and
togetherness. When motivational forces are extrinsic, the relationship is not initiated or
maintained for its own sake but as a means to an end; specific motivations might include
involvement with a partner for reasons concerning money, power, status, or the
alleviation of discomfort, e.g. loneliness and/or uncomfortable emotions. Research
suggests that intrinsic motivation is associated with greater relationship satisfaction than
22
extrinsic motivation. Seligman, Fazio, and Zanna (1980) found that experimentally
primed intrinsic motivation within the context of an intimate relationship was associated
with greater experienced feelings of partner-directed love than experimentally primed
extrinsic motivation.
Kernis and Goldman (2006) emphasized the importance of relational orientation
as a component of authenticity and examined the relationships between total authenticity,
relational orientation, and a variety of factors relevant to interpersonal relationships. They
found total authenticity to be positively related to trust of one’s intimate partner, selfregulation, intrinsic motivations for being in a close relationship, and self-disclosure.
Gillath et al. (2010) found total authenticity as measured by the Authenticity
Inventory (AI; Kernis & Goldman) to be negatively related to attachment-related anxiety
and attachment-related avoidance. They also examined correlations between the four
facets of authenticity measured by the AI and found significant negative relationships
between attachment-related anxiety and accurate awareness, unbiased processing, and
authentic behavior, as well as significant negative relationships between attachmentrelated avoidance and accurate awareness, unbiased processing, authentic behavior, and
relational orientation. They also measured authenticity across social roles and found
overall role authenticity to be negatively related to both attachment-related anxiety and
attachment-related avoidance. Regression analysis revealed both attachment-related
anxiety and attachment-related avoidance to be significant predictors of total authenticity
score as measured by the AI and overall role authenticity, even when Big Five
personality traits were accounted for. Attachment-related anxiety was shown to be a
23
significant predictor for accurate awareness and unbiased processing, and attachmentrelated avoidance was shown to be a significant predictor for accurate awareness,
unbiased processing, authentic behavior, and relational orientation. In the presence of the
Big Five, attachment-related anxiety remained a significant predictor only for unbiased
processing, while attachment-related avoidance remained significant for accurate
awareness and relational orientation.
Lopez and Rice (2006) found significant associations between factors of
relationship authenticity and patterns of attachment-related behaviors. Unacceptability of
deception was demonstrated to be negatively associated with attachment-related anxiety
and attachment-related avoidance. Intimate risk taking was also demonstrated to be
negatively associated with attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance.
These finding suggest that individuals with greater attachment-related security may be
more likely to find deception unacceptable and may be more inclined to take emotional
risks within the context of an intimate relationship.
Uysal, Lin, Knee, and Bush (2011) examined the associations among selfconcealment, self-disclosure, basic need satisfaction in relationships, and relationship
satisfaction and commitment. They found self-concealment from one’s partner to be
negatively associated with satisfaction of the need for autonomy, satisfaction of the need
for competence, satisfaction of the need for relatedness, total need satisfaction,
commitment, and relationship satisfaction. Self-disclosure was found to be positively
associated with satisfaction of the need for autonomy, satisfaction of the need for
competence, satisfaction of the need for relatedness, total need satisfaction, commitment,
24
and relationship satisfaction. Relationship satisfaction was found to be positively
associated with satisfaction of the need for autonomy, satisfaction of the need for
competence, satisfaction of the need for relatedness, and total need satisfaction.
Commitment was found to be positively associated with satisfaction of the need for
autonomy, satisfaction of the need for competence, satisfaction of the need for
relatedness, and total need satisfaction. Additional findings suggest that satisfaction of
the basic needs may play a mediating role in the relationships between self-concealment
and relationship satisfaction and commitment, though no causality has been established
between any of the variables in the study.
Harter et al. (1996) examined the relationships among perceived level and quality
of parental and social support, hope about receiving future support, and level of true/false
self behavior in middle school- and high school-aged adolescents. They found that
perceived level and quality of parental and peer support were positively associated with
level of hope regarding support and with level of true/false self behavior, and hope
regarding support was also positively associated with true/false self behavior. They also
found that hope about the availability of support plays a mediating role in the relationship
between perceived level and quality of support and level of true/false self behavior.
Leak and Cooney (2001) examined the relationships among attachment styles,
authenticity in relationships, and well-being and adjustment. They found a global
measure of attachment-related security (RQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994) to be
positively associated with authenticity, autonomous reasons for behavior within a
relationship, and well-being, and negatively associated with extrinsic reasons for being in
25
a relationship. They found that individuals classified as having a secure attachment style
showed a similar pattern of positive associations with authenticity, autonomous reasons
for behavior within a relationship, and well-being, and a similar negative association with
extrinsic reasons for being in a relationship. Individuals classified as having a dismissive
attachment style were found to have only modest negative associations with authenticity,
intrinsic reasons for being in a relationship, and well-being. Individuals classified as
having a preoccupied attachment style were found to have negative associations with
authenticity, autonomous reasons for behavior within a relationship, and well-being.
Individuals classified as having a fearful attachment style were found to have negative
associations with authenticity, autonomous reasons for behavior within a relationship,
and well-being, and a positive association with extrinsic reasons for being in a
relationship.
26
Statement of the Problem
Current research has demonstrated an association between attachment, which
concerns patterns of experience and behavior with regard to bonding and intimacy in
interpersonal relationships, and authenticity, which concerns patterns of experience and
behavior concerning the expression of one’s true self in daily life. It is probable that the
association between these two constructs arises from the common influence of underlying
patterns of events in the psyche.
Bartholomew’s (1990) research illustrates how differences in attachment style can
be understood in terms of differences in the organization of internal working models
concerning the self and other people. Internal working models are a critically important
concept in attachment theory, in that they both arise out of early attachment-related
experiences and exert a major ongoing effect on attachment-related experiences
throughout life. According to Bartholomew’s conceptualization, attachment security
reflects positivity of both self- and other-oriented internal working models, while various
presentations of insecure attachment reflect varying patterns of negativity concerning
these models. In a review of the literature concerning the role of internal working models
in attachment, Pietromonaco and Barrett (2000) confirm that people with different
attachment styles do differ in theoretically predictable ways in terms of their views of
self, but less so with regard to their views of others.
According to Pietromonaco and Barrett (2000), self-oriented internal working
models may be best described as concerning the self specifically in relation to others,
27
considering that these models are formed primarily through interactions with others.
Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) discuss the positivity of the self-oriented internal
working model as indicating the degree to which a sense of self-worth has been
internalized with the resultant expectation that others will respond positively to the self.
Main et al. (1985) discuss internal working models as exerting a major influence on
attachment-related patterns of experience appraisal and behavior by providing a
framework for the direction of attention and memory that permits or limits access to
certain forms of knowledge regarding the self, others, and relationships between the self
and others. It is reasonable to consider the possibility that the very same self-oriented
internal working models which have been deemed responsible for differences in
attachment style may also be responsible for differences concerning authenticity. If an
individual has a healthy and intact sense of self-worth in relation to others, it may follow
that s/he would be more inclined to behave authentically with others than an individual
with a poor sense of self-worth, at least in part due to the expectation that others will
respond positively.
Research concerning the relationship between attachment and authenticity is, to
date, somewhat scant. Studies in this area have historically been limited by lack of clear
definition of the constructs to be measured and by lack of availability of appropriate
measures. Both attachment and authenticity are constructs which have been approached
from a variety of different theoretical angles, but while there seems to be a general
consensus regarding the definition of attachment there continues to be discussion and a
lack of consensus regarding the definition of authenticity.
28
In their examination of the relationships between self-determination, authenticity,
and autonomy in relationships, attachment styles, and well-being and adjustment, Leak
and Cooney (2001) used the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Griffin & Bartholomew,
1994) to measure attachment and a 5-item modified version of Sheldon, Ryan,
Rawsthorne, and Ilardi’s (1997) assessment tool to measure authenticity. While the RQ is
an established measure, psychometric data for the assessment tool used to measure
authenticity is not available. It is questionable whether authenticity was clearly
conceptualized for study purposes, and whether any conceptualization made by the
authors was accurately and comprehensively assessed by the measure used.
In their study of the association between relationship authenticity and attachment
security, Lopez and Rice (2006) developed the Authenticity in Relationships Scale
(AIRS), an instrument which appears to have excellent psychometric properties.
Unfortunately, this measure is yet unpublished and is therefore currently unavailable for
use as an assessment tool in research.
While Kernis and Goldman’s (2006) conceptualization of authenticity as
measured by the Authenticity Inventory (AI-3) has been used in examinations of the
associations between authenticity and various factors concerning attachment and
interpersonal relationships (Gillath et al., 2010; Kernis & Goldman, 2006), the validity of
this conceptualization has been called into question. Kernis and Goldman (2006) report
Cronbach alpha scores of .64 to .90 for the AI-3 and its subscales, indicating high internal
consistency, but a subsequent factor analysis did not support the four-factor structure
(White, 2011). Considering the emphasis on the importance of authenticity in the person-
29
centered approach as well as the major contributions of person-centered theorists such as
Rogers and Maslow to the collective understanding of the authenticity construct, the use
of a measure which reflects the person-centered approach in studies concerning the
relationships between authenticity and other variables seems appropriate. To date, the
measure of authenticity which most reflects the person-centered approach to the construct
is the Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood et al., 2008). The three-factor structure of the AS
has been confirmed by factor analysis (White, 2011). No studies concerning the
relationship between attachment and Wood et al.’s (2008) tripartite person-centered
definition of authenticity have yet been conducted.
With regard to measurement of attachment, Fraley, Waller, & Brennan’s (2000)
Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised (ECR-R) questionnaire offers the highest
and most evenly distributed degree of measurement precision according to an item
response theory analysis (Fraley et al., 2000), in comparison with four other established
attachment measures including Brennan et al.’s (1998) Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR) questionnaire. The ECR-R was created from the same pool of 323
items as the ECR, but possesses a higher degree of measurement precision, particularly at
the secure end of the attachment spectrum, while retaining the same number of items.
The present study will examine the relationship between attachment and
authenticity using Wood et al.’s (2008) tripartite definition of authenticity and Fraley,
Waller, and Brennan’s (2000) conceptualization of the dimensions of attachment-related
insecurity. By providing additional information regarding the nature of the connection
between attachment and factors of authenticity using appropriate measures, this study
30
aims to contribute to the knowledge base used to inform clinical practice with regard to
these constructs. In the field of psychotherapy it is our objective to help clients achieve
their goals, and as both attachment and authenticity may be viewed as core issues which
are significant to many people it is reasonable to suggest that developing the knowledge
base concerning these constructs is of vital importance.
For clients who seek assistance with issues reflecting concerns related to
authenticity, it will be helpful for the psychotherapist to understand how issues
concerning attachment may be involved so as to better predict the course of therapy and
make informed clinical decisions about how to proceed. Likewise, therapists working
with clients on attachment-related concerns will benefit from an understanding of how
authenticity may be a potentially beneficial area of focus in therapy. Research suggests
that attachment-related patterns and styles set in motion early in life are changeable
(Davila et al., 1997; Lopez & Gormley, 2002; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994; Waters et
al., 2000), though they are deeply rooted in the psyche and tend to be resistant to change.
Clarification of the relationship between attachment-related security and factors of
authenticity may help to highlight specific ways in which clinicians can work
strategically to promote client authenticity as a way of simultaneously promoting the
development of earned secure attachment for insecurely attached clients.
Regardless of whether the client’s presenting problem centers on authenticity or
attachment, in both cases the role of the client’s internal working models, particularly
those concerning the self, may be considered as a possible underlying factor to be
targeted for intervention. As working models are conceptualized as operating deep within
31
the psyche, often outside the threshold of conscious awareness, they may be viewed as
unconscious forces from a psychodynamic point of view. The possibility that these forces
may be specifically targeted using the therapeutic alliance to meet client-centered goals
for security and relationship satisfaction as well as authenticity and self-actualization
represents a potential new step in weaving together valuable contributions from
psychodynamic and humanistic theoretical orientations.
In the present study I expected to find significant correlations between the two
attachment-related insecurity variables measured by the Experiences in Close
Relationships-Revised questionnaire (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000; Appendix B), and the
three facets of authenticity measured by the Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood et al., 2008).
Hypotheses
H1. Attachment-related anxiety will be positively correlated with self-alienation
(incongruence between conscious awareness and the actual experience of the true
self, experienced as feelings of not knowing oneself or feeling out of touch with
the true self; Wood et al., 2008).
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related anxiety may be inclined
to sacrifice their connection with their true self (e.g., connection with their own
feelings and thoughts) in favor of adopting a false self as an attempt to gain
others’ approval, whereas individuals scoring low on attachment-related anxiety
may be less inclined to do this. Attachment-related anxiety typically involves a
degree of preoccupation or concern regarding close relationships (Bowlby, 1956),
32
coupled with negative self-oriented working models (Bartholomew, 1990) and a
tendency to seek out approval from others (Bowlby, 1956), and has been found to
be positively associated with frequency of telling self-oriented lies to strangers
and best friends (Ennis et al., 2008) and negatively associated with accurate
awareness and unbiased processing of self-relevant information (Gillath et al.,
2010). Self-alienation has been found to be positively associated with anxiety and
negative affect, and negatively associated with self-esteem, self-acceptance,
positive affect, and positive relations with others (Wood et al., 2008).
H0 for H1: There will be no correlation or a negative correlation between
attachment-related anxiety and self-alienation.
H2. Attachment-related anxiety will be negatively correlated with authentic living
(congruence between actual experience of the true self and behavior, involves
behaving and expressing emotions in a way that is consistent with conscious
awareness of inner experiences such as physiological states, emotions, thoughts,
and beliefs; Wood et al., 2008).
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related anxiety may be inclined
to behave in ways that are not in alignment with their own true feelings and
thoughts in an attempt to gain others’ approval, whereas individuals scoring low
on attachment-related anxiety may be less inclined to do this. Attachment-related
anxiety has been found to be positively associated with dishonesty and lying
behavior (Gillath et al., 2010; Ennis et al., 2008) and negatively associated with
33
overall authenticity, autonomous reasons for behavior within close relationships
(Leak & Cooney, 2001), authenticity in relationships (Gillath et al., 2010),
unacceptability of deception, intimate risk-taking (Lopez & Rice, 2006) and
relationship satisfaction (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Authentic living has been found
to be positively associated with self-esteem, self-acceptance, positive affect, and
positive relations with others, and negatively associated with stress and negative
affect (Wood et al., 2008).
H0 for H2: There will be no correlation or a positive correlation between
attachment-related anxiety and authentic living.
H3. Attachment-related anxiety will be positively correlated with accepting
external influence (the extent to which one accepts, introjects, and is thus
influenced by the views of others in the social environment; Wood et al., 2008).
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related anxiety may be inclined
to supplant their connection with their own feelings and thoughts with the
attitudes and preferences of others in an attempt gain others’ approval, whereas
individuals scoring low on attachment-related anxiety may be less inclined to do
this. Attachment-related anxiety has been found to be positively associated with
extrinsic reasons for being in a relationship (Leak & Cooney, 2001), self-doubt
and feelings of being misunderstood and underappreciated in romantic
relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), dishonesty and lying behavior (Gillath et
al., 2010; Ennis et al., 2008), anxiety, and negative affect, and negatively
34
associated with with overall authenticity and autonomous reasons for behavior
within close relationships (Leak & Cooney, 2001). Accepting external influence
has been found to be positively associated with anxiety and negative affect, and
negatively associated with self-esteem, self-acceptance, positive affect, and
positive relations with others (Wood et al., 2008).
H0 for H3: There will be no correlation or a negative correlation between
attachment-related anxiety and accepting external influence.
H4. Attachment-related avoidance will be positively correlated with selfalienation.
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related avoidance may be
inclined to defensively deny or dissociate from their own true feelings and
emotional needs in order to avoid experiencing pain and fear concerning their
relationships with others, whereas individuals scoring low on attachment-related
avoidance may be less inclined to do this. Attachment-related avoidance has been
found to be positively associated with thought suppression (Fraley & Shaver,
1997), detached behavior despite covert activation of the attachment system as
evidenced by physiological arousal in infants (Spangler & Grossman, 1993), and
frequency of telling self-oriented lies to romantic partners (Ennis et al., 2008), and
negatively associated with accurate awareness and unbiased processing of selfrelevant information (Gillath et al., 2010). Self-alienation has been found to be
negatively associated with positive relations with others (Wood et al., 2008).
35
H0 for H4: There will be no correlation or a negative correlation between
attachment-related avoidance and self-alienation.
H5. Attachment-related avoidance will be negatively correlated with authentic
living.
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related avoidance may be
inclined to act in denial of their own true feelings and emotional needs concerning
their relationships with others, whereas individuals scoring low on attachmentrelated avoidance may be less inclined to do this. Attachment-related avoidance
has been found to be positively associated with dishonesty and lying behavior in
adults (Gillath et al., 2010; Ennis et al., 2008), detached behavior despite covert
activation of the attachment system as evidenced by physiological arousal in
infants (Spangler & Grossman, 1993), and negatively associated with authentic
behavior and relational orientation (Gillath et al., 2010). Authentic living has been
found to be positively associated with positive relations with others and gratitude
(Wood et al., 2008).
H0 for H5: There will be no correlation or a positive correlation between
attachment-related avoidance and authentic living.
H6. Attachment-related avoidance will be negatively correlated with accepting
external influence.
36
Rationale: Individuals scoring high on attachment-related avoidance may be
inclined to minimize the importance of relationships with others and overemphasize their own independence, whereas individuals scoring low on
attachment-related avoidance may be less inclined to do this. Attachment-related
avoidance has been found to be associated with greater emphasis placed on
independence and less emphasis on the importance of relationships (Siegel &
Hartzell, 2003), dishonesty and lying behavior in adults (Gillath et al., 2010;
Ennis et al., 2008), and detached behavior despite covert activation of the
attachment system as evidenced by physiological arousal in infants (Spangler &
Grossman, 1993). Accepting external influence has been found to be negatively
associated with autonomy, personal growth, self-acceptance (Wood et al., 2008),
and relational orientation (Gillath et al., 2010).
H0 for H6: There will be no correlation or a positive correlation between
attachment-related avoidance and accepting external influence.
37
Method
Participants
Participants (N = 153) were recruited online via notices posted on the Facebook
page of the primary researcher (Facebook Recruitment Notice; Appendix C), bulk email
to all undergraduate and graduate psychology majors at Humboldt State University
(Participant Recruitment Email to Psychology Department at Humboldt State University;
Appendix D), and an online posting through Hanover College (Study Submission Email
to Hanover College; Appendix E). All participants were 18 years of age or older.
Procedure
All participants were directed via an online link to the present study posted on
Survey Monkey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/. All participants provided informed
consent (Certificate of Informed Consent; Appendix F) via Survey Monkey prior to the
survey. Participants were then administered the Experiences in Close RelationshipsRevised questionnaire (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000), the Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood et
al., 2008), and a short demographic questionnaire (DQ; Appendix G) via Survey Monkey.
The ECR-R and the Authenticity Scale were administered in randomized order to prevent
the possibility of order effects.
38
Measures
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R). The Experiences in
Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000) is a
revised version of Brennan, Clark, and Shaver’s (1998) Experiences in Close
Relationships (ECR) questionnaire. The ECR-R is a 36-item measure of adult
attachment which assesses two specific dimensions related to attachment security
within the context of emotionally intimate relationships: attachment-related
anxiety and attachment-related avoidance. The anxiety subscale contains 18 items
designed to measure the general degree of attachment-related anxiety, e.g., “I
worry a lot about my relationships.” The avoidance subscale contains 18 items
designed to measure the general degree of attachment-related avoidance, e.g., “I
prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.” All items are rated on a 7-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Cronbach alpha scores of .94 (Fraley et al., 2000) to .95 (Sibley & Liu, 2004) for
attachment-related anxiety and .93 (Sibley & Liu, 2004) to .95 (Fraley et al.,
2000) for attachment-related avoidance were found, indicating good internal
consistency. Fairchild and Finney (2006) also found Cronbach alpha scores above
.90 for both subscales. Temporal stability for the ECR-R has been found to be
high, with 86 percent of the variance in repeated measures for anxiety and 86.5
percent of the variance in repeated measures for avoidance found to be shared
39
across a 6-week time period (Sibley & Liu, 2004). From an item-response
theoretical comparison of 5 established written attachment measures, the ECR-R
has been shown to offer the highest and most evenly distributed degree of
measurement precision (Fraley et al., 2000). The ECR-R was used to measure two
dimensions of attachment-related insecurity: attachment-related anxiety and
avoidance.
Authenticity Scale (AS). The Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood et al., 2008) is a 12item measure designed to assess three different factors of authenticity which have
been emphasized in person-centered psychology: self-alienation, authentic living,
and accepting external influence. The self-alienation factor subscale contains 4
items designed to measure the degree of feeling disconnected from the self, e.g.,
“I feel out of touch with the ‘real me’.” The authentic living subscale contains 4
items designed to measure the degree to which behaviors correspond to awareness
of internal experience, e.g., “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.” The
accepting external influence subscale contains 4 items designed to measure the
degree to which behaviors are influenced by other people, e.g., “I always feel I
need to do what others expect me to do.” All items on all 4 subscales are rated on
a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does not describe me at all) to 7
(describes me very well). The three factor structure of the AS is supported (Wood
et al., 2008; White, 2011) and the authors report adequate internal consistency for
each factor, with Cronbach’s alpha scores of α = .82 to .84 for self-alienation, α =
40
.77 to .84 for accepting internal influence, and α = .70 to .82 for authentic living.
The AS has been validated for use with an ethnically and occupationally diverse
sample as well as with a predominantly Caucasian sample comprised of university
students (Wood et al., 2008). Convergent validity with measures of self-esteem
and subjective and psychological well-being has been demonstrated (Wood et al.,
2008). Discriminant validity with the Big Five personality traits has also been
demonstrated (Wood et al., 2008). The AS has been shown to have adequate testretest reliability, with correlations of r = .78 (two weeks) to .79 (four weeks) for
self-alienation, r = .79 (two weeks) to r = .78 (four weeks) for authentic living,
and r = .84 (two weeks) to r = .81 (four weeks) for accepting external influence
(Wood et al., 2008). Use of the AS to measure authenticity as a single overall
construct has not been supported. Therefore, the AS was used in the present study
to measure self-alienation, authentic living, and accepting external influence, but
not to measure overall authenticity as a single overarching construct.
Demographic Questionnaire. The short demographic questionnaire (DQ) is a
categorical assessment tool designed to measure demographics with respect for
diversity across four categories: age, ethnicity, gender, and relationship status.
The age subscale contains 7 categories, each of which represents a particular age
group: 18-24 years old; 25-34 years old; 35-44 years old; 45-54 years old; 55-64
years old; 65-74 years old; and 75 years old or older. The ethnicity subscale
contains 8 categories: White; Hispanic/Latino(a); Black/African American; Asian;
41
Native American/American Indian/Alaska Native; Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander; Multiracial; and Other. The gender subscale contains 6 categories: Male;
Female; Male to Female Transgender; Female to Male Transgender;
Androgynous; and Other. The relationship status subscale contains 5 categories:
Single, not dating; Single, dating; In a committed relationship; Married/In a
domestic partnership; and Separated. The DQ was used to gather information
about participant demographics so as to inform future interpretation of the
external validity/generalizability of results.
Statistical Analysis
As this is a correlational study involving two quantitative variables which
represent dimensions of attachment security (attachment-related anxiety, attachmentrelated avoidance) and three quantitative variables which represent factors of authenticity
(self-alienation, authentic living, accepting external influence), six separate bivariate
correlational analyses were conducted to correlate each of the two attachment-related
variables with each of the three authenticity-related variables. Specifically, for H1
attachment-related anxiety was correlated with self-alienation; for H2 attachment-related
anxiety was correlated with authentic living; for H3 attachment-related anxiety was
correlated with accepting external influence; for H4 attachment-related avoidance was
correlated with self-alienation; for H5 attachment-related avoidance was correlated with
authentic living; and for H6 attachment-related avoidance was correlated with accepting
external influence. For each separate correlation, if the computed r value was significant
42
and supportive of the corresponding hypothesis, the corresponding null hypothesis was
rejected.
Risks and Benefits
There were no known physical risks of participating in the present study. The risk
of psychological distress was considered slight, as participants were asked to consider
what may have been sensitive topics for some. To address any psychological distress
which might arise, a post-survey notification inviting clients to seek counseling in their
local area was provided. The telephone number for the nationwide suicide/crisis hotline
was also provided.
43
Results
Of the original set of 153 respondents, 28 were excluded from analysis due to
being incomplete (one or more questions were not answered). Of the remaining 125
responses, another 48 respondents were excluded from analysis due to having multiple
answers submitted for one or more questions. Responses from the remaining 77
participants, all of which were evaluated to be complete and to have only one answer
submitted for each question, comprised the final data set.
Study data analysis showed a significant moderate positive relationship between
attachment-related anxiety and self-alienation, r(75) = .579, p = .000, r2 = .3352; no
relationship between attachment-related anxiety and authentic living, r(75) = -.147, p =
.201; and a significant weak positive relationship between attachment-related anxiety and
accepting external influence, r(75) = .339, p = .003, r2 = .1149. Data analysis showed a
significant moderate positive relationship between attachment-related avoidance and selfalienation, r(75) = .521, p = .000, r2 = .2714; a significant weak negative relationship
between attachment-related avoidance and authentic living, r(75) = -.280, p = .013, r2 =
.0784; and a significant weak positive relationship between attachment-related avoidance
and accepting external influence, r(75) = .247, p = .030, r2 = .0610.
44
Demographics
Age. Of the 77 participant responses included in the final data set, 42.9 percent reported
as 18-24 years old; 26.0 percent reported as 25-34 years old; 18.2 percent reported as 3544 years old; 10.4 percent reported as 45-54 years old; 1.3 percent reported as 65-74
years old; and 1.3 percent reported as 75 years and older.
Ethnicity/Race. Of the 77 participant responses included in the final data set, 64.9
percent endorsed White; 16.9 percent endorsed Hispanic/Latino(a); 2.6 endorsed
Black/African American; 2.6 endorsed Asian; 9.1 percent endorsed Multiracial (or were
analyzed as Multiracial due to having given more than one answer for Question 2 on the
Demographic Questionnaire); and 3.9 endorsed Other.
Gender Identity. Of the 77 participant responses included in the final data set, 81.8
percent reported as female; 13.0 percent reported as male; 1.3 percent reported as male to
female transgender; 1.3 percent reported as female to male transgender; and 1.3 percent
reported as other.
Relationship Status. Of the 77 participant responses included in the final data set, 20.8
percent reported as single, not dating; 9.1 percent reported as single, dating; 32.5 percent
reported as being in a committed relationship; 33.8 percent reported as married/in a
domestic partnership; and 3.9 percent reported as being separated.
45
Discussion
Study data support four out of six hypotheses; specifically, H1, H3, H4, and H5 are
supported while H2 and H6 are unsupported. Results show that attachment-related anxiety
is positively correlated with self-alienation and accepting external influence, and that
attachment-related avoidance is positively correlated with self-alienation and negatively
correlated with authentic living. In general, these correlations were found to range from
weak to moderate, and are similar to results found in previous studies. As these
correlations were predicted, and as rationales for each hypothesis were given in the
Methods section, further discussion regarding those rationales will not be given here.
Data analysis did not show a relationship between attachment-related anxiety and
authentic living. This finding may have been influenced in some way by the exclusion of
nearly half of the respondent data from final analysis due to incomplete or multiple
answers. Given the strong background of research in support of H2, it is reasonable to
consider that a relationship between attachment-related anxiety and authentic living
might be found in the event that this study was replicated with a larger sample.
Data analysis showed a significant positive relationship between attachmentrelated avoidance and accepting external influence, r(75) = .247, p = .030 (Table VI).
This finding contrasts with the prediction that attachment-related avoidance would be
negatively correlated with accepting external influence (H6), as well as with previously
demonstrated associations between attachment-related avoidance and emphasis given to
46
independence and the importance of relationships (Siegel & Hartzell, 2003). While the
rationale for H6 is partly based on the fact that prior research has shown positive
associations between attachment-related avoidance and dishonesty and lying behavior
(Gillath et al., 2010; Ennis et al., 2008), it seems unlikely that attachment-related
avoidance would be associated with an increased tendency to overexaggerate or lie about
acceptance of others’ influence. Perhaps the relationship between avoidance and
dishonesty does not have much bearing on how individuals high in avoidance answer
questions regarding their own level of accepting others’ influence. Further research on
this subject could provide additional insight and information.
The differences detected between correlations for the six pairs of variables in the
present study illustrate the nuances of the relationship between attachment security and
authenticity, as it appears that each factor of authenticity shows a unique set of
associations with the two attachment variables. These findings emphasize the importance
of treating authenticity as a multifactorial construct in research.
Demographic analysis of all study participants has shown the present sample to be
predominately young (87.0 percent 44 years old or younger), White (64.9 percent) and
Hispanic/Latino(a) (16.9 percent), and female (81.8 percent). It is important to keep this
in mind when considering the generalizability of results, and specifically to be cautious
when attempting to generalize results to any population with a different demographic
profile.
47
Implications for Future Research
The present study utilized a small sample size and the demographic characteristics
of the sample limit generalizability of results. Additional research duplicating the present
study with a larger and more diverse sample will help to provide additional support for
conclusions regarding the relationships between variables of attachment security and
factors of authenticity. As attachment-related avoidance is understood as a complex
phenomenon associated with both overt and covert disconnection from deeper
attachment-related feelings, further research concerning the interrelationships between
avoidance, factors of authenticity, and patterns of dishonesty and disconnection is
warranted. As the factor of authentic living reflects the behavioral component of
authenticity which may be influenced by external elements which threaten or hinder basic
need satisfaction (e.g., poverty, violence), further consideration of the relationship
between this factor and those representing internal psychological processes with regard to
authenticity (i.e., self-alienation, accepting external influence) may help to further clarify
elements of the authenticity construct.
Clinical Applications
As the present study suggests, there are at least weak to moderate associations
between aspects of attachment security and factors of authenticity. In the clinical setting,
this information can be used to help inform practice with clients who present with
attachment-related issues such as familial and marital problems and other types of
48
interpersonal relationship difficulties, as well as with issues concerning authenticity such
as self-esteem problems, issues related to goal setting, and issues around making
decisions. By understanding the nature of the associations illustrated by the present study
between attachment security and factors of authenticity, clinicians can work strategically
to address these variables together as needed to promote positive outcomes for clients.
49
References
Ainsworth, M.S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0003
066X.34.10.932
Ainsworth, M.S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709716. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0003066X.44.4.709
Ainsworth, M.S. & Bowlby, J. (1991).An ethological approach to personality
development.American Psychologist, 46, 333-341. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.333
Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helping system: Journey and substance.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/hsulib/reader.action?docID=10567107
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of
and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178. Retrieved from
https://illiad.humboldt.edu/illiad/illiad.dll?Action=10&Form=75&Value=155308
Bowlby, J. (1956). The growth of independence in the young child. Royal Society of
Health Journal, 76, 587-591. Retrieved from
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/independence.pdf
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of
50
Psycho-Analysis, 39, 350-373. Retrieved from
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/nature%20of%20the%20ch
ilds%20tie%20bowlby.pdf
Bowlby, J. (1960). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15, 9-52. Retrieved from http://icpla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/Bowlby-J.-Grief-and-Mourning-in-Infancy-and-EarlyChildhood-vol.15-p.9-52.pdf
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment Theory in Close Relationships (46-76). New York, NY: Guilford.
Carver, C.S., & Baird, E. (1998). The American dream revisited: Is it what you want or
why you want it that matters? Psychological Science, 9, 289-292. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid
=2c56ae0f-3269-4f45-bcfe-f39ddbe83bf3%40sessionmgr4003&vid=2&hid=4204
Chopra, D. (2012). How to tell the difference between your true self and your everyday
self. Retrieved from http://www.oprah.com/oprahs-lifeclass/Deepak-Chopra-TheDifference-Between-the-True-Self-and-Everyday-Self
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826-838. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.826
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
51
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_DeciRyan_PIWha
tWhy.pdf
Ennis, E., Vrij, A., & Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday
life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 105-118.
doi:10.1177/0265407507086808
Fairchild, A.J. & Finney, S.J. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the Experiences
in
Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 116-135. Retrieved from
http://epm.sagepub.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/content/66/1/116.full.pdf+html
Forsythe, L.P., Romano, J.M., Jensen, M.P., and Thorn, B.E. (2012). Attachment style is
associated with perceived spouse responses and pain-related outcomes.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 57, 290-300. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/a0030083
Fraley, R.C. & Shaver, P.R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted
thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080-1091.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycarticles/docview/61435995
6/fulltext/AD7ADEC592FB4CECPQ/1?accountid=11532
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis
52
of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 350-365. Retrieved from http://www.web-researchdesign.net/PDF/FW%26B2000.pdf
Gillath, O., Sesko, A.K., Shaver, P.R., & Chun, D.S. (2010). Attachment, authenticity,
and honesty: Dispositional and experimentally induced security can reduce selfand other-deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 841-855.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycarticles/docview/61451451
3/fulltext/1433B62F8F15E5BFEE0/1?accountid=11532
Griffin, D. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of self and other: Fundamental
dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67, 430-445. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycarticles/docview/61433193
4/fulltext/C53B06327B924BAAPQ/1?accountid=11532
Hammen, C.L., Burge, D., Daley, S.E., Davila, J., & Paley, B. (1995). Interpersonal
attachment cogntions and prediction of symptomatic responses to interpersonal
stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 436-443. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0021-843X.104.3.436
Harter, S., Marold, D.B., Whitesell, N.R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of
perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child
Development, 67, 360-374. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/stable/1131819?seq=6&Search=yes&
53
searchText=peer&searchText=model&searchText=support&searchText=A&searc
hText=behavior&searchText=parent&searchText=self&searchText=effects&sear
chText=the&searchText=perceived&searchText=and&searchText=of&searchTex
t=adolescent&searchText=false&searchText=on&list=hide&searchUri=%2Factio
n%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DA%2Bmodel%2Bof%2Bthe%2Beffects%2B
of%2Bperceived%2Bparent%2Band%2Bpeer%2Bsupport%2Bon%2Badolescent
%2Bfalse%2Bself%2Bbehavior%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don
%26amp%3Bfc%3Doff&prevSearch=&resultsServiceName=null. doi:
10.2307/1131819
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2000). Disorganized infant, child, and adult attachment: Collapse
in behavioral and attentional strategies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 48, 1097-1127. Retrieved from 70-40-20036.bluehost.com/documents/Hesse_Main.pdf
Howell, D.C. (2011). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA:
Cengage.
Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of
authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
38, 283-357. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
Leak, G.K. & Cooney, R.R. (2001). Self-determination, attachment styles, and well-being
54
in adult romantic relationships. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 25,
55-62. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2001_LeakCooney_RRS
P.pdf
Lopez, F. & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment style over the
first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence, coping, and distress
patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 355-364. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.355
Lopez, F., & Rice, K.G. (2006). Preliminary development and validation of a measure of
relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 362-371.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycinfo/docview/614446662/f
ulltext/1433C7514E018FDDFDC/12?accountid=11532. doi: 10.1037/00220167.53.3.362
MacWilliams, L.A. & Bailey, S.J. (2010). Associations between adult attachment ratings
and health conditions: Evidence from the national comorbidity survey replication.
Health Psychology, 29, 446-453. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/a0020061
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/stable/3333827?seq=10
55
Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure disoriented attachment pattern:
Procedures, findings, and implications for the classification of behavior. In T.
Brazelton & M. Youngman (Eds.). Affective Development in Infancy. Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370396.
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Gillath, O. & Nitzberg, R. (2005). Attachment, caregiving,
and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817-839. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817
Pietromonaco, P.R. & Barrett, L.F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What
do we really know about the self in relation to others? Review of General
Psychology, 4, 155-175. Retrieved from http://www.affectivescience.org/pubs/2000/PietromonacoFB2000.pdf
Rogers, C. (1949). The attitude and orientation of the counselor in client-centered
therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 13, 82-94. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/614340900/fulltextPDF/A24919C86A9F44C
8PQ/1?accountid=11532
Rogers, C. (1950). A current formulation of client-centered therapy. Social Service
Review, 24, 442-450. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30019587?seq=1
Rogers, C. (1951). Through the eyes of a client – part III: Client-centered therapy has, as
56
its end result, not more self-consciousness, but less. Pastoral Psychology, 2, 2632. Retrieved from
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/318/art%253A10.1007%252FBF0196447
9.pdf?auth66=1415826285_dca11dd753e8a18778d729e2f4ccfdf4&ext=.pdf
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Ryan, R.M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,
450-461. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/1982_Ryan_ControlandI
nfo_JPSP.pdf
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Scharfe, E. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment
patterns. Personal Relationships, 1, 23-43. Retrieved from
http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/attachmentpub_files/PRScharfe94.p
df
Schlegel, R.J., Hicks, J.A., Davis, W.E., Hirsch, K.A., & Smith, C.M. (2013). The
dynamic interplay between perceived true self-knowledge and decision
satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 542-558.
Retrieved from
57
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycarticles/docview/12661501
05/1432886DA9C7D6792BD/1?accountid=11532#REF_c44.
doi:10.1037/a0031183
Seligman, C., Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1980). Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards
on liking and loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 453-460.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/psycarticles/docview/61437031
7/fulltextPDF/14326AC4D1548679C75/1?accountid=11532
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J. & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:
Cross-role variation in the Big Five personality traits and its relations with
psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/Ahimsa/Downloads/0fcfd50f78012446ba000000.pdf
Sibley, C.J. & Liu, J.H. (2004). Short-term temporal stability and factor structure of the
revised experiences in close relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 969-975. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/science/article/pii/S0191886
90300165X
Siegel, D.J. & Hartzell, M. (2003). Parenting from the inside out: How a deeper
self-understanding can help you raise children who thrive. NY: Penguin.
Spangler, G. & Grossman, K.E. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely and
58
insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64, 1439-1450. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/stable/10.2307/1131544?Search=yes
&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Biobehavioral&searchText=Organization&s
earchText=in&searchText=Securely&searchText=andInsecurely&searchText=Att
ached&searchText=Infants&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery
%3DBiobehavioral%2BOrganization%2Bin%2BSecurely%2BandInsecurely%2B
Attached%2BInfants%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bwc%3Don%26amp%3
Bfc%3Doff
Uysal, A., Lin, H.L., Knee, C.R., & Bush, A.L. (2011). The association between selfconcealment from one’s partner and relationship well-being. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 39-51. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2012_UysalLinKneeBus
h_PSPB.pdf. doi:10.1177/0146167211429331
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment
security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child
Development, 71, 684-689. Retrieved from
http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.humboldt.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid
=69be2c11-8f3a-442b-a322-25f2efac4b6e%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=113
White, N. (2011). An examination of dispositional authenticity. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Retrieved from
http://repository.asu.edu/attachments/56345/content/White_asu_0010E_10304.pd
f
59
Williams, G.C., Cox, E.M., Hedberg, V.A., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and
health-risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30,
1756-1771. Retrieved from
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2000_WilliamsCoxHedb
ergDeci.pdf
Winnicott, D.W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. The International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 585-595. Retrieved from http://icpla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/Winnicott-D.-The-Theory-of-the-Parent-InfantRelationship-IJPA-Vol.-41-pps.-585-595.pdf
Wood, A.M., Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic
personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and development of the
Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 383-399. Retrieved
from
http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/alex.wood/Authenticity%20Scale.pdf.
doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
60
Appendix A
Authenticity Scale (AS; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008)
1. “I think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular.”
2. “I don’t know how I really feel inside.”
3. “I am strongly influenced by the opinions of others.”
4. “I usually do what other people tell me to do.”
5. “I always feel I need to do what others expect me to do.”
6. “Other people influence me greatly.”
7. “I feel as if I don’t know myself very well.”
8. “I always stand by what I believe in.”
9. “I am true to myself in most situations.”
10. “I feel out of touch with the ‘real me’.”
11. “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.”
12. “I feel alienated from myself.”
Scoring Instructions
All items are presented on a 1 (does not describe me at all) to 7 (describes me very well)
scale. Total items 1, 8, 9, and 11 for Authentic Living; items 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Accepting
External Influence; and items 2, 7, 10, and 12 for Self-Alienation.
61
Appendix B
The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) Questionnaire
(Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000)
Scoring Information: The first 18 items listed below comprise the attachment-related
anxiety scale. Items 19 – 36 comprise the attachment-related avoidance scale. In real
research, the order in which these items are presented should be randomized. Each item
is rated on a 7-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. To obtain
a score for attachment-related anxiety, please average a person’s responses to items 1 –
18. However, because items 9 and 11 are “reverse keyed” (i.e., high numbers represent
low anxiety rather than high anxiety), you’ll need to reverse the answers to those
questions before averaging the responses. (If someone answers with a “6” to item 9,
you’ll need to re-key it as a 2 before averaging.) To obtain a score for attachment-related
avoidance, please average a person’s responses to items 19 – 36. Items 20, 22, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 36 will need to be reverse keyed before you compute this
average.
Generic Instructions: The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate
relationships. We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in
what is happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by [web: clicking
a circle] [paper: circling a number] to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the
statement
Special notes: You may wish to randomize the order of the items when presenting them
to research participants. The ordering below is simply a convenient one for illustrating
which items belong to which scale. Also, some people have modified the items to refer to
“others” rather than “romantic partners.” This seems sensible to us, and in our own
research we commonly alter the wording to refer to different individuals. For example,
sometimes we reword the items to refer to “others” or “this person” and alter the
instructions to say something like “The statements below concern how you generally feel
in your relationship with your mother” or “The statements below concern how you
generally feel in your relationship with your romantic partner (i.e., a girlfriend, boyfriend,
or spouse).
1. I'm afraid that I will lose my partner's love.
2. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.
3. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me.
4. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.
62
5. I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him or
her.
6. I worry a lot about my relationships.
7. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in
someone else.
8. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the same
about me.
9. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me.
10. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself.
11. I do not often worry about being abandoned.
12. I find that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I would like.
13. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason.
14. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
15. I'm afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who I
really am.
16. It makes me mad that I don't get the affection and support I need from my partner.
17. I worry that I won't measure up to other people.
18. My partner only seems to notice me when I’m angry.
19. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.
20. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.
21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.
22. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.
23. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.
24. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.
25. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.
26. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.
27. It's not difficult for me to get close to my partner.
28. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
29. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
30. I tell my partner just about everything.
31. I talk things over with my partner.
32. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
33. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.
34. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.
35. It's easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.
36. My partner really understands me and my needs.
63
Appendix C
Facebook Recruitment Notice
Please participate in my master’s thesis research project on the connection between
authenticity and close relationships! Help me complete my graduate studies by taking an
anonymous online survey which takes less than 30 minutes to complete. Click on the link
below to participate. Thank you!
64
Appendix D
Participant Recruitment Email to Psychology Department at Humboldt State University
To: Amber Kees, Graduate Coordinator, Psychology Department, Humboldt State
University <[email protected]>
From: Ahimsa Tiana, Primary Investigator <[email protected]>
Subject Heading: Participant recruitment email to be sent out to psychology students
Contents of body:
Hi Amber,
Here is the email I would like you to send out to all students in the psychology
department.
Subject Heading: Please help me complete my thesis by taking a brief survey!
Contents of body:
Calling out to all psychology students at HSU!
I am a graduate student in counseling psychology and am currently conducting a study
for my master’s thesis examining the connection between authenticity and relationships.
Please help me complete my thesis by taking a brief (less than 30 minutes) online survey.
You can access the survey directly at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TYKMR96.
Undergraduate students enrolled in certain classes who are eligible to receive class credit
for taking my survey through HSU’s research participation pool can also sign up and
access the survey link through the online pool. The study is listed on the research
participation pool website at https://hsupool.sona-systems.com/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=/
under ‘Authenticity and Relationships’.
Thank you so much for your time,
Ahimsa Tiana
65
Appendix E
Study Submission Email to Hanover College
From: Ahimsa Tiana, Primary Investigator <[email protected]>
To: John H. Krantz, Ph.D., Professor, Hanover College, IN, USA
<[email protected]>
Subject heading: Study for Listing on Psychological Research on the Net
Contents of body:
The Title of the Study to Post: Attachment Security and Factors of Authenticity
Researcher(s) Name and Institution(s): Ahimsa Tiana, Principal Investigator; Emily
Sommerman, Faculty Advisor; Humboldt State University
Section Suggestion: Relationships
Web Address of Study: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TYKMR96
Ethics Review Information: IRB Number 14-112 (IRB Exempt Approval Memorandum
attached)
66
Appendix F
Certificate of Informed Consent
Title of Study: Attachment Security and Factors of Authenticity
Investigators: Ahimsa Tiana, Primary Investigator; Emily Sommerman, Research
Supervisor
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this study, the focus of which is to examine
the relationship between patterns of experience in close relationships and patterns of
experience concerning authenticity. Today you will be asked to answer a series of
questions relating to these topics. You will also be asked to provide some basic
demographic information. The expected time for completion of this series of questions is
approximately 30 minutes.
Anonymity: Your responses will be kept anonymous. The anonymous data will be
compiled, discussed in a graduate thesis, and kept for a minimum of five years.
Risks and Benefits: There are no known physical risks of participating in this research.
There is a possibility that you may experience some minor psychological stress as a result
of being asked questions which pertain to close interpersonal relationships and
authenticity, as these may be sensitive subjects for some people. As this is an online
study, you will be responsible for managing any stress which may arise during and after
your participation. Contact information for a crisis hotline will also be provided at the
end of the survey. The hotline number may be contacted as needed in the event of any
psychological distress which may arise during participation.
Contacts: If you have any questions about the procedures used in this study, please
contact Primary Investigator Ahimsa Tiana at [email protected], Research
Supervisor Emily Sommerman at [email protected], or Institutional Review Board
Chair Ethan Gahtan at [email protected] as needed in the event of any particular
concerns or distress concerning your experience with participation.
Participating: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and you may
choose to stop participating at any point in time without penalty. You may refuse to
answer any particular question; however, if you do not object it is best for you to answer
all the questions.
Compensation: Some participants may be eligible for extra credit if using the research
participation pool at Humboldt State University. There is no other form of compensation
offered for participation in this study.
67
Age Requirement: You must be at least 18 years old to participate in this study. By
continuing you are indicating that you meet the age requirement. You are also indicating
that the study for which you are volunteering has been explained to you and that you
agree to participate.
68
Appendix G
Demographic Questionnaire
Q. What is your age?
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75 years or older
Q. What ethnic/racial group do you most strongly identify with?
White
Hispanic/Latino(a)
Black/African American
Asian
Native American/American Indian/Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Multiracial
Other
Q. What is your gender identity?
Male
Female
Male to Female Transgender
Female to Male Transgender
Androgynous
Other
Q. Relationship status:
Single, not dating
Single, dating
In a committed relationship
Married/In a domestic partnership
Separated
69