1 Project doc

How deep is your love? Theoretical considerationsof
adult attachment systems, activationof attachment
processes through primes, and their influenceon
social evaluations.
Sara Graham
23002858
Level 6 Research Project - BSc Psychology Hons
Dissertation supervisor: Dr. David Bowles

2
Contents
Description Page number
Acknowledgements ……………………………………………………… 3
Abstract ………………………………………………………………….. 4
Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 4
Background literature & Theoretical discussion 4
Attachment and Priming: State vs. Trait 9
Attachment and Social Evaluations 10
The Current Study 12
Design and Method……………………………………………………….. 14
Materials 14
Design 14
Participants & Procedure 15
Ethical considerations 16
Results and Analysis………………………………………………………. 16
T-tests 16
Correlations 17
Moderation Regression analysis 18
Discussion………………………………………………………………… 20
References………………………………………………………………… 31
Appendices………………………………………………………………… 37

3
Acknowledgements
I would like to take a moment to thank everyone who has helped me in executing this research
project. Firstly, I would like to thank my project supervisor Dr. David Bowles for all of the
guidance and support he has given me throughout the production of this dissertation; without
his theoretical and practical expertise I would not have been able to complete this project to
its final level.
I would like to thank my family and friends who helped me with the mammoth task of data
collection and getting through the multiple nervous breakdowns.
I would also like to thank the other university staff including the tutors and the Technical
resources team Daniel Addy and Lee Wallace who helped, not only myself, but the hundreds
of other final year psychology students in completing their dissertations.

4
Abstract
Adult attachment orientation can be primed by using cues to activate the attachment system
(Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer and Shaver, 2007a). Also our attachment system plays a
crucial role in processing social information in turn effecting our vigilance to cues in social
interactions in order to evaluate and monitor the availability and receptiveness of security
bases (Bowles & Meyer, 2008). This study gives insight into the theoretical discussions of
adult attachment with a review of the existing literature drawing conclusions on the most
appropriate methods of gestating adult attachment, explores attachment primes, attachment
states, and interactions between them in attempt to explain individual differences in social
evaluations, and finds support for the chosen suitable theoretical position with implications
for this field of research. 121 participants took part in one of two attachment priming
conditions (secure or insecure), participants completed a State Adult Attachment Measure
(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009) and a social evaluation task to measure if primed attachment
orientation effects attachment state and social evaluations. Initial analysis found that the
secure prime increased security and positive social evaluation, decreasing anxiety, avoidance
and negative social evaluation; the insecure prime increased anxiety, avoidance, negative
social evaluations, decreasing security and positive social evaluation, in line with literature
and accepting the predicted hypotheses (H1). Exploratory hierarchical regression and
moderation analyses also found the prime conditions moderated the relationship between
avoidant attachment and negative evaluations, and secure attachment and negative
evaluations. Findings are discussed in relevance of adult attachment theory in predicting
individuals’ social evaluations.

5
Introduction
Background literature & Theoretical discussion – Hazan & Shaver’s (1987) study was one
of the first to examine the likelihood of romantic love being an attachment process and noting
the similarities between how the bonds between mother and infant translates to the bonds
formed in adulthood; this was based on the notion that continuity of attachment style may be
explained by inner mental models of the ‘self’ and ‘others’ developed as an infant (Bowlby,
1973; Cassidy, 2000). Hazen & Shaver (1987) used the primary elements of attachment
theory, applying them to the development of adult romantic relationships including the use of
the three major attachment styles - secure, avoidant and ambivalent - by using questionnaires.
It’s main findings were that attachment orientation between infancy and adulthood were
relatively correlated, the adults varied predictably in their relationship behaviours and
experiences, and that theoretical inner working models of the self and others were implicitly
related to attachment orientations. This study was problematic on multiple issues; the data of
childhood attachment style was collected in a retrospective, self-report manner considering
that parental relationships may not be remembered, reported or represented accurately
especially when these memories were from infancy. Also, the researchers attempted to create
three trait adult-attachment groups based on their visualisations of how adults of each of the
infant groupings would behave in the dimension of romantic relationships, which seems
problematic as the infancy-type dimension does not directly translate into the adult-types.
Bartholomew (1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) challenged the existing three-type
approach due to concerns about the merging of the two theoretically discrete forms of
avoidant attachment which Bartholomew labelled as fearful-avoidance – a preventative
orientation to being hurt by partners – and dismissive-avoidance – an orientation to
defensively affirm independence and self-reliance. Therefore, by building a model around
Bowlby’s work (1973) of internal working models, they formed a four type categorical

6
model; secure, pre-occupied, fearful, and dismissive. However, while these models are still
frequently used and referred to in literature, the restrictive weaknesses became quickly
apparent as many individuals did not fit easily into just one category.
Rather than dichotomous categories, adult attachment researchers (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998) began to refine the theory by reducing the
descriptions of each orientation down to
agree/disagree items, factor-analysing and converting
the results into a two dimensional model, the first
dimension anxiety – the fear that one has about
rejection or abandonment from the significant other –
and the second avoidance – the extent to which one
seeks emotional distance and independence from the
significant other. Those scoring low on both dimensions were considered to be secure, those
scoring high on both considered fearful (see figure 1 for an illustrative model). It was found
that this model consistently and accurately displays inter-correlations with attachment
valuations in that each attachment-type encompassed a certain profile of attachment traits
(Fraley & Waller, 1998) validated by self-report measures, agreeance between family, and
peers. This model can be accurately evaluated with reliable and valid self-report
questionnaires and align with the theoretical framework allowing for accurate predictions of
future relationship conditions and personal adaptation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a).
Fraley, Hudson, Heffernan & Segal (2015) recently revised the literature in this debate with
an empirically strong study finding that although continuous scales were established as most
appropriate, categorical models are still widespread across the research to deliberate and
assess empirical findings around attachment. Sampling was internet-based and analysis was
carried out over two levels with two large, diverse samples; exploratory analysis of 2,399
Secure
Pre-
occupied Fearful
Dismissive
Anxiety
(Model
of self-
positive/
negative)
Avoidance
(Model of others-
positive/negative)
Low
High
High
Figure 1: illustrationofthe 2
dimensional adultattachment model
producedfromBrennan et al.,1998.

7
individuals and inferential analysis with 2,300 other individuals. Results in this study found
that the dimensional models of attachment were much more suitable for conceptualising,
evaluating and assessing adult attachment research in both general and specific attachments
(e.g. familial, romantic, peer). Brennan, Clark & Shaver (1998) further supported this
dimensional model with a large-scale factor-analysis of all attachment self-report scales; this
took data from 1,086 participants ranging from 16 to 50 and the two major dimensions of
avoidance and anxiety clearly transpired. From this the Experiences in Close Relationships
(ECR), a 36-item attachment measure, was made with four attachment orientation categories
from the two dimensions with much higher construct validity than prior attachment scales.
However, a major issue with conceptualising adult attachment in the above models are the
repeated findings of within-person variation. For example, Baldwin et al. (1996) found that
while some individuals see their spouse as warm and affectionate they can see their mother as
rejecting. Klohnen, Weller, Luo & Choe.
(2005) expanded on this in their paper
discussing the literature of general vs.
relationship specific attachment models;
using hierarchical regression only a small,
average correlation between security in
parental relationships and romantic
relationships of 0.2 was found. Therefore,
these findings require a more complex model
to account for the relationship specific
within-person variations.
Mikulincer & Shaver (2003) also carried out
a summary of adult attachment research and put forward a connectionist model with appraisal
Figure 2: Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2007a) Model of
Attachment-system Functioning and Dynamics
(reproduced with the authors' permission)

8
and behavioural modules (see figure 2; Model of Attachment-system Functioning and
Dynamics) to best demonstrate their conclusions of the complex interplay of the attachment
system. Drawing back on Bowbly’s (1988) ideas around attachment representations/internal
working models and also past literature, Mikulincer and Shaver (2003; 2007a) integrated the
working attachment model within a semantic associative network of information processing.
Their ideas around attachment leave the categorical and two dimensional models as over
simplified and reductionist; instead the anxiety and avoidance dimensions are found to be
separate, independent components, with a third independent dimension of security (as
opposed to this being the result of low presence of the other two). This results in three major
attachment dimensions that make up some of the cognitive-affective model, a) attachment
security, the seeking of proximity to the source of support when threatened, b) attachment
anxiety, the fear of rejection or abandonment by attachment figures and c) attachment
avoidance, the lack of desire for closeness with the attachment figure (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a). As this is a working model it also incorporates episodic, context-related, specific
relationship and generic relationship attachment representations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003).
This means that the order, excitatory strength, and outcome of activation of the nodes and
units depend on the individual’s past and recent attachment experiences, and current context.
From the nature of this model we can account for the plethora of data that has found trends of
within-person variations that was a problematic finding for the reliability of the global,
dimensional models (figure1). This model allows for a more precise demonstrating of the
cognitive-affective processing of attachment representations to fit within a working model of
attachment made up by a combination of memorable interactions throughout the life span –
not only as an infant but (Bowlby, 1988) simultaneously being dynamic due to context-
dependency (Fraley, 2007). Fraley’s (2007) astute theoretical article on using connectionist
models (like Mikulincer and Shaver’s 2003) for understanding adult attachment highlights

9
that the attachment information is distributed across a network, and that the system functions
via activation of certain units, as opposed to a unit for the mother, a unit for the romantic
partner etc. Differing patterns of activation generate differing attachment representations.
Attachment and Priming: State vs. Trait – As research has found that individual’s attachment
orientation can fluctuate (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995) due to current relationship experiences and
situational context (Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer & Shaver 2007b), this within-person
variation challenges the earlier paradigm of trait attachment style by indicating the existence
of state-dependent properties of adult attachment. For example, Zhang (2009) followed 30
participants for 4 weeks through semi-weekly reports of interpersonal experiences and
attachment dispositions finding specifically that state anxiety elevated when higher numbers
of negative interpersonal experiences or ‘perceived interpersonal losses’ were reported; when
these events were less reported, state security elevated. The study had a methodologically
sound design – other than the smaller than ideal sample size – and while not referring directly
to Mikulincer & Shaver’s model (2003, 2007a) the attempt to explain the findings are
theoretically analogous (e.g. “ongoing appraisal process” and “feedback from recent
interpersonal experiences”). These findings give clear support for the research findings of
state attachment orientation and also theoretical support for Mikulincer & Shaver’s working
model of adult attachment. Thus, it is viable to observe the effects of experimentally primed
states of security, anxiety, and avoidance by temporarily manipulating accessibility to certain
attachment related information in the individual’s attachment framework.
Mikulincer, Hirschberger, Nachmias & Gillath. (2001) demonstrated contextual activation of
the attachment system over five studies with an Israeli student sample by measuring empathy
and reactions to other’s needs (a by-product of secure attachment) and personal distress (a by-
product of anxious attachment). When the state of attachment security was primed using a
number of different techniques (recollecting warm memories, security vignettes, images,

10
exposure to security-related words) empathy was stronger and personal distress was impeded.
However, while attachment-security primes had effect, they were unsuccessful in restricting
the cognitive access to specific personal-distress memories suggesting the existence of a more
strongly enduring link that cannot be overridden by experimental primes. Also, while findings
of fluctuations in adult attachment are prominent, there are further findings providing support
for a stable long-term attachment orientation underlying the temporary variation patterns
(Buist, Reitz, Dekovic 2008; Fraley Vicary, Brumbaugh & Roisman, 2011).
Fraley (2007) uses the theoretical implications of connectionist models to account for these
juxtaposing findings; similar patterns of fluctuation and stability in personality has been
demonstrated and explained by another connectionist model - Mischel & Shoda’s (1995;
2008) Cognitive-Affective Personality System (CAPS) model. A number of established and
unique ‘if… then…’ situation-behaviour profiles coded within the individual’s CAPS can
account for fluctuations in behaviour while also giving consistency in how individuals’
behaviour fluctuates between different contexts. Therefore, while on the surface the
individual’s behaviour may not seem to have any apparent patterns, there is a higher-order
regularity in terms of these situation-behaviour profiles. This means that context dependent
attachment representations (state attachment) can coexist with global attachment
representations conceived in infancy and up (trait attachment) both exercising their control
over behaviour when the individual is in new circumstances (Fraley, 2007; Davila & Sargent,
2003). This reasoning corresponds with Bowlby’s (1969; 1982) original ideas that the mental
representations of the self and other are reworked and updated with every novel experience
and relationship while the mental working models fabricated in infancy tend to persist
throughout.
Attachment and Social evaluations – As it was found that as these working attachment
systems were deeply ingrained, underlying systems, functioning at multiple levels of global

11
and specific representations, it would seem logical that they also play a crucial role in
attending to social material, actively handling social evaluations and judgements
(Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000) – despite the individual’s sense of subjective
autonomy (Ferguson, Bargh & Nayak, 2005) – in order to constantly appraise and monitor the
availability and receptiveness of security bases (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer,
2002). Since each individual has unique attachment representations as a product of their past
experiences each person’s attachment system will vary in levels of vigilance to certain social
cues (Zayas, Ayduk & Shoda, 2002; Mikulincer, Gillath & Shaver, 2002). Bowles & Meyer
(2008) explored this notion using hierarchical regression. 169 undergraduates with varying
levels of Avoidant Personality Disorder (APD) features were assigned to three attachment
priming conditions (positive, negative, neutral) and asked to appraise vignettes. Results
showed significantly that more avoidant individuals consistently appraised the emotionally
ambiguous vignettes more negatively despite the priming condition. Also, unless placed in the
negative prime condition, those with less APD features did not display negative appraisals.
The findings aligned with the assumption that individuals with more APD features tend to be
insensitive to context and highly inflexible in their negative-information processing
tendencies due to their constant state of insecurity. Fraley, Niedenthal, Marks, Brumbaugh &
Vicary. (2006) also demonstrated the function of attachment systems in social evaluations,
recording the perceived offset (study1) and onset (study2-4) of expressions through morph
movies. Anxiously attached participants were found to be hyper-vigilant in these tasks as they
had higher tendencies to report offset and onset of expressions earlier than other participants
(Niedenthal, Brauer, Robin & Innes-Ker, 2002). This seemed to be the case regardless of the
type of expression being appraised (positive or negative) paradoxically suggesting that
hypervigilance from anxious attachment can lead to less precision in determining facial
expression; instead it seems that the proverbial ‘Goldilocks’ balance of ‘just right’ vigilance is

12
needed for accurate expression appraisal.
The findings of linkage between attachment and social appraisal fits nicely into the
evolutionary foundations within attachment theory. Infants bond with maternal figures in
order to survive (Bowlby, 1969); it is in this same system that feelings of trust, anxiety, and
avoidance develop for evolutionary reasons of survival to enable automatic judgment of
situations (Fraley, Brumbaugh & Marks, 2005), and new people (Brumbaugh & Fraley,
2007). For example, Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) observed a direct link between secure base
priming and positive outgroup appraisal throughout a number of studies due to the primed
secure base functioning as a cognitive-affective protection; those with a chronic sense of
security maintained this positive appraisal while those higher in anxious attachment were
inclined to evaluate the outgroup more negatively. This displays the tendencies of anxious
individuals’ models of the self when they encounter a threat (outgroup member) to invoke
prevention motivation (Förster, Higgins & Strack, 2000) in order to avoid negative outcomes
from interpersonal relationships, e.g. rejection (Smith, Murphy & Coats, 1999). This inherent
mental attachment system, therefore, enables individuals to build our interpersonal
expectations in infancy and adapt them throughout life, suitably equipping the individual with
the ability to process social information and make informed evaluations (Shaver &
Mikulincer, 2002). This results in an attachment system that has a higher-level consistency
like the CAPS model (Mischel & Shoda, 2008); contextual activation of the attachment
system corresponds with other aspects of the individual’s psyche, such as personality (Bowles
& Meyer, 2008), to determine a complex series of ‘if… then…’ behavioural patterns
(Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). This means that a lot of behaviour is governed by reactions to
social situations that confront individuals in everyday life (Zayas, Ayduk & Shoda, 2002).
The current study – After discussing the categorical or continuous construction of models on
which we methodize adult attachment, the nature of scales on which we can most accurately

13
measure and capture attachment orientations, the capacity of attachment orientation to be
characteristically state or trait, and its genuine degree of influence on other aspects of our
behaviour, this study’s primary goals are to explore and consolidate the relationship between
primed state orientations on neutral facial expressions after either a secure or insecure prime
using t-tests, hierarchical regression analysis, and moderation. The effects of these primes will
be measured by the State Adult Attachment Measure (SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009 – appendix
1) and social evaluations of neutral faces both with likert-type scales. This study will adapt the
original study of Gillath et al. (study 4; 2009) by using an insecure prime as opposed to
neutral, and additionally further examine the effects attachment orientations have on social
information processing i.e. neutral facial expressions. This study also aims to provide support
for the SAAM (Gillath et al., 2009) which is still an underused measure in adult attachment
literature (Bosmans, Bowles, Dewitte, De Winter & Braet, 2014) even after the existence of
state attachment has been securely established (Zhang, 2009; Davila & Sargent, 2003) and for
Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2003) connectionist model of adult attachment.
Based on prior literature, it is hypothesised that participants in the secure prime condition will
show higher levels of secure attachment and lower levels of avoidant and anxious attachment
and that, in line with connectionist theory, both the prime and secure attachment style will
predict the neutral expressions being appraised more positively or accurately (neutral). The
insecure prime condition should show higher levels avoidance and anxiety and lower levels of
secure, and that both will account for negative attributions to the neutral faces giving low
positive social evaluation and high negative social evaluation (Fraley et al., 2006). Anxious
individuals are expected to be hypervigilant meaning that this prediction may be stronger
across anxious groups. Since findings around avoidant attachment behaviours are still
irresolute a definite prediction cannot be pinned; however, it is expected that they may either
follow a similar pattern to anxious individuals being hypervigilant to interpersonal cues in

14
order to readily become guarded (Fraley et al., 2006) or defence strategies, such as numbing
of social perceptive abilities, may be enforced, in which case results may indicate a lack of
reactivity to neutral expression by assigning neither consistently positive or negative
properties (Niedenthal et al., 2002). Findings of moderation will give support to connectionist
models.
Designand method
Materials: The study was completed via an online data collection program called Qualtrics
which meaning the only materials the participant needed to complete the study was a
computer with internet connection. The study itself – including primes – were made by the
researcher. The SAAM (Gillath et al., 2009; appendix 1) – a 21- item questionnaire made up
of a number of statements that have been found to determine oscillations in adult attachment
orientation in the three scales of security, anxiety, and avoidance (following Mikulincer &
Shaver’s model; 2007) – was used to measure momentary attachment orientation. Though this
measure is fairly new, it has been found to be a robust psychometric assessment (Bosmans et
al., 2014) with Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores of .87 for security, .84 for anxiety, and .83
for avoidance, Gillath et al.; 2009) and high test-retest reliability (.59, .51, .53, ps < .01).
Images of the neutral faces (3 female, 3 male; appendix 12) were collected from the free
source http://pics.psych.stir.ac.uk/ - “Stirling_faces” database on the University of Sterling,
Department of psychology website – evaluation terms ascribed to faces were unfriendly,
hostile, dishonest, and helpful, trustworthy, approachable.
Design: While the design of this study is primarily experimental – using t-tests to look at the
effect of the prime conditions (secure and insecure) on the mean scores of attachment state
(anxious, avoidant and secure) and social evaluation task (positive and negative) in between-
participant conditions – correlational tests have also been used to determine the relationships

15
between the three attachment variables and the social evaluation variables. Finally, the
correlational analysis will be experimentally explored with hierarchical regression to
determine the existence of any moderating effects of the prime between attachment states and
social evaluations. By using this design, one can gain a deeper insight of the relatability and
predictability between variables and the forms of these relationships.
Participants & Procedure: 121 participants (64 female, 54 male, 3 transgender) were
recruited using opportunity volunteer sampling methods of advertising the study on social
media websites. Due to the electronic nature of the data collection a range of individuals from
17 nationalities (54% English/UK, 16% New Zealand, 7% American, 7% German, French,
Swedish, and Australian, 2% each, Russian, Finnish, Slovenian, Canadian, Italian, Spanish,
Romanian, Dutch, and Asian <1% each), alternative ages (19-68, M=29), sexual orientation
(109 straight, 7 gay, 5 bisexual), and relationship status (26 married, 46 non-married, 47
single, 1 separated) participated. After providing demographic data, participants were
randomly assigned to one of the two priming conditions asking them to recall a specific type
of relationship that could be either familial, peer, or romantic. In the secure prime condition
(SPC), participants were asked to recall specifically a warm relationship in which they felt
close and that this closeness formed easily. They felt comfortable to depend on the person and
the person to depend on them. They did not feel worried that the person would abandon them,
or become too close to them; overall, a positive relationship. In this condition there were 61
participants (31 male, 30 female), with an age range of 49 (mean 29), sexual orientation (58
straight, 2 gay, 1 bisexual) relationship status (27 non-married, 13 married, 20 single, 1
separated). In the insecure prime condition (IPC), participants were asked to recall a fairly
uncomfortable relationship in which levels of interest, effort, or intimacy put into the
relationship were unequal between them and the other person and there were concerns about
strife or friction that arose frequently. In this condition there were 60 participants (24 male, 33

16
female, 3 transgender), with an age range of 42 (mean 29), sexual orientation (51 straight, 5
gay, 4 bisexual), relationship status (19 non-married, 13 married, 27 single, 1 separated).
After recalling this memory for a moment, they were asked to give a short description of this
memory and then move onto the next task. Immediately after the prime, each participant
carried out the SAAM (Gilliath et al., 2009). After the SAAM, participants were asked to
revisit the memory they highlighted in the priming task for a moment and then they were
shown a series of neutral (expressionless) images of faces and to indicate a number between 1
- ‘strongly agree’ to 7 - ‘strongly disagree’ in the layout of a likert-type scale to the extent to
which they agreed with the statement given (e.g. to what extent do you agree that this person
looks unfriendly?).
Ethical considerations: Following the Code of Ethics and Conduct (BPS, 2009), participants
were provided with a participant information sheet (appendix 2) outlining the research
question, and what their participation in the study would entail. This involved necessary
deception as participants were not told about the prime condition they would be randomly
assigned to as to not eradicate the efficacy of the prime. The participants were fully
understanding of the nature of their participation before consenting to take part, apart from the
prime aspect which was informed and explained in the debrief (appendix 3) Participants were
told about their rights to withhold any information they did not wish to share however as their
data was totally anonymous and collected via Qualtrics data could not be withdrawn once
submitted. Sheffield Hallam University approved the study (ethics proforma; appendix 4).
Results
T-tests: Primarily, Independent samples t-test analysis (appendix 5) aligned with findings in
the literature and theory demonstrating that the prime condition significantly affected each of
the attachment variables and social evaluation variables in the hypothesised directions (see

17
table 1).
It was found that the SPC increased attachment security and positive social evaluation, and
decreased attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and negative social evaluation; the IPC
increased attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance and negative social evaluations, and
decreased attachment security and positive social evaluation. Since these findings were all
significant at <0.01, correlational analysis and multiple regression analyses were used to
explore how the attachment dimensions each correlated with positive and negative social
evaluation, and how these relationships were moderated by the priming condition.
Correlation matrix: As the prime was carried out initially before other variables, presenting
an overall correlation matrix for the whole data set would not demonstrate any meaningful
relationships; therefore the matrix (table 2) is arranged by the two conditions separately.
Table 1: t-tests of mean differences of attachment styles and social evaluations between secure
prime condition and insecure prime condition
SPC IPC
M SD M SD t-test df
Attachment security 5.85 0.84 3.86 0.91 9.14** 119
Attachment avoidance 2.71 0.94 3.15 1.07 -2.45* 119
Attachment anxiety 3.86 0.98 4.69 1.12 -4.32* 119
Positive social evaluation 4.67 0.65 3.46 0.80 9.14** 119
Negative social evaluation 2.99 0.77 4.21 1.06 -7.22** 119
**p<.01, * p<.05 – Note. M=Mean. SD=Standard Deviation
Table 2: Zero order correlation coefficients among prime conditions and state attachments.
Coefficients from the SPC are shown in the upper section and from IPC in the lower.
1 2 3 4 5
1. Secure attachment – -.25 -.479** -.001 .13
2. Anxious attachment -.24 – .13 .05 .06
3. Avoidant attachment -.28* -.14 – -.05 -.07
4. Positive social evaluation .21 -.001 -.16 – -.33*
5. Negative social evaluation -.43** .16 .45** -.41** –
** Correlation significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed), * Correlation significant at 0.02 level (1-tailed)

18
As expected some coefficients differ according to the prime condition; avoidant attachment
noticeably correlates differently in that it did not significantly correlate with negative social
evaluation in the SPC (r=-.07), but in the IPC avoidant attachment shows a strong positive
correlation with negative social evaluation (r=.45). Secure attachment also shows differences
across primes, correlating at 0.13 in the SPC and at 0.45 significantly in the ISP. These
differences in correlation suggest the prime condition had a moderating effect on results.
Moderation Regression analysis: In order to test for the prime condition as a moderator of
the relationship between attachment security and negative social evaluation, and attachment
avoidance and negative social evaluation, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
separately for both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. In the first step of analysis,
attachment and prime condition were entered into SPSS; in the second step, the interaction
variable was entered, created by multiplying two existing independent variables (prime
condition X attachment). Collinearity statistics were within respectable range (tolerance at .06
and .09). Tables 3 and 4 display the two-step regression models and the significant interaction
of attachment and prime in accounting for variance in negative social evaluation. A
significant F- change value in table 3, step two indicated an effect of moderation by the prime
condition in the relationship between secure attachment and negative social evaluation with
Table 3: Hierarchicalregression analysis examining interaction effects of prime condition and
secure attachment state in predicting Negative social evaluation.
Independent variables
Negative social evaluation
R2
-∆ F-∆ df 
Step one .34** 29.69** 2,118
Prime condition (PC) -1.86**
Secure Attachment (Secatt) -.52**
Step two .06** 11.38** 1, 117
Secatt*PC interaction 1.67**
 p = .06, * p < .05, ** p < .01  values shown at final step


19
both predictor variables accounting for 34% of variance (adjusted R2
) and the interaction
accounting for a further 6% – ΔR2
= 0.06, F(1,117) = 29.69, p = 0.001 (appendix 6).
A significant F-change value in table 4, step two was also showed the prime condition
moderated the relationship between avoidant attachment and negative social evaluation with
both predictor variables accounting for 35% of variance (adjusted R2
) and the interaction
accounting for a further 5%– ΔR2
= 0.05, F(1,117) = 29.69, p = 0.001 (appendix 7). Figures 3
and 4 more clearly represent the interaction to help interpretation. Results showed the
expected pattern that when
participants were low in secure
attachment they gave very strong
negative social evaluations in the
insecure prime compared to those
in the secure prime; this prime
condition difference was also
found in participants with high
secure attachment. However, the
interaction shows participants with high security gave less negative evaluations in the
insecure prime compared to those with low security (figure 3). Figure 4 showed that
Table 4: Hierarchicalregression analysis examining interaction effects of prime condition and
avoidant attachment state in predicting negative social evaluation
Independent variables
Negative social Evaluation
R2
-∆ F-∆ df 
Step one .35** 31.40** 2,118
Prime condition (PC) .16
Avoidant Attachment (Avoatt) .42**
Step two .05** 10.12** 1, 117
Avoatt*PC interaction .69**
 p = .06, * p < .05, ** p < .01  values shown at final step

Figure 3: Interaction effect of prime condition and attachment
security on negative social evaluation (scale is negative).
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low Secure
attachment
High Secure
attachment
Negativesocialevaluation
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime

20
participants with low avoidant
attachment gave much less
negative evaluations than those
with high attachment in. Given
that the scale in figure 4 is much
smaller than figure 3, the degree
of difference between groups is
also smaller than the difference in
figure 3. While the participants
across both attachment styles in the secure prime varied in negative social evaluations, the
insecure prime seemed to amplify the effects of the disposed attachment styles in that those
with low security and high avoidance gave higher negative evaluations than those in the
insecure prime with high security and low avoidance.
Discussion
This study set out to discuss the theoretical conceptualisations within adult attachment and
used attachment primes, attachment measures, and social evaluation tasks to explore the
influences of state attachment orientations and attachment priming conditions on social
information processing. Since the regression moderation analysis was exploratory, established
predictions of how these interactions would result were tentative giving only general
direction; it was hypothesised that the secure prime and secure attachment orientation would
both contribute, and possibly interact, in predicting positive evaluations and weakening of
negative evaluations; the insecure prime, anxious, and avoidant attachment styles would
contribute, and possibly interact to predict negative evaluations and restrict positive
evaluations. Specifically, anxious individuals’ hypervigilance would cause effects from the
insecure prime to be enhanced, and avoidance would either follow a similar pattern due to
Figure 4: Interaction effect of prime condition and
attachment avoidance on negative social evaluation.
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
Low avoidant
attachment
High avoidant
attachment
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime

21
vigilant appraisal in preparation for emotional cessation, or be unpredictable in behaviour due
to instant numbing of perceptive ability causing no consistent pattern of response (Fraley et
al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2002). T-tests initially found the primes effected the attachment
states and social evaluations respectively via expectations deduced from the literature – the
SPC increasing security, decreasing avoidance and anxiety, and predicting positive social
evaluation; the IPC increasing avoidance and anxiety, decreasing security, and increasing
negativity in social evaluations. These results were in line with theory and literature findings
similar patterns as other studies examining primes effecting attachment (Bosmans et al., 2014;
Gillath et al., 2009; Zhang, 2009) and social evaluations (Bowles & Meyer, 2008; Niedenthal,
et al., 2002; Fraley et al., 2006; Sugden, 1999).
Initial hypotheses of the effects of prime conditions were accepted, further strengthening these
robust findings throughout literature. Since the moderation hypothesis was exploratory, only
tentative hypotheses were made about interactions. Moderation analysis discovered that the
secure prime condition moderated the relationship between avoidance and negative social
evaluations, and security and negative social evaluations. Out of the six possible moderations
that could have arose from this study, the two that were found in this study (tables 3 & 4) and
lack of others (i.e. anxiety and negative social evaluation) suggest some interesting
implications for adult attachment theory and challenges some past findings from the literature.
It was found that when securely primed, individuals with low security were temporarily
alleviated from negative evaluation bringing the average score to a similar level to that of
highly secure individuals under the same prime; this effect was expected as seen in prior
literature (study 6 &7; Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer et al., 2001; Rowe & Carnelley, 2003).
However, while individuals with low secure attachment (thus, likely higher in anxiety or
avoidance) seemed to be most heavily affected by the IPC (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003;
Banse, 2004), participants in the same prime condition with high security did not give much

22
lower negative social evaluations (figure 3; see appendix 14 figure 4 for interpretive graph
comparing magnitudes of both moderations on same scale); this finding was contrary to
current literature where high security consistently leads to less negative social processing than
avoidant and anxious individuals when insecurely primed (Gillath et al., 2009; Mikulincer &
Shaver 2007b; Niedenthal et al, 2001; 2002). This suggests the presence of a feature of
attachment security that is distinct to attachment avoidance and anxiety that has not yet been
considered in the literature, or the existence of an extraneous variable contributing to this
unexpected result.
One factor that could have acted as an extraneous variable in this study, and effecting this
result, was the close relationship between attachment processes and emotional state. Research
has found a mediating relationship of secure attachment by the amygdala (Lemche et al.,
2006), which is also involved in numerous processes such as fear and anxiety regulation
(Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio & Tranel, 2011; Ziabreva, Poeggel, Schnabel & Braun, 2003)
and also social cognition (Bzdok et al., 2011). Influences of these regulatory processes may
have impacted results of those higher in secure attachment in the IPC, thus failing to control
for positive and negative mood valance in this study may have resulted in an extraneous
variable. Although, since the adult attachment system incorporates emotion regulation in
attachment processes, controlling for emotional fluctuations may be reductionist as not
considering these factors in influencing attachment cognition may not accurately represent the
connectionist structure of attachment processes (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2007).
Another explanation for these results comes from relevant literature drawing attention to the
finding that securely attached individuals are more readily disposed to process (attachment
related) threatening information, whereas anxious and avoidant individuals were both found
to attend away from it (Zeijlmans Van Emmichoven, Van Ijzendoorn, de Ruiter, & Brosschot,
2003); also, Dewitte, Koster, Houwer & Buysse (2007) found a moderation effect between

23
anxiety and avoidance dimensions in attending away from attachment threats, supporting the
overall blunted effect of the insecure prime on avoidance and anxiety compared to high
security. Further supporting this point, consistent findings of securely attached participants
tending to disclose more personal, emotionally charged information in face-to-face contexts
(Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991) and habitually rely on partners for more support when under
threatening conditions compared to avoidant and anxious individuals (Simpson, Rholes, and
Nelligan, 1992; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller, 1993; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995; Birnbaum,
Orr, Mikulincer, & Florian, 1997; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). This suggests that while secure
individuals have a metaphorical attachment ‘safety net’, they may also have higher
reception/deeper emotional processing levels of attachment related threats (i.e. the IPC), and
as support-seeking was not an option through the duration of the study, it seems logical that
the IPC may have had a bigger impact on highly secure participants, and this distress was
temporarily manifested through negative social evaluation.
While the security dimension interacted with the prime conditions, so too did the avoidance
dimension. Two opposing hypotheses were made about the direction of avoidant individuals,
either hypervigilance in preparation for defence thus displaying similar patterns to anxious
individuals, or instant numbing of perceptive ability of interpersonal cues thus causing no
consistent pattern of response (Fraley et al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2002). While these gave
directional predictions of the effect of the IPC on avoidance, it was assumed from the
literature that the SPC would reduce negative evaluation across the board. However the
findings seemed to contradict patterns of secure priming effects in literature; specifically the
low avoidant participants giving more negative evaluations in the SPC, compared to the low
avoidant participants in the IPC. Although this difference was relatively smaller than the
moderation found with the primes on secure attachment, the direction of the interaction still

24
seems strange (appendix 14). Theoretically the IPC acts in line with literature, in that those
high in avoidant attachment gave more negative evaluations compared to those with low
avoidant attachment (Mikulincer et al., 2002; Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001; Birnbaum
et al., 1997). However, due to the complex nature of avoidant attachment, patterns in results
can be unpredictable; it seems that the findings in this study may be accounted for by either
other factors that may interact with and moderate avoidance, or inappropriate methods of
measuring avoidance.
Social evaluations of neutral faces may not be suitable for expressing avoidant attachment
processes (Fraley et al., 2006). Contemporary attachment theory suggests that social
evaluation tasks – involving expression perception – are appropriate when considering certain
attachment dimensions such as anxiety as they yield accurate reflections of the perceptual
hypervigilance that is a defining feature of anxiety (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Fraley &
Shaver 2000; Fraley & Spieker, 2003), however, individual differences in avoidant
attachment tend to be characterised by the complex interaction between differing levels of
emotional perception and factors of the attachment system that effect acknowledgement and
response to interpersonal cues. Support comes from Simpson, Rholes, Oriña & Gritch (2002)
who found avoidant individuals to be less reactive to partners’ needs, suggesting that, if
avoidant participants do have the equal ability to observe emotional cues, the habitual rigidity
in processing this information causes their behavioural responses to their partners to be
disproportionate (Birnbaum et al., 1997; Kafetsios, Andriopoulos & Papachiou, 2014). Also
supporting that anxious and avoidant attachment dimensions within the attachment system can
manifest differently in social situations are findings from Fraley & Shaver (1998) who found
individuals differences in internal separation anxiety to be predicted by the anxious
attachment dimension, but individual differences in external behavioural practices were
predicted by the avoidance attachment dimension i.e. separation anxiety was only explicitly

25
known if individuals were content with the intimacy of expressing their feelings (low
avoidance). Using a perceptual method of social evaluation may not have captured fully the
variations in individual differences of avoidant attachment and this may account for the
unexpected interaction that emerged in this study; an implication for future research may be
that using other forms of social evaluation, such as responses to vignettes, may more
accurately capture the relationship between avoidant attachment and social cognition, and
how these effect social behaviours.
Although the findings of this interaction seemed unexpected, it still seems reasonable to
accept the second of the two hypothesis, as avoidant participants have been consistently found
to initially avoid attachment and threat related information in encoding processes from the
moment of exposure (Fraley, Garner, and Shaver, 2000), and so this inhibiting processing of
attachment information which may account for the lack of difference across primes in highly
avoidant participants (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 1997; Birnbaum et al., 1997;
Niedenthal et al., 2002; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Dewitte, et al., 2007).
As mentioned above, another finding that may contribute in explaining the results of this
study, Dewitte et al. (2007) suggests a moderation effect of attachment anxiety and avoidance
and that the best predictor for attentional bias away from attachment information was the
interaction between the two dimensions. This research conceptualised adult attachment
through the same theoretical framework as the current study, (3 attachment dimensions) using
Mikulincer & Shavers (2003) dynamic working model to account for these relationships,
leaving many open questions about individual differences in interactions of attachment
dimensions that have not yet been thoroughly explored in the literature; these complex
interactions may account for inconsistency throughout findings across the field of adult
attachment.

26
No moderation was found by the prime on anxious attachment when predicting social
evaluation. This was most likely due to the consistent findings of hyperactivating strategies
used in attachment anxiety (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Fraley et al., 2006). Mikulincer,
Gillath et al. (2001) found that while attachment primes had an effect, they were unable to
override the enduring link of cognitive access to personal distress memories. Given that, the
anxious participants tend to increase in anxiety with attempts to subdue stimulation of
negative attachment thoughts (Fraley & Shaver, 1997), it seems that the highly anxious
participants tended to give more negative evaluations than low anxious in the IPC; the SPC
results almost parallel to these, but 0.5 – 1 point lower (figure 6; appendix 15). The finding
that the SPC did not reduce negative social evaluation of highly anxious individuals enough to
the point of interaction could be ascribed to these characteristics of the anxious state itself;
however, this may be due to that the negative terms given in the statements of the social
evaluation tasks were threat-charged (e.g. “dishonest,” “unfriendly,” “hostile,”); anxious
individuals’ hypervigilance may have caused these terms to act as possible secondary primes,
dampening the effect of the SPC and causing higher negative evaluations (Fraley et al., 2006).
In the above discussion, two limitations are mentioned of this study; the possible extraneous
variables of the lack of control for mood valance due to the link between security and the
amygdala (Lemche et al., 2006) possibly affecting the moderation findings of the prime
condition over security, and the unsuitable use of expression perception when measuring
social cognition in avoidant participants. The other short comings throughout this paper were
few and mainly methodological but if improved upon could gain richer, holistic data. Firstly,
the online data collection method may have effected engagement levels in the tasks due to the
unknown setting of the participant at the time; face-to-face data collection may have given
more control over extraneous variables such as distractions. However due to constraints of

27
time and collection of voluntary participants within this project the researcher felt that this
was the most effective and efficient method of data collection.
The use of Likert scales and self-report methods, although a popular technique in large data
collection, can be subjectively interpreted and, therefore, fails to provide data based on an
objective scale. While the SAAM is was found to be robust, and provide three accurate scores
for the considered attachment dimensions (Gillath et al., 2009, Bosmans, Bowles, et al.,
2014), non-likert scale attachment measures, such as the qualitative Adult Attachment
Interview (AAI; Batholomew & Horowitz, 1991), may gain more detailed, and thus richer
data giving novel insights and perceptions into adult attachment systems and the underlying
processes. While there is a theoretical gap between these measures in their approaches to adult
attachment – attachment dimensions versus attachment types – associations between AAI
coding and self-report scales have been found with multiple Rs of around 0.5 (Shaver, Belsky
et al., 2000). This relationship does not infer the measurements are equivalent, but it does
suggest the existence of some common fundamental concepts throughout adult attachment
literature that could be applied across attachment models. Future research should consider the
limitations of self-report data collection and due to the development of state attachment
literature, alternatives to self-report measures need to be established.
Although the rating of neutral faces is a popular measure, there is a lack of ecological validity
in this variable operationalised to measure social evaluation as the task carried out is unlikely
in a realistic setting. In future research, using morphs to measure specific onset or offset of
facial expressions may offer more accurate and valid findings as offset and onset judgement
can specifically determine the strength of sensitivity that individuals are able to process
emotional expression. Individuals encountering a particular emotional state, e.g. anxiety, will
be more receptive to state-congruent signals and so perceive these signals as persisting as
opposed to individuals in a different emotional state (Niedenthal, et al., 2000; 2001).

28
While this method may give more accuracy to social evaluation abilities, it runs into the same
problems as the neutral face method as it is still one-way in interaction and does not account
for other cognitive processes and behavioural responses in real-life situations. As face-to face
social exchange between two people is never one way, the technology constraints of this study
may have not accounted for other processes in real-life situations such as impression
management that consume cognitive resources (Vohs, Baumeister, & Ciarocco, 2005). While
the neutral face method still allows for measuring of social evaluation, it may be found that
these effects in real-life situations may be much lower than the ones found in this study. In
future research using face-to-face experimentation may give more realistic results of
individuals’ processing of social evaluations in two-way interactions.
If repeated, this study should also allow participants to complete a Whoto assessment (asking
participants who is their current attachment figure; Fraley & Davis, 1997) before any given
primes, in order to detect any trends between attachment figures and orientations.
Despite drawbacks with the methods of data collection used, the online distribution of the
study did allow for a wide range of participants to take part across 17 nationalities, 3 genders,
3 sexual orientations, an age range of 49, and 4 relationship statuses. Although there were no
apparent trends in accordance to these groups, this range of individuals credits the study with
good generalisability and gives credit to the theory, accounting well for individual
circumstances; this also supports the theory of attachment to be conceptualised as an adaptive
evolutionary process within psychology (Sugden, 1999; Bowlby, 1969; 1958) in that all
human infants –and other animals (Seay & Harlow, 1965) – automatically seek an attachment
figure, normally the mother, as a survival enhancement mechanism (Bowlby, 1958); the
responsiveness of the attachment figure allows the individual to make prototypical predictions
about the plausible environment they will inhabit in the future and the nature of the social

29
interactions within this environment (Simpson & Belsky, 2008).
Further credit of this study comes from the priming method used; asking participants to reflect
on past relationships was a particularly influential, ecologically valid prime as the individual
was required to reflect upon a specific personal, experiential relationship, being a more
organic prime than that of an auxiliary prime such as an attachment-related image or word.
Overall it is concluded that these findings show social cognition can depend on multiple
interacting factors of the attachment system – especially within the security and avoidance
dimensions of attachment – including flexible state attachment orientations, robust trait
attachment styles, and situational context, thus supporting the connectionist, dynamic, “if…
then…” model of adult attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) accounting for individual’s
temporal fluctuating, general consistent, and context-responsive attachment behaviours
(Fraley, 2007).
As a theory, adult attachment gives a unified foundation for conceptualising the development,
preservation, and termination of adult relationships while additionally providing insights into
individual differences in personality, social cognition, and emotional regulation. Adult
attachment theories combine findings and insights from a range of various disciplines,
including ethology (Poindron, Lévy, & Keller, 2007; Bowlby, 1973; 1969; Seay & Harlow,
1965), physiological psychology (Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, & Holland, 2013;
Lemche et al, 2006; Cunningham, Johnson, Gatenby, Gore & Banaji, 2003) control systems
theory (Mikunlincer & Shaver, 2003; Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming & Gamble, 1993;
Bretherton, 1992), cognitive psychology (Fraley et al., 2006; Niedenthal et al., 2000; Fraley,
Davis & Shaver, 1998), developmental psychology (Davila & Sargent, 2003; Cook, 2000;
Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell & Albersheim, 2000), and clinical psychology and

30
psychotherapy (Lee & Hankin, 2009; Bowles & Meyer, 2008; Wei, Mallinckrodt, Russell &
Abraham, 2004).
Further study in the field adult attachment should focus on multiple distinctions within the
theory; MRI findings from Cunningham et al. (2003) show the existence of two distinct
evaluative processes, automatically activated and consciously regulated evaluations, which
should also be considered more thoroughly in relation to attachment systems. Also how
attachment styles may also influence the processing of emotional, non-social information
compared to social information (Vrtička, Sander & Vuilleumier, 2012). Research should also
consider these factors in relation to evaluations given when interacting with familiar vs. novel
others. Further consideration is needed for non-self-report measures of attachment and
qualitative, or mixed methods data collection should be conducted in this area in order to
expand upon the complex nuances of the individual differences within attachment systems.
Contemporary findings suggest the possibility of long term priming effects to manipulate
permanent changes in attachment systems to improve mental health stability and promote
healthy future attachments (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007c; Gillath. Selcuk & Shaver, 2008).

31
References
Aiken, L. S., & West,S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development.
American psychologist,46(4),333.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal
Relationships, 2(3),247-261.
Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive
conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 71(1),94.
Banse,R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,21(2), 273-282.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and
Personal relationships, 7(2),147-178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four
category model. Journal of personality and social psychology,61(2),226
Berant,E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). The association of mothers’ attachment style and
their reactions to the diagnosis of infant’s congenital heart disease. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology,20,208–232
Birnbaum, G. E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks up-does
attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of Social and Personal
Bosmans, G., Bowles, D. P.,Dewitte, M., De Winter, S., & Braet,C. (2014). An experimental
evaluation of the State Adult Attachment Measure: The influence of attachment primes on the content
of state attachment representations. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 5(2),134-150.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. The International journal of psycho-
analysis, 39,350.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. NewYork:Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York:Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
Bowles, D. P. & Meyer, B. (2008). Attachment priming and avoidant personality features as predictors
of social-evaluation biases. Journal of personality disorder, 22 72-88.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and
close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Developmental psychology,28(5),759.

32
British Psychological Society. (2009) Code of Ethics and Conduct. Leicester:The British
Psychological Society
Brumbaugh, C. C., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Transference of attachment patterns: How important
relationships influence feelings toward novel people. Personal Relationships,14(4),513-530.
Buist, K. L., Reitz, E., & Deković, M. (2008). Attachment stability and change during adolescence:A
longitudinal application of the social relations model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
25(3),429-444.
Bzdok, D.,Langner, R., Caspers,S., Kurth, F., Habel, U., Zilles, K.,Laird, A., & Eickhoff, S. B.
(2011). ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness. Brain Structure
and Function,215(3-4),209-223.
Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A developmental perspective on individual
differences. Review of General Psychology, 4(2),111.
Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of personality and
social psychology,78(2),285.
Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K.,Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Neural
components of social evaluation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(4),639.
Davila, J., & Sargent, E. (2003). The meaning of life (events) predicts changes in attachment security.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(11),1383-1395.
Dewitte, M., Koster,E. H.,De Houwer, J.,& Buysse, A. (2007). Attentive processing of threat and
adult attachment: A dot-probe study. Behaviourresearch and therapy,45(6),1307-1317.
Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A.,& Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala and the
induction and experience of fear. Current biology, 21(1),34-38.
Ferguson, M. J., Bargh, J. A., & Nayak, D. A. (2005). After-affects:How automatic evaluations
influence the interpretation of subsequent, unrelated stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 41(2),182-191.
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Strack, F. (2000). When stereotype disconfirmation is a personal threat:
How prejudice and prevention focus moderate incongruency effects. Social Cognition, 18(2),178.
Fraley, R. C. (2007). A connectionist approach to the organization and continuity of working models
of attachment. Journal of Personality,75(6),1157-1180.
Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult
attachment: a comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology,
89(5),731.
Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive
organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. Simpson, Jeffry A. (Eds). Attachment theory and
close relationships. (pp. 249-279). New York, NY,US: Guilford Press
Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles
categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment
orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 109(2),354-368.

33
Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P.,& Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult attachment and the defensive regulation of
attention and memory: examining the role of preemptive and postemptive defensive processes.
Journal of personality and social psychology,79(5),816.
Fraley, R. C., Niedenthal, P. M., Marks, M., Brumbaugh, C.,& Vicary, A. (2006). Adult attachment
and the perception of emotional expressions: Probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying
anxious attachment. Journal of personality, 74(4),1163-1190.
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen,M. T., & Holland, A. S. (2013). Interpersonal
and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104(5),817.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts.
Journal of personality and social psychology,73(5),1080.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment
dynamics in separating couples. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 75(5),1198.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging
controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4,132–154
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). What are the differences between dimensional and categorical
models of individual differences in attachment? Reply to Cassidy (2003), Cummings (2003), Sroufe
(2003), and Waters and Beauchaine (2003). Developmental Psychology, 39(3),423-429
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report
measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 350-365.
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J.
A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77-114). New
York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Vicary, A. M., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Patterns of stability in adult
attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 101, 974-992.
Gillath, O., Hart,J., Noftle, E. E., & Stockdale, G. D. (2009). Development and validation of a state
adult attachment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3),362-373.
Gillath, O., Selcuk, E., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Moving toward a secure attachment style: Can
repeated security priming help? Social and Personality Psychology Compass,2(4),1651-1666.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Kafetsios, K.,Andriopoulos, P., & Papachiou, A. (2014). Relationship status moderates avoidant
attachment differences in positive emotion decoding accuracy. Personal Relationships, 21(2),191-
205.
Klohnen, E. V., Weller, J. A., Luo, S., & Choe, M. (2005). Organization and predictive power of
general and relationship-specific attachment models: One for all, and all for one? Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,1665–1682
Kobak, R. R.,Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R.,Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and
emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child development,
231-245.

34
Lee,A., & Hankin, B. L. (2009). Insecure attachment,dysfunctional attitudes, and low self-esteem
predicting prospective symptoms of depression and anxiety during adolescence. Journal of clinical
child & Adolescent Psychology,38(2),219-231.
Lemche, E., Giampietro, V. P.,Surguladze, S. A.,Amaro, E. J.,Andrew, C. M., Williams, S. C.,
Brammer, M. J., Lawrence,N.,Maier, M.A.,Russell, T.A.,Simmons, A., Ecker, C., Joraschky, P.,&
Phillips, M.L. (2006). Human attachment security is mediated by the amygdala: Evidence from
combined fMRI and psychophysiological measures. Human brain mapping,27(8),623-635.
Meyer, B.,Pilkonis, P. A.,& Beevers,C. G. (2004). What's in a (neutral) face? Personality disorders,
attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social cues. Journal of personality disorders,18(4),
320-336.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressfulsituation: The
contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4),406-414.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and
posttraumatic psychological distress: the impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of personality and
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O.,& Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood:
Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 881–895.
Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O., & Gillath, O. (2001). The affective component of the
secure base schema:affective priming with representations of attachment security. Journal of
Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2),321.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation,
psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advancesin experimental social
psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53-152). New York: Academic Press.
Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. R. (2007a) Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change.
New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health,
prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18,139-156.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007c). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health,
prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18(3),139-156.
Mischel, W.,& Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.
Psychological review,102(2),246.
Mischel, W.,& Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality. Handbook of personality:
Theory and research,208-241.
Niedenthal, P. M.,Brauer, M., Halberstadt, J. B.,& Innes-Ker,Å. H. (2001). When did her smile
drop? Facial mimicry and the influences of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional
expression. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 853–864.

35
Niedenthal, P. M.,Brauer, M., Robin, L., & Innes-Ker,Å. H. (2002). Adult attachment and the
perception of facial expression of emotion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(3),419.
Niedenthal, P. M.,Halberstadt, J. B., Margolin, J., & Innes-Ker,Å. H. (2000). Emotional state and the
detection of change in facial expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,211–
222.
Pietromonaco, P. R.,& Barrett,L. F. (1997). Working models of attachment and daily social
interactions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(6),1409.
Pietromonaco, P. R.,& Feldman Barrett,L. (2000). Attachment theory as an organizing framework: A
view from different levels of analysis. Review of General Psychology,4,107–110.
Poindron, P.,Lévy, F., & Keller, M. (2007). Maternal responsiveness and maternal selectivity in
domestic sheep and goats: the two facets of maternalattachment. Developmental Psychobiology,
49(1), 54-70.
Rowe, A.,& Carnelley, K. B. (2003). Attachment style differences in the processing of attachment–
relevant information: Primed–style effects on recall, interpersonal expectations, and affect. Personal
Seay, B., & Harlow, H. F. (1965). Maternal separation in the rhesus monkey. The Journal of nervous
and mental disease, 140(6),434-441.
Simpson, J. A.,& Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary framework.
Phillip R. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (2nd
ed.) (pp. 131-157). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press,
Shaver, P. R.,& Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & human
development, 4(2),133-161.
Simpson, J. A.,Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within
couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of personality and
Simpson, J. A.,Rholes, W. S., Oriña, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment,
support giving, and support seeking in a stressfulsituation. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(5),598-608.
Smith, E. R.,Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and management. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 77(1),94.
Sugden, R. L. (1999) Dismissive-repressors: Attachment and processing bias of implicit facial
expressions (discrete emotions theory, coping style). ProQuest Information & Learning, 60(6B),2964.
Vohs K. D.,Baumeister R. F., Ciarocco N. J. (2005). Self-regulation and self-presentation: Regulatory
resource depletion impairs impression management and effortful self-presentation depletes regulatory
resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88,632–657.
Vrtička, P., Sander, D.,& Vuilleumier, P. (2012). Influence of adult attachment style on the perception
of social and non-social emotional scenes. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29(4),530-
544.
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(3),684-689.

36
Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, W. T. (2004). Maladaptive Perfectionism as a
Mediator and Moderator between Adult Attachment and Depressive Mood. Journal of Counseling
Psychology,51(2),201.
Zayas,V., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. N. (2002). Personality in context: An interpersonal systems
perspective. Journal of personality, 70(6),851-900
Ziabreva, I., Poeggel, G., Schnabel, R.,& Braun, K. (2003). Separation-induced receptor changes in
the hippocampus and amygdala of Octodon degus: influence of maternal vocalizations. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 23(12),5329-5336.

37
Appendices
Appendix 1: State Adult Attachment Measure (Gillath et al., 2009)
SAAM
The following statements concern how you feel right now. Please respond to each statement by
indicating how much you agree or disagree with it as it reflects your current feelings. Please
circle the number on the 1-to-7 scale that best indicates how you feel at the moment:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Strongly ......... ......... Neutral/Mixed ......... ......... Agree Strongly
Right now…
Anx 1. I wish someone would tell me they really love me
Avo 2. I would be uncomfortable having a good friend or a relationship partner close to me
Avo 3. I feel alone and yet don't feel like getting close to others
Sec 4. I feel loved
Anx 5. I wish someone close could see me now
Sec 6. If something went wrong right now I feel like I could depend on someone
Sec 7. I feel like others care about me
Anx 8. I feel a strong need to be unconditionally loved right now
Avo 9. I'm afraid someone will want to get too close to me
Avo 10. If someone tried to get close to me, I would try to keep my distance
Sec 11. I feel relaxed knowing that close others are there for me right now
Anx 12. I really need to feel loved right now
Sec 13. I feel like I have someone to rely on
Anx 14. I want to share my feelings with someone
Avo 15. I feel like I am loved by others but I really don't care
Avo 16. The idea of being emotionally close to someone makes me nervous
Anx 17. I want to talk with someone who cares for me about things that are worrying me
Sec 18. I feel secure and close to other people
Anx 19. I really need someone's emotional support
Sec 20. I feel I can trust the people who are close to me
Avo 21. I have mixed feelings about being close to other people
Appendix 2: Information sheet displayed to participants before taking part in the study
Researcher: Sara
Graham Email: Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.uk
Project supervisor: Dr David Bowles, Principal lecturer Email: dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk
Thank you for taking time to read about, and hopefully participate in, this study. Please read this
information sheet thoroughly before continuing as it gives you a description of your

38
participation in the study and the ethical considerations that must be addressed. Your participation
will take no longer than 20 minutes.
This study is aiming to examine the relationship between adult attachment styles and social
evaluation. First we will collect demographic data such as age, gender, occupation, nationality and
relationship status. Then, you will be asked to describe (very briefly) a particular relationship
situation. You will then be asked to rate a few statements on a scale between ‘strongly agree’ or
‘strongly disagree’ about your relationship style. Finally, there is a social evaluation task in which
you are asked to rate some images.
As your participation in this study is voluntary, you have the right to choose not to participate, the
right to withhold information you do not feel comfortable sharing. All data will be kept completely
anonymous, collecting only demographic information such as age and gender which will not be
sufficient to identify you as an individual participant.
As data is anonymous, confidentiality of your information is guaranteed and the only people able
to access the data will be the researcher and supervisor. In the case that the paper is made public
either through publishing or the university, the data will still remain completely anonymised.
Although you may quit participation at any time, once you have completed and submitted the data
it cannot be withdrawn.
All data will only be accessible to the researcher (and the project supervisor if necessary)
electronically via a password protected laptop and google drive account.
Sheffield Hallam University give their ethical approval as a professional body to this study.
If you do not give their consent then please go no further and close the window, however,
by continuing with the study you are automatically giving your consent to take part.
If you have questions or qualms about taking part you may contact
Sara Graham at -
Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.uk
Or project supervisor Dr David Bowles at –
dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk
Appendix 3: Debriefing provided to participants after taking part in the study
Researcher: Sara
Graham Email: Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.uk
Project supervisor: Dr David Bowles, Principal lecturer Email: dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk
Thank you for taking part in this study. This study is aiming to examine the relationship between
adult attachment styles and social evaluation.
You were asked to describe one of two relationship situations – either being asked to describe a
close, comfortable relationship situation or an uncomfortable one. The ways in which you
answered the questions following may have been slightly effected according to which situation you
were asked to describe.
All data will be kept completely anonymous, collecting only demographic information such as age
and gender which will not be sufficient to identify you as an individual participant. In the case that
the paper is made public either through publishing or the university, the data will still remain
completely anonymised.
All data will only be accessible to the researcher (and the project supervisor if necessary)
electronically via a password protected laptop and google drive account.
If you have questions or qualms about your participation we should be able to help with any
immediate concerns, please contact
Researcher Sara Graham at-

39
Sara.L.Graham@student.shu.ac.uk
Or project supervisor Dr David Bowles at –
dsdpb@my.shu.ac.uk
Appendix 4: Copy of ethics proforma
Psychology Research Project
Research and Ethics Proforma
Student Name: Sara Graham Supervisor Name: Dr. David Bowles
Title of Project: How is primed attachment style related to processing of social information:
State attachment orientations effecting the subjective perception of neutral facial
expressions?
Project Code: Bowles1
Description of Methods
In thespace below,briefly and simply describethe main research question of thestudy,yourrationale
forasking this question,and themethodsthatyou will use. The purposeof thissection is to
demonstratethatyou knowwhy you aredoing thisstudy and whatyou will be doing.
The study will explore the relationshipbetweenprimedstate attachmentorientationsonneutral
facial expressionsaftereitherasecurityprime conditionora threatprime condition.Inthe pastit
has beenfoundthatattachmentstyle canbe temporarilyalteredbylaboratorymanipulations
(priming) whichactivatesthe attachmentsystem(Gillathetal.,2009). It has beenalsobeenfound
that individual adultattachmentstylecanaffecthow theyprocesssocial information.
Thisstudywill containtwoprimingconditions(Secure andthreat) andthe effectsof these will be
measuredbythe State AdultAttachmentMeasure (SAAM;Gillathetal.,2009) and social evaluation
of neutral faces,bothmeasuredwithlikert-type scales.Datawill be collectedusingthe Qualtrics
program andassessedusingquantitative cause +effectstatistical methods.
Ethical Issues
In thespace below,briefly discussthe key ethical issuesthatrelate to yourproject(oneshort
paragraph perissue) and howyou intend to deal with these. A non-exhaustivelistof issues you may
wish to considerincludes: informed consent,vulnerableparticipants,rightto withdraw,anonymity,
confidentiality,deception, debriefing,data storage.
Informedconsent: Participantswillgive theirinformedconsentafterreadinganinformationsheet -
a simple descriptionof theirparticipationinthe studyandwhatitwill involve(appendix 1).Asthe
studyiselectronicitwill be clearlystatedthatif theydonotgive theirconsentthenplease gono
furtherandclose the window,however,bycontinuingwiththe studythe participantsare
automaticallygivingconsent.Thiswill onlyhappenif the participantisfullywillingto take part and
no formsof coercionwill be usedtopersuade themotherwise.Itwill ensure thatSheffieldHallam
Universitygave theirethical approvalasa professional bodyandinclude all contactdetailsof both
the researcher,the projectleaderandSheffieldHallamif the participantsahave anyquestionsor
qualmsabouttakingpart.

40
Right to withdraw: Asthe studyis carriedout electronicallyandisalsoanonymised,itisnotpossible
to specifyaparticularparticipant’sdataset.Therefore participantscannotwithdraw theirdatabut
give automaticconsentfortheirdatato be used.
Anonymity:All data will be keptcompletelyanonymous,collectingonlydemographicinformation
such as age and genderwhichwill notbe sufficienttoidentify individual participants.Participantswill
be made aware of thisanonymityinboththe informationbriefingbefore the studyandthe
debriefingprocessafterthe study.
Confidentiality:Asall datais anonymous,confidentialityisguaranteedandthe onlypeople able to
access the data will be the researcherandsupervisor.Inthe case that the paperis made publiceither
throughpublishingorthe universitythendatawill still remaincompletelyanonymised.
Deception:Thisstudywill involveasmall amount of deceptioninthatitwill notbe explainedthat
the participantwill be primed.Primingisasubconscioustaskthatif paidattentiontocan effect
participant’sbehaviourbyresultingindemandcharacteristicsresultingininvaliddata.However,
participantswill be toldthe true nature of the studyinthat it measureshow attachmentstyle can
effectsocial evaluationsandthenbe fullydebriefedafterthe study.
Debriefing:Participantswill be providedwithadebriefing(appendix 2) statinginlayman termsthe
studyresearchquestion,here theywill be informedthattheywere subjecttoone of twopriming
conditionswhichmayhave alteredtheirbehaviourtemporarilybutwillnotcause anylongterm
lastingeffectsordamage tothem.Althoughone of the primingconditionsisa‘threatening’prime,
thisisno more threateningordoesnotput the participantsat anygreaterpsychological riskthan
informationtheywill processindaytoday life.Thisfeature isbeingutilizedtosimplyactivate the
appropriate attachmentsystem.
Data Storage: All datawill onlybe accessibletothe researcher(andthe projectsupervisorif
necessary) electronicallyviaapasswordprotectedlaptopandgoogle drive account.Thisgivesthe
researchease of access butkeepsthe data secure asit cannot be accessedbyany otherpersonby
usingthese meansof storage.
Action Plan
In thetable below,list thespecific actionsthat you need to take(or havetaken) and when you will
takethem to progresswithyourproject.Pay particularattention to actionsrelated to theethics of
yourproject.
What When
Initial meetings Done
Ethical considerations:Informationsheetand
debrief.
Done
Gather materials 9th
November
AttendQualtricsworkshop 9th
November
Setup psychcreditsaccount 10th
November
Firstdraft of Lit review+intro+ Methods 15th
November
Put togetherstudyonQualtrics+ checkwith
supervisor
20th
November
Create advertforstudy + check withsupervisor 20th
November
Postand share advert,recruitparticipantsand
start data collection(backdatauponto
computer,USB and google drive)
End of November2015 – February2016

41
Seconddraftof litreviewandintro 5th December
Attendquantitativeanalysisworkshop January2016
Attendstatsdrop in/workshop January/February
Attendotherrelevantworkshopsonwriting,
presentation,discussionetc.(tobe confirmed)
February
Finishanalysis Mid-February/Beginningof March
Write discussion Beginningof March
Thoroughproofread Beginningof April
Printtwocopiesand bind Beginning–Mid April
Submission 28th
April
Study Materials and Ethics Documents
List each of the measures,questionnaires,and stimulisetsyou will be using. In the appendices,
include any unpublished measuresin full,along with the information sheet,consentform,and debrief
sheet (whereapplicable).Wherepossible,yourmaterialsshould befully in place beforeyour
supervisorcan passyourResearch and Ethics Proforma.
PublishedMaterials/Questionnaires
State AdultAttachmentMeasure (Gillathetal.,2009)
“Permissions:Test contentmay bereproduced and used fornon-commercialresearch and
educationalpurposeswithoutseeking written permission.Distribution mustbecontrolled,
meaning only to theparticipantsengaged in the research or enrolled in the educational
activity.Any other typeof reproduction ordistribution of test contentis not authorized
withoutwritten permission fromthe authorand publisher.”
UnpublishedMaterials/Questionnaire
Social evaluationtask –imagesof neutral faces
Informationsheet
Debriefinginformation
References
 Gillath,O.,Hart, J.,Noftle,E.E.,& Stockdale,G.D. (2009). Developmentandvalidationof a
state adultattachmentmeasure (SAAM).Journal of ResearchinPersonality,43(3),362-373.
 Meyer,B., Pilkonis,P.A.,&Beevers,C.G. (2004). What's in a (neutral) face?Personality
disorders,attachmentstyles,andthe appraisal of ambiguoussocial cues.Journalof
personalitydisorders,18(4),320-336.
Risk Assessment
1. Will the proposeddatacollectiontake place solelyonline,oncampusor at yourown residence?
X Yes (Please proceedtoquestion6)
 No (Please complete all questions)
2. Where will the datacollectiontake place?(Tickasmanyas applyif data collectionwilltake place in
multiple venues)

42
 Residence of participant
 School
 Business/VoluntaryOrganisation
 PublicVenue (e.g.,YouthClub,Church,etc.)
X Other(Please specify) _____Solelyonline_______
How will youensure yourownpersonal safetywhilstatthe researchvenue?
N/A
3. How will youtravel toand fromthe data collectionvenue?
 On foot
 By car
 PublicTransport
 Other(Please specify) ______________________________
How will youensure yourpersonal safetywhentravellingto/fromthe datacollectionvenue?
N/A
5. Wheneveryougoto collectdata,you mustensure thatsomeone youtrustknowswhere youare
going(withoutbreachingthe confidentialityof yourparticipants),how youare gettingthere
(preferablyincluding yourtravel route),whenyouexpecttogetback,and what to doshouldyounot
returnat the specifiedtime.Pleaseoutline herethe procedure youpropose usingtodothis:
N/A
6. Are youaware of any potential riskstoyourhealthandwellbeingassociated withthe venuewhere
the researchwill take place and/orthe researchtopic?
X Yes(Please outline below)
 No
As the data will be collectedthroughelectronicquestionnairesmyhealthandwellbeingwillnotbe
jeopardizedinanyway.
7. Does thisresearchprojectrequire ahealthandsafetyriskanalysisforthe procedurestobe used?
 Yes
X No
If yes,what isthe current statusof the healthandsafetyriskassessment
Confirmation of Ethical Abidance by Student
By submittingthisproformaI,Sara Graham, confirmthat:
 My supervisorhasseenandacceptedthisversionof the proforma.
 I will notdeviate fromthe above actionplan
 I will abide bythe ethical requirementsof the projectasdescribedabove.

43
Appendix 5: SPSS outputs of independent t-tests
Appendix 6: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of avoidant attachment and prime
condition on negative social evaluation

44
Appendix 7: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of secure attachment and prime

45
Appendix 8: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of anxious attachment and prime

46
Appendix 9: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of avoidant attachment and prime
condition on positive social evaluation

47
Appendix 10: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of secure attachment and prime
Appendix 11: SPSS outputs of moderation analysis of anxious attachment and prime

48
Appendix 12: Images of neutral faces used

49
Appendix 13: Sample of raw data
Appendix 14: Figure 5 – Interpretive graph demonstrating both moderation effects on one
scale.
Low attachment High attachment
Secure SPC
Secure IPC
Avoidant SPC
Avoidant IPC

50
Appendix 15: Figure 6 – Interpretive graph to show non-significant relationship between
anxious attachment and prime on negative social evaluations for reference.
anxious attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Low anxious
attachment
High anxious
attachment
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
Low anxious
attachment
High anxious
attachment
Positivesocialevaluation
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime

51
avoidant attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference
secure attachment and prime on positive social evaluations for reference
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low avoidant
attachment
High avoidant
attachment
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Secure
attachment
High Secure
attachment
Insecure
prime
Secure
prime

1 Project doc

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to 1 Project doc

Similar to 1 Project doc (20)

1 Project doc