Conscientiousness and attachment avoidance as moderators of the association between attachment anxiety and neuroticism

Abstract

Crawford, Shaver, and Goldsmith ((2007) How affect regulation moderates the association between anxious attachment and neuroticism, Attachment & Human Development 9, 95–109) suggested that attachment avoidance and conscientiousness may both serve as affect regulation strategies that allow individuals to down-regulate negative emotions, and thereby attenuate the usually strong association between neuroticism and general attachment anxiety. Their findings partially supported this hypothesis. As predicted, at high levels of neuroticism, both avoidance and conscientiousness were associated with decreased levels of attachment anxiety. Unexpectedly, however, at low levels of neuroticism, avoidance and conscientiousness were actually associated with increased, rather than decreased, attachment anxiety. In the current study, we replicated Crawford et al.’s results in a sample of 160 undergraduate students, and also extended this line of research by considering relationship-specific attachment with mother, father, best friend, and romantic partner. Very different patterns of results emerged in the relationship-specific analyses. We propose a more interpersonal perspective on personality to explain the pattern of results, one that considers how neuroticism, conscientiousness, and attachment avoidance are actually enacted in everyday social contexts.

Keywords

Neuroticism conscientiousness attachment avoidance attachment anxiety relationship-specific attachment orientations interpersonal approach to personality

Crawford, Shaver, and Goldsmith (2007) suggested that the strong association between general attachment anxiety (i.e., a heightened fear of rejection and abandonment in relationships) and neuroticism (i.e., a general tendency to experience negative affect) merited further investigation. They proposed several possible explanations for this association: attachment anxiety simply represents the negative affectivity of neuroticism manifested within a relational domain; neuroticism and attachment anxiety stem from common genetic influences; or dysfunctional parenting in childhood results in both high attachment anxiety and increased neuroticism.

Crawford et al. (2007) further proposed that conscientiousness (i.e., a general tendency to be disciplined and organized) and attachment avoidance (i.e., a reluctance to get emotionally close to others) represent two different affect regulation strategies that allow individuals to down-regulate negative emotions, and therefore help to prevent neuroticism from manifesting itself in the form of high attachment anxiety. Conscientiousness was theorized to represent a high level of individual effortful control over one’s emotions, whereas attachment avoidance was theorized to represent a more interpersonal affect regulation strategy, in which close contact with attachment figures is minimized to reduce activation of the attachment system. Crawford et al. therefore predicted that high levels of attachment avoidance and (separately) conscientiousness would attenuate the association between attachment anxiety and neuroticism. They tested their model in a sample of 287 undergraduate students, using the Experiences in Close Relationships Inventory Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) to measure attachment.

The results partially supported their hypotheses. As expected, both attachment avoidance and conscientiousness moderated the association between attachment anxiety and neuroticism. Specifically, at high levels of neuroticism, both avoidance and conscientiousness were associated with reduced attachment anxiety, as predicted. However, the interactions also displayed an unexpected crossover pattern, such that at low levels of neuroticism, avoidance and conscientiousness were associated with increased, rather than decreased, attachment anxiety. Their discussion did not fully explain these patterns.

Although we agree with Crawford et al. (2007) that conscientiousness and attachment avoidance represent affect regulation strategies, we suggest that it is also important to consider the interpersonal consequences of these strategies. Personality represents recurrent patterns of behavior that are frequently enacted in social contexts, and therefore elicit reactions from others in one’s social world (Reis, Capobianco, & Tsai, 2002). For example, individuals high in neuroticism tend to be somewhat irritating social companions (Berry, Willingham, & Thayer, 2000), making others reluctant to pursue closer relationships with them (Klein, Lim, Saltz, & Mayer, 2004). Thus, part of the reason why neurotic individuals report relatively high levels of general attachment anxiety (i.e., generalized concerns that others will reject or abandon them) may be because others in their social environment do in fact tend to reject or abandon them.

Similarly, behaviors associated with attachment avoidance and conscientiousness are frequently enacted at an interpersonal level and therefore have interpersonal consequences. At times, these affect regulation strategies may serve to attenuate attachment-related anxieties, but at other times, attachment anxiety may actually be accentuated, depending upon one’s level of neuroticism and on the reactions of others within one’s social network. For example, an interpersonal regulation strategy of maintaining high levels of interpersonal distance might indeed be successful at minimizing general attachment anxiety (e.g., if highly avoidant individuals are emotionally close to no one, then no one can truly hurt them). However, the very same strategy might well have different consequences within the dynamics of a specific close relationship. If highly avoidant individuals withhold emotional closeness within a specific romantic relationship, their partners are likely to be hurt and respond with signs of rejection, thereby increasing, not decreasing, attachment anxiety within that particular relationship. It is therefore important to consider the interpersonal dynamics of affect regulation strategies not only at the general network level but also at the relationship-specific level.

The current study therefore has three goals: (1) to replicate Crawford et al.’s (2007) findings for general attachment; (2) to extend the research by also investigating relationship-specific attachment orientations; and (3) to offer an interpersonal perspective on personality as a potential explanation for the results.

Method

Participants were 160 undergraduates who attended data collection sessions in groups of one to six people, completing computer-based questionnaires for either course credit or a small honorarium. The sample was primarily Caucasian (81.9%), young (mean age = 20.68 years, SD = 3.39, range = 18–50 years), single (i.e., unmarried; 94.3%), and female (60%).

As part of a larger study, participants completed the Big Five Inventory (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), providing the same neuroticism and conscientiousness scales used by Crawford et al. (2007). General attachment was assessed using Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), rather than the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) used by Crawford et al.

The RQ provides participants with four brief paragraphs describing their general approach to relationships. Participants rated the extent to which each paragraph described “the way you generally are in close relationships.” These four ratings were then converted to two dimensional ratings, assessing general attachment anxiety and avoidance (Bartholomew, n.d). These dimensional ratings show strong construct validity, correlating as expected with other self-report measures of attachment, with attachment interviews, and with self- and peer-reports of attachment-related behaviors (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).

Participants also completed measures of relationship-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance with best same-sex friend, mother, father, and romantic relationship partner, assessed using the ECR-Relationships Structures Questionnaire (ECR-RS) (Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011). In this measure, participants completed nine items assessing attachment toward each target, six assessing attachment avoidance (e.g., “I prefer not to show X how I feel deep down”), and three assessing attachment anxiety (e.g., “I often worry that X doesn’t really care for me”). This measure shows good internal consistency and good predictive validity (Fraley et al., 2011). All multi-item measures showed adequate internal consistency in the current study (Cronbach’s alphas > .70).

Results and discussion

Following the procedures used by Crawford et al. (2007), a multiple regression analysis was run predicting standardized general attachment anxiety using standardized measures (i.e., z-score transformations) of age, general attachment avoidance, neuroticism, and conscientiousness, as well as the interactions between neuroticism and attachment avoidance and between neuroticism and conscientiousness. Equivalent analyses were then conducted, substituting in the four measures of relationship-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance. Again following Crawford et al., significant interactions were graphed at 1.5 above and below the mean.

Overview of results

The analyses using the general attachment measures (Table 1, Column 1; Figures 1 and 2) replicated findings of Crawford et al.’s (2007) study almost perfectly, impressive considering that completely different measures of attachment were used in each study. The only minor differences were that our analyses showed no significant associations between general attachment anxiety and measures of age or attachment avoidance, whereas Crawford et al.’s study showed very small but significant associations.

Figure 1.

Conscientiousness moderates the association between neuroticism and general attachment anxiety.

Figure 2.

General attachment avoidance moderates the association between neuroticism and general attachment anxiety.

Table 1.

Summary of regression analyses predicting attachment anxiety across five attachment targets.*

Predictor variables	β
Predictor variables	General	Best friend	Mother	Father	Romantic partner
Age	−.08	.01	−.02	.09	−.01
Neuroticism	.55**	.13	.18***	.16****	.28**
Conscientiousness	−.12	−.19***	.04	.06	−.08
Attachment avoidance	−.01	.26****	.49**	.57**	.37**
Neuroticism × attachment avoidance	−.15***	−.02	.10	.27**	.09
Neuroticism × conscientiousness	−.18****	−.08	−.07	−.02	.02
R ²	.39	.13	.31	.56	.28

Note. *N + 160; **p < .001; ***p < .05; ****p < .01.

In contrast, the pattern of results for relationship-specific attachment orientations (Table 1, Columns 2–5; Figure 3) was very different from the pattern shown in both the studies for general attachment. In the following sections, we discuss how an interpersonal perspective on personality might account for different patterns seen for the general versus relationship-specific attachment measures, and might also provide a better explanation for Crawford et al.’s original findings, as replicated in the current study.

Figure 3.

Relationship-specific attachment avoidance with father moderates the association between neuroticism and relationship-specific attachment anxiety with father.

Neuroticism

As can be seen in Table 1, neuroticism was strongly associated with general attachment anxiety. Crawford et al. (2007) suggested that these two variables are associated due to global, long-standing factors (e.g., common genetic influences; the aftermath of dysfunctional parenting in childhood). However, if these explanations applied, then relatively strong associations between neuroticism and relationship-specific attachment anxiety would also presumably be expected, because the general genetic or learned neurotic tendencies are simply displayed within different relationships. Instead, as can be seen in Table 1, Columns 2–5, the associations between neuroticism and the relationship-specific measures of attachment anxiety are quite weak.

Although genetic or early childhood factors no doubt account for some of the association between neuroticism and attachment anxiety, we propose that considering the interpersonal consequences of a neurotic personality may also be informative. Neurotic individuals can be difficult social companions, making people less willing to enter into elective close relationships with them (Klein et al., 2004) or prone to dissolve those relationships at an early stage. Quite appropriately, then, neurotic individuals may develop a generalized belief that others tend to reject or abandon them (i.e., they manifest high levels of general attachment anxiety).

However, in specific close relationships, although certainly not unimportant (Karney & Bradbury, 1997), neuroticism may be a less potent force. Parents have had a lifetime to learn to tolerate a child’s idiosyncrasies of temperament. If best friends and romantic partners are willing to press on and forge a close, long-term relationship with a neurotic individual, it is presumably because they have learned to accept that person’s neuroticism, or at least see compensatory positive traits that make them willing to tolerate it. Thus, neurotic individuals may well develop generalized beliefs that others are prone to reject or abandon them, but not hold those beliefs as strongly in regards to specific other close individuals (see also Fraley et al., 2011).

Conscientiousness

Crawford et al. (2007) proposed that conscientiousness represents a conscious, effortful affect regulation strategy through which individuals seek to control and down-regulate negative emotions. According to that explanation, however, a strong and significant negative association between conscientiousness and attachment anxiety would presumably be expected. After all, attachment anxiety is characterized by the experience of negative emotions (i.e., fear of rejection or abandonment). If conscientious individuals consciously control their negative emotions, then they would logically be expected to control their attachment anxiety as well.

However, like Crawford et al. (2007), our results actually showed no significant association between conscientiousness and general attachment anxiety, and this null or weak association also applied at the relationship-specific level (Table 1). Again, consideration of the interpersonal consequences of conscientiousness might be informative in understanding these patterns. Conscientiousness is not an unambiguously positive social trait (van der Linden, Scholte, Cillessen, te Nijenhuis, & Segers, 2010). Although conscientious individuals are trustworthy and dependable, they can also be rigid and lacking in spontaneity (Jackson et al., 2010). In general, these positive and negative aspects of conscientiousness may balance out, leaving little association between the levels of conscientiousness and perceived likelihood of social rejection (i.e., little association between conscientiousness and attachment anxiety).

However, it is also important to consider individuals’ overall levels of neuroticism, as seen in the interaction between neuroticism and conscientiousness. This interaction is graphed in Figure 1, and perfectly replicates the pattern shown by Crawford et al. (2007). Highly conscientious individuals carefully follow socially prescribed norms and rules, including rules regarding impulse control (John & Srivastava, 1999). Even if they have neurotic tendencies, highly conscientious individuals are likely to inhibit public displays of negative affect (Jackson et al., 2010) and thereby conceal their neuroticism, at least in the early stages of relationships. This ability to conceal their neurotic tendencies may be associated with lower likelihood of social rejection, and therefore lower levels of attachment anxiety, when compared with highly neurotic individuals who are low in conscientiousness (see right-hand side of Figure 1). In contrast, at very low levels of neuroticism, the social benefits of controlling frequent negative emotions are not applicable, and the downside of high conscientiousness (e.g., excessive rigidity) may prevail, resulting in more perceived social rejection (i.e., higher attachment anxiety) for those who are high, as opposed to low, in conscientiousness (see left-hand side of Figure 1).

Attachment avoidance

Crawford et al. (2007) suggested that attachment avoidance is a global, interpersonal affect regulation strategy, in which individuals seek to reduce negative emotions surrounding potential rejection by maintaining high levels of interpersonal distance from others. From this perspective, a significant negative association between general attachment avoidance and general attachment anxiety would be expected (i.e., the more one maintains emotional distance from others, the less worry one feels regarding rejection by those others). The results did not follow that pattern, however. Our results showed no significant association between general attachment avoidance and general attachment anxiety (Table 1), and Crawford et al. in fact found a small but significant positive association.

More dramatically, our results for relationship-specific attachments consistently showed strong “positive” associations between attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety (Table 1; see also Fraley et al., 2011). If attachment avoidance is indeed an affect regulation strategy designed to reduce the experience of negative emotions, as Crawford et al. (2007) suggest, then it is clearly a very ineffective one, as it appears to be associated with more, not less, attachment anxiety at the relationship-specific level.

Once again, an interpersonal perspective on personality may be illuminating. Highly avoidant individuals’ tactic of maintaining high levels of interpersonal distance may have both advantages and disadvantages, when considering interactions with their social network as a whole. On one hand, highly avoidant individuals can protect themselves from the pain of general social rejection, by not making social overtures or by convincing themselves they are not overly concerned when they are rejected. This approach may therefore be associated with relatively low levels of general attachment anxiety, particularly for highly neurotic individuals, who are at heightened risk of social rejection (see right-hand side of Figure 2).

However, for those who are not particularly at risk of social rejection, such as low-neurotic individuals, the disadvantages of avoidant individuals’ self-protective strategies might come into play. If avoidant individuals distance themselves emotionally from others in a bid for self-protection, those others are likely to be reluctant to get close to avoidant individuals in the first place (i.e., increased social rejection, and therefore increased attachment anxiety, at the general level; see left-hand side of Figure 2). Similarly, within specific close relationships, avoidant individuals’ strategy of distancing themselves emotionally is likely to lead to their relationship partners eventually pulling back and distancing themselves emotionally in return (i.e., increased rejection and abandonment from specific other close individuals). At the relationship-specific level, we therefore see a positive association between attachment avoidance and anxiety, with avoidant individuals’ self-protective behaviors sadly reinforcing the very attachment anxiety fears that the avoidant individual had hoped to circumvent (Collins, Cooper, Albino, & Allard, 2002).

Unlike the interactions for the general attachment measures, there were almost no interactions shown between neuroticism and the other predictor variables when predicting the relationship-specific measures. Again, the explanation may be that in specific close relationships, neuroticism of one’s partner is a well-known quantity. Displays of high levels of neuroticism will likely lead to social rejection from those unwilling to tolerate such displays in the early stages of a relationship. For those willing to persist in such relationships, neuroticism per se may become a less crucial predictor. Relationship-specific dynamics, such as tendencies toward attachment avoidance, are likely to play a more central role in long-term, close relationships.

The one exception within the relationship-specific measures was the interaction between neuroticism and attachment avoidance when predicting levels of attachment anxiety toward one’s father (Figure 3). Simple slopes analysis (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006) reveals a very strong positive association between neuroticism and attachment anxiety for those high in attachment avoidance toward their father (solid line; b = .51, p < .001) and a nonsignificant association between neuroticism and attachment anxiety for those low in attachment avoidance toward their father (dotted line; b = −.19, p = .06).

Explanation of this unexpected pattern of results is admittedly speculative. One possibility is that fathers are particularly intolerant of negative emotions in their children (Nelson, O’Brien, Blankson, Calkins, & Keane, 2009). Therefore, fathers who have rather distant relationships with their children (i.e., high attachment avoidance; solid line in figure 3) may show an especially strong tendency to reject their offspring as they increase in neuroticism, therefore increasing feelings of attachment anxiety in their child. Another possibility is that fathers seem to play a particularly important role in socializing their children’s ability to cope with adversity and negative events (Paquette, 2004). Therefore, children who have an especially close and warm relationship with their father (i.e., low attachment avoidance, dotted line in Figure 3) may end up being relatively well-equipped to cope with their neurotic tendencies, thereby resulting in no increased rejection by fathers, even with increased levels of neuroticism.

Summary

Consideration of the interpersonal implications of personality seems to be productive in understanding the current pattern of results. Crawford et al. (2007) suggested that both conscientiousness and attachment avoidance were general emotional regulation strategies designed to downregulate negative emotions. However, their perspective (and any other perspective from a general, intrapersonal, personality approach) fails to adequately explain why these strategies are not associated with general attachment anxiety, why they show opposite effects at high and low levels of neuroticism, or why they show such different patterns of results at the general versus the relationship-specific level. On the other hand, considering the interpersonal implications of personality (i.e., some individuals truly are more likely to be socially rejected by others, and therefore have higher levels of attachment anxiety with good justification) may help clarify the patterns.

Of course, these explanations remain tentative. The current findings are cross-sectional and rely on self-report. They must be replicated and extended, using longitudinal research, as well as research investigating the more fine-grained behavioral dynamics of interactions with individuals high versus low in neuroticism, and high versus low in either conscientiousness or attachment avoidance. However, the general principle seems to be an important one: personality is generally enacted within a social context, and consideration of the reactions of others within the social context may be helpful in developing a complete understanding of the implications of recurring affect regulation strategies.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Lachlan A. McWilliams is currently at the Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Ashlyn Patterson is at the Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Canada. This article utilizes data from an unpublished master’s thesis by Paul Murphy. Findings from this data set that are unrelated to the current study are published in McWilliams, L. A., Murphy, P. J., and Bailey, S. (2010). Associations between adult attachment dimensions and attitudes toward pain behaviour. Pain Research & Management, 15, 378–384.

Funding

This research was supported by the Acadia University Research Fund and a standard research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) awarded to L.A.M.

References

Bartholomew

(n.d.). Self-report measures of adult attachment: Deriving self-model and other-model attachment dimensions for the RQ. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/selfreports.htm

Bartholomew

Horowitz

L. M.

(1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Berry

D. S.

Willingham

J. K.

Thayer

C. A.

(2000). Affect and personality as predictors of conflict and closeness in young adults' friendships. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 84–107. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2271

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Collins

N. L.

Cooper

M. L.

Albino

Allard

(2002). Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of attachment style differences in relationship functioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008.

Crawford

T. N.

Shaver

P. R.

Goldsmith

H. H.

(2007). How affect regulation moderates the association between anxious attachment and neuroticism. Attachment & Human Development, 9, 95–109. doi:10.1080/14616730701349747

Fraley

R. C.

Heffernan

M. E.

Vicary

A. M.

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2011). The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures Questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625.

Griffin

Bartholomew

(1994). Models of self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430–445.

Jackson

J. J.

Wood

Bogg

Walton

K. E.

Harms

P. D.

Roberts

B. W.

(2010). What do conscientious people do? Development and validation of the behavioral indicators of conscientiousness (BIC). Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 501–511. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.005

10.

John

O. P.

Donahue

E. M.

Kentle

R. L.

(1991). The Big Five Inventory – Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

11.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

12.

Karney

B. R.

Bradbury

T. N.

(1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1075–1092.

13.

Klein

K. J.

Lim

Saltz

J. L.

Mayer

D. M.

(2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952–963.

14.

Nelson

J. A.

O’Brien

Blankson

A. N.

Calkins

S. D.

Keane

S. P.

(2009). Family stress and parental responses to children’s negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 671–679. doi:10.1037/a0015977

15.

Paquette

(2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47, 193–219. doi:10.1159/000078723

16.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.

17.

Reis

H. T.

Capobianco

Tsai

(2002). Finding the person in personal relationships. Journal of Personality, 70, 813–850.

18.

van der Linden

Scholte

R. H. J.

Cillessen

A. H. N.

te Nijenhuis

Segers

(2010). Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 669–672. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007