Attachment style in adulthood: Attachment style moderates the impact of social support on depressive symptoms

Abstract

Introduction:

Research on adult attachment has flourished over the last two decades. Despite this, only one theoretical model has been proposed to outline how the attachment system works in adulthood: the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver. The current study tested one prediction drawn from this model, namely that attachment style would moderate the association between social support and depressive symptoms.

Method:

The study included a nonclinical sample of 419 adults between the ages of 18 and 84 (M_age = 39.64 years, SD = 19.61). Participants completed a survey containing measures of attachment, perceived social support, depressive symptoms, and demographic information.

Results:

A model in which attachment was predicted to moderate the relationship between perceived social support and depressive symptoms was tested. Although both avoidant and anxious attachment were significantly associated with depressive symptoms, the interaction between social support and insecure attachment style differed. Higher levels of social support were significantly associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms among anxiously attached individuals, but not among avoidant individuals.

Discussion:

The study supports the model proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver. Attachment style acts as a moderator of the association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms. The results further underscore differences between anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals.

Keywords

Adult attachment depressive symptoms moderation social support VASQ

Children and adolescents who grow up without their home base providing the necessary support and encouragement are likely to be less cheerful; to find life, especially intimate relationships, difficult; and to be vulnerable in conditions of adversity (Bowlby, 1988, p. 179).

According to attachment theory, the relationship between a caregiver and child is one of the most influential relationships a child will ever experience. This is not only because children rely on their caregivers to meet their basic needs but also because children create a working model of how the world works, as well as their place within that world, based on the experiences they have with their caregivers (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982). In general, consistent and responsive caregivers create securely attached children; unresponsive or inconsistent caregivers create insecurely attached children (Bowlby, 1973, 1980; Weinfeld et al., 2008). The differences in caregiver responsiveness, which result in different attachment styles, also result in different expectations regarding how other people will behave. These expectations are the foundation of what Bowlby (1973, 1980) called internal working models. The working models of securely attached children generally include positive representations of the self and others, including expectations that people are reliable and warm; the working models of insecurely attached children generally include negative representations of the self and others, including expectations that people are unreliable and distant (Bowlby, 1973, 1980; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Thus, attachment theory provides a way of categorizing the quality of caregiver–child relationships and a way to examine the impact both positive and negative working models have on future development. These early expectations regarding the consistency or reliability of caregiver responsiveness therefore influence social and emotional development not only through childhood but throughout the entire lifespan (Bowlby, 1979; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008).

Given that attachment theory focuses on the importance of caregiver–child relationships, it is not surprising that the majority of research on attachment initially focused on infants and children; however, research on adult attachment has received greater attention over the last two decades (Magai, 2008). Initial research on adult attachment focused on the relationship between adult attachment style and romantic relationships (Bifulco et al., 2003; Kuan Mak et al., 2010; Magai, 2008). However, more recently, adult attachment has been examined as a predictor of individual differences in social, emotional, and psychological functioning in both clinical and nonclinical populations (McGuire et al., 2018; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012). Although research on adult attachment has been flourishing, to our knowledge, only one model has been proposed to describe how adult attachment style directly relates to psychological well-being and vulnerability: the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver (2007).

According to the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood, the attachment system is activated when an individual is facing some form of threat. In response to the threat, an individual will engage in proximity-seeking behaviors, meaning that they will desire to be close (physically or symbolically) to an attachment figure (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). This is also in line with research on socioemotional selectivity theory in the adult development literature, which has shown that in times of threat or uncertainty, adults of all ages seek to be close to their loved ones (Carstensen et al., 1999). According to this model, if an attachment figure is available and responds adequately to the needs of the individual seeking support, attachment security is bolstered and distress is alleviated (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). On the other hand, if an attachment figure is not available or is available but does not respond adequately, attachment insecurity arises (or is reinforced) and distress is not relieved but intensifies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). At this point, an individual has two choices depending on whether they believe it is possible to be close to an attachment figure: deactivating strategies or hyperactivating strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). The avoidantly attached individual will engage in deactivating strategies. Deactivating strategies include distancing themselves from or downplaying the threat at hand, disregarding further cues they may be receiving from the attachment system prompting them to seek support or comfort from attachment figures, and relying on themselves to manage distress (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). In contrast, anxiously attached individuals will engage in hyperactivating strategies. Hyperactivating strategies include paying more attention to both the threat and cues from the attachment system prompting them to seek support and intensifying proximity-seeking behaviors by ramping up demands in an effort to gain the support and comfort they desperately desire from attachment figures (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008).

These different pathways describe patterns of behavior that an individual has developed, and these patterns of behavior reflect their internal working models of attachment. In general, securely attached individuals have learned that attachment figures are available to them and will use these figures as a source of support and comfort. In contrast, avoidantly attached individuals have learned that attachment figures are unavailable and discontinue seeking and receiving support over time, while anxiously attached individuals have learned that attachment figures are unreliable but may provide comfort if their attempts at seeking support are dramatic enough to elicit a response. Although this model describes the importance of the attachment system and of attachment figures, including parents, partners, and close friends in adulthood, research has shown that the attachment system may also impact an individual’s perceptions of the accessibility or usefulness of social support more broadly. Specifically, Mikulincer and Shaver (2008) hypothesize that adult attachment style may effect the degree to which an individual believes social support is important, available, and reliable—not just within close relationships, but in general. These beliefs about the availability and reliability of support then impact behavior, affect regulation, and can lead to psychological vulnerability (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). The current study explored the relationship between attachment, social support, and psychological vulnerability, specifically focusing on depressive symptoms. Research on attachment, social support, and depressive symptoms is briefly reviewed below.

Attachment, social support, and depressive symptoms in adulthood

Research on adult attachment and social support has consistently found positive relationships between attachment security and general perceptions of social support. In general, securely attached individuals are more likely to seek and benefit from social support than insecurely attached individuals, both within their close attachment-related relationships and more informally (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Secure attachment has also been associated with higher levels of perceived social support across multiple domains (Green et al., 2011; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005), actual support-seeking behavior (Simpson et al., 1992), and willingness to seek professional mental help (Vogel & Wei, 2005). In addition to this, securely attached individuals are more likely to have larger social networks, including close friends as well as acquaintances (Fiori et al., 2011). Further, securely attached individuals generally report experiencing more positive emotions during social interactions. For example, securely attached individuals reported more positive emotions even when interacting with a stranger in a non-attachment-related context compared to insecurely attached individuals (Roisman, 2006). Overall, securely attached individuals are more likely to perceive that social support is available to them from a much broader social network and are more likely to seek support across multiple domains when they need it compared to insecurely attached individuals (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008).

Research on attachment and depressive symptoms has also consistently found positive relationships between attachment insecurity and depressive symptoms. Several studies have shown that insecure attachment is associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms (Barnas et al., 1991; Cantazaro & Wei, 2010; Eng et al., 2001; Hankin et al., 2005; Hinnen et al., 2012; Li et al., 2008; Marganska et al., 2013; Monti & Rudolph, 2014; Pielage et al., 2005; Priel & Shamai, 1995; Roberts et al., 1996). Insecure attachment is also associated with higher levels of loneliness (Pielage et al., 2005). Moreover, insecurely attached individuals report higher levels of negative affect (Consedine & Magai, 2003) and psychological distress (Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Mikulincer & Florian, 2001), as well as ineffective emotion regulation strategies (Marganska et al., 2013; Wei, Vogel et al., 2005). Overall, insecurely attached individuals are more likely to struggle with emotion regulation and report higher levels of psychological vulnerability compared to securely attached individuals (for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008).

The above studies have been valuable in describing how attachment relates to both social support and depressive symptoms independently; however, few studies have examined the relationship among attachment, social support, and depressive symptoms together in adulthood. Priel and Shamai (1995) examined attachment, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms among a sample of college students. Results confirmed that insecurely attached individuals report lower levels of perceived social support and higher levels of depressive symptoms than securely attached individuals. Li et al. (2008) also found that higher levels of insecure attachment were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and lower levels of social support in a sample of stroke patients in China. Last, Hinnen et al. (2012) found that lower levels of social support predicted higher levels of depressive symptoms among insecurely attached HIV patients. Taken together, these studies show that attachment is associated with both social support and depressive symptoms among very different populations.

Although the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood clearly outlines how individuals with different attachment styles will generally behave and how these behaviors will impact affect regulation and lead to psychological vulnerability (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008), few studies have directly tested this model. Thus, the current study was designed to test one prediction drawn from this model, namely that attachment style would moderate the association between social support and depressive symptoms. If attachment style affects the degree to which an individual believes social support is important, available, and reliable (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008), then those beliefs should influence how strongly actual social support is linked to depressive symptoms. Consistent with the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood, we expect different attachment styles to be associated with different beliefs regarding the availability and importance of social support (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). For example, based on the differences in their internal working models, the availability of social support is likely more important to an anxiously attached individual than to an avoidantly attached individual. As a result, perceived social support will have differential effects on depressive symptoms for individuals with differing types of insecure attachment.

The present study

Bowlby (1988) stated that attachment theory was, in fact, designed by a clinician for use with clinical populations; however, social and developmental psychologists have since used attachment theory to explore individual differences in social and emotional development. Because of this perhaps unintended shift, differences have also emerged in how attachment itself is conceptualized and measured. For example, clinicians have typically relied upon structured interviews like the Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1985) and Attachment Style Interview (ASI; Bifulco et al., 2002) to assess attachment insecurity and the degree to which insecurity predicts psychopathology in clinical populations. In contrast, social and developmental researchers have relied upon Likert-type scale questionnaires like the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECRS; Brennan et al., 1998) to categorize individuals by attachment style and examine how these styles relate to a variety of psychosocial variables.

The Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire (VASQ) was developed to capture the benefits of both approaches, combining clinical utility with ease of use. The VASQ was created and validated against the ASI to ensure that it could adequately differentiate individuals at risk for psychopathology; however, it is also easy to use like typical questionnaires in social and psychological research (Bifulco et al., 2003). For these reasons, the VASQ was chosen in the current study. Social and developmental research using the VASQ is limited; however, research has shown that attachment vulnerability on the VASQ significantly predicted loneliness and depressive symptoms among new college students (Carr et al., 2013) and was associated with higher rates of drug abuse and psychopathology among former heroin addicts receiving methadone maintenance treatment (Potik et al., 2014). We wanted to build on this previous research by examining the VASQ in a larger adult population. Thus, the current study sought to expand our understanding of the utility of the VASQ among a nonclinical sample of adults. Specifically, the current study examined the degree to which attachment vulnerability moderates the relationship between social support and depressive symptoms. The specific aims are outlined below.

Aim 1: Replicate the distribution of adult attachment style in a nonclinical adult sample using the VASQ. We expected the majority of our sample to be securely attached, consistent with previous research on adult attachment (for a review, see Magai, 2008).

Aim 2: Explore the relationship between attachment vulnerability, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms. We tested a model in which attachment vulnerability moderated the relationship between perceived social support and depressive symptoms. We predicted that the negative association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms would be more extreme for individuals with vulnerable (insecure) attachment than for those who are securely attached.

Aim 3: Explore the relationship between anxious and avoidant attachment, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms. We tested a model in which attachment style moderated the relationship between perceived social support and depressive symptoms. We predicted that the association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms would be different for individuals with avoidant attachment than for those with anxious attachment. Because avoidantly attached people employ deactivating strategies that disengage the attachment system and downplay the power of social support (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008), social support should not be strongly associated with depressive symptoms among the avoidantly attached. On the other hand, anxiously attached people are hypervigilant to cues from the attachment system and eagerly rely on social support when it is available. Thus, social support should be strongly associated with fewer depressive symptoms among the anxiously attached.

Method

Participants

The sample included 419 participants between the ages of 18 and 84 (M_age = 39.64 years, SD = 19.61). Younger adults (M_age = 19.29 years, SD = 3.03, age range: 18–38 years) were initially recruited through a research pool at a university in the southeastern U.S. (n = 177). Middle-aged adults (M_age = 50.24 years, SD = 5.34, age range: 39–64 years) were parents of the younger student participants (n = 176). Older adults (M_age = 73.21 years, SD = 4.94, age range: 65–84 years) were grandparents of the younger student participants (n = 48). Our sample was predominately White, 90% (n = 377), and female, 67.1% (n = 281). Demographics were consistent with the demographics of the overall university population.

Materials and procedure

Students came into the lab and completed a survey. After completing the survey, students were asked if they would like to identify a parent and grandparent to complete the survey. Students wishing to invite a family member were assisted by a research assistant. The student, with the help of a research assistant, emailed family members a form letter containing detailed directions and a unique survey link to the online survey. The unique survey link contained an ID number for each participant that was used to link the family data to the student data. Students could invite at most two family members to participate in the survey. All participants completed items concerning attachment, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms. Last, participants provided basic demographic information. After the experiment, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Measures

Attachment style

The VASQ (Bifulco et al., 2003) is a 22-item scale that measures adult attachment style. Participants responded on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) to statements such as: “It’s best not to get too emotionally close to other people” and “It’s important to have people around me.” Unlike the ECRS of adult attachment (Brennan et al., 1998) typically used in social psychological research, the VASQ was developed for clinical use. Thus, the ECRS focuses on how individuals feel regarding a romantic partner or parents (Brennan et al., 1998; Fraley et al., 2011), whereas the VASQ focuses more broadly on “the way people feel about themselves in relation to others” (Bifulco et al., 2003).

The VASQ provides two methods of examining attachment style. First, the VASQ assesses the severity of attachment vulnerability in general. To calculate this score, items were summed to create an overall measure of attachment vulnerability ranging from 0 to 110 (M = 56.19, SD = 7.77). Per Bifulco et al. (2003), a score of 57 or greater indicates a high level of vulnerability irrespective of insecure style and higher scores indicate higher risk for psychopathology.

The VASQ can also be broken down into two subscales: proximity-seeking and insecurity. These subscales are used together to differentiate between secure, anxious, and avoidant attachment styles. The insecurity subscale includes 12 items (e.g., “It’s best not to get too emotionally close to other people”). To calculate this score, the 12 insecurity items are summed. A score of 30 or more indicates a high level of insecurity. The proximity-seeking subscale includes 10 items (e.g., “It’s important to have people around me”). To calculate this score, the 10 proximity-seeking items are summed. A score of 27 or more indicates a high level of proximity-seeking. These two subscales are used in combination to create insecure style groups: anxious (high insecurity, high proximity) and avoidant (high insecurity, low proximity) styles. The VASQ had high internal consistency for the insecurity (α = .82) and proximity-seeking (α = .67) subscales.

Social support

The Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS; Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991) is a 20-item scale that measures social support overall and on four subscales: tangible support (4 items), affection (3 items), emotional/information (8 items), and positive interaction (3 items). Participants were presented with the following question: “People sometimes look to others for companionship, assistance or other types of support. How often is each of the following kinds of support available to you if you need it?” Participants were then asked to respond on a 5-point scale (1 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time) to statements such as: “Someone to help you if you were confined to bed, someone who shows you love and affection, someone to give you good advice about a crisis, someone to do something enjoyable with.” The MOS had high internal consistency overall (α = .97), and on the tangible support (α = .96), affection (α = .92), emotional/information (α = .91), and positive interaction (α = .94) subscales. Items for each subscale were averaged to create a scale score. Next, scale scores were transformed. The transformed scales ranged from 0 to 100. Scale scores were averaged to create an overall social support index (M = 50.11, SD = 9.94) to be used in the proposed analyses. Higher scores indicate higher social support (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991).¹

Depressive symptoms

The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depressive Symptoms Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) assesses the degree to which an individual has experienced depressive symptoms within the past week. Respondents rated the frequency with which they have experienced particular depressive symptoms during the past week, such as: “I felt hopeful about the future, and I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.” Possible responses can range from 0 (less than 1 day) to 3 (5–7 days). The 20-item CES-D scale was designed to measure depressive symptoms in the general population (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D had high internal consistency (α = .85; M = 12.18, SD = 8.95).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Before proceeding with our analyses, we explored the distribution of attachment within our sample to replicate previous research on adult attachment. First, we examined the total scores on the VASQ. Frequencies revealed 63% of participants were categorized as low in attachment vulnerability (scoring below a 57); 37% were categorized as high in attachment vulnerability (scoring at or above a 57). This is consistent with previous research on attachment distributions in adulthood, which has shown that generally 55%–65% of adults are considered securely attached (for a review, see Magai, 2008). Next, we examined the individual subscales of the VASQ in more detail. When examining the insecurity and proximity subscales in combination, 74% of our participants were considered securely attached (low insecurity, moderate proximity-seeking), 11.7% were considered avoidant (high insecurity, low proximity-seeking), and 14.3% were considered anxiously attached (high insecurity, high proximity-seeking). Please see Table 1 for details. Means and standard deviations for attachment vulnerability (high and low) and attachment style (secure, avoidant, anxious) are reported in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1.

Number of individuals per insecurity group and per attachment style.

	Young	Middle-aged	Old
Low	84	127	36
High	93	49	12
Secure	114	136	44
Avoidant	21	25	2
Anxious	42	15	2

Note. The cutoff for high insecurity on the VASQ is >57. For the 12 insecurity items, a summed score of 30 or more indicated a high level of insecurity. For the 10 proximity-seeking items, a score of 27 or more indicated a high level of proximity-seeking. These subscales were used in combination to create insecure style groups: anxious (high insecurity, high proximity) and avoidant (high insecurity, low proximity), per Bifulco et al. (2003). VASQ = Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations for the VASQ by insecurity and style.

		Low		High
VASQ total		51.17 (4.97)		63.35 (4.91)
Insecurity subscale		25.04 (4.55)		31.62 (5.22)
Proximity-seeking subscale		26.44 (4.20)		31.74 (4.39)
	Secure		Avoidant		Anxious
VASQ total	53.44 (6.35)		58.27 (4.14)		67.13 (5.15)
Insecurity subscale	24.79 (3.48)		34.90 (3.37)		35.15 (4.04)
Proximity-seeking subscale	28.54 (4.91)		23.73 (2.75)		31.98 (3.65)

Note. The cutoff for the VASQ is >57; the cutoff for the insecurity subscale is >30; and the cutoff for the proximity-seeking subscale is >27 (Bifulco et al., 2003). VASQ = Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire.

Table 3.

Mean depressive symptoms and social support by insecurity and style.

Scale		Low		High
Depressive symptoms		9.59 (7.33)		15.98 (9.75)
Social support total		20.16 (2.76)		19.17 (3.11)
Tangible support		16.75 (3.09)		15.78 (3.64)
Affection		13.27 (2.22)		12.71 (2.50)
Emotional/informational		33.41 (5.25)		31.34 (6.11)
Positive interactions		17.16 (2.80)		16.74 (2.93)
Scale	Secure		Avoidant		Anxious
Depressive symptoms	10.05 (7.23)		16.13 (9.90)		18.92 (10.93)
Social support total	20.28 (2.64)		18.23 (3.50)		18.88 (3.06)
Tangible support	16.78 (3.12)		15.40 (3.69)		15.42 (3.70)
Affection	13.38 (2.06)		12.11 (2.83)		12.45 (2.65)
Emotional/informational	33.60 (5.18)		29.47 (6.12)		30.85 (6.15)
Positive interactions	17.26 (2.70)		16.00 (3.34)		16.66 (2.90)

Note. The cutoff for the CES-D is >16 (Radloff, 1977). Higher scores indicate more support. Total social support is calculated by averaging the four subscales. CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies Depressive Symptoms Scale.

Depressive symptoms and social support were also examined by attachment vulnerability and style. Analysis of variance was conducted to examine depressive symptoms and social support as a function of attachment vulnerability (low and high) and style (secure, avoidant, and anxious). Significant differences were found for depressive symptoms, F(1, 374) = 52.14, p < .05, and perceived social support, F(1, 387) = 13.28, p < .05, by attachment vulnerability. Consistent with previous research, the highly vulnerable group reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms and significantly lower levels of social support compared to the low vulnerability group (see Table 2 for means and standard deviations). We further examined depressive symptoms and social support by insecure style. Significant differences were found for depressive symptoms, F(2, 374) = 33.81, p < .05, and perceived social support, F(2, 387) = 13.29, p < .05, by attachment style. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s honestly significant difference test revealed that anxious and avoidant individuals reported significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms (p < .05) and significantly lower levels of perceived social support (p < .05) compared to secure individuals (see Table 3 for means and standard deviations).

Analysis plan

Our prediction was that attachment vulnerability would moderate the association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms, such that, among people with high levels of attachment vulnerability, those who had higher levels of perceived social support would report fewer depressive symptoms than those with lower levels of perceived social support. Because our data violated the assumption of independent observations in ordinary least squares regression (i.e., our data were nested within groups), we used multilevel modeling procedures to analyze our data (Nezlek, 2011; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). A total of 419 participants nested within 165 family clusters (average cluster size = 2.54) were included in the analyses. To test our hypothesis, we constructed a multilevel model with a two-level hierarchical structure (accounting for nesting of participants within family clusters), using HLM Version 7.01 (Raudenbush et al., 2000). Perceived social support (group-mean centered), attachment vulnerability (−1 = secure attachment, 1 = insecure attachment), and the interaction between the two each served as the Level 1 predictors of interest, and depressive symptoms was our outcome of interest. Random slopes were estimated for each Level 1 predictor. Age did not interact with attachment vulnerability or social support to predict depressive symptoms (ps > .78). Furthermore, it did not exhibit a three-way interaction with attachment vulnerability and social support (p = .47). Thus, age and its interaction terms with our predictors were not included as covariates in our model. Last, to provide an estimate of effect size, we present partial correlation coefficients that were derived from the t-tests and degrees of freedom obtained from the multilevel model fixed effects (Rosenthal, 1991). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for attachment vulnerability (i.e., total score on the VASQ) was .09, suggesting that 91% of the variability in attachment vulnerability was within clusters. The ICC for perceived social support was .15, suggesting that 85% of the variability in perceived social support was within clusters. Finally, the ICC for depressive symptoms was .02, suggesting that 98% of the variability in depressive symptoms was within clusters.

Attachment insecurity moderates the association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms

As predicted, analyses revealed a significant Social Support × Attachment Vulnerability interaction, b = −0.15, t(163) = −2.27, p = .03, r_p = −.18 (see Figure 1). The main effect for perceived social support was significant, b = −0.22, t(163) = −3.24, p = .001, r_p = −.25, such that people who reported more social support reported fewer depressive symptoms. The main effect for attachment vulnerability was also significant, b = 2.94, t(163) = 6.32, p < .001, r_p = .44, such that those who exhibited more vulnerable or insecure attachment reported more depressive symptoms than those who exhibited a more secure attachment.

Figure 1.

Interactive effect between perceived social support and attachment insecurity on depressive symptoms.

We next examined the simple association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms among participants who reported secure (−1) and vulnerable (+1) attachment (Aiken & West, 1991). Among participants with secure attachment, perceived social support was not related to depressive symptoms, b = −0.08, t = −0.90, p = .37, r_p = −.07. However, among people with vulnerable attachment, perceived social support was significantly associated with depressive symptoms, b = −0.37, t = −3.61, p = .0004, r_p = −.27, such that greater perceptions of social support were associated with fewer depressive symptoms.

Attachment anxiety versus avoidance

To examine whether the moderating effect of attachment insecurity was driven more by attachment anxiety or avoidance, we constructed another multilevel model with perceived social support (group-mean centered), anxious attachment style (−1 = not anxiously attached, 1 = anxiously attached) and its interaction with social support, and avoidant attachment style (−1 = not avoidantly attached, 1 = avoidantly attached) as well as its interaction with social support each entered as Level 1 predictors. Depressive symptoms were modeled as our outcome of interest. Random slopes were estimated for each Level 1 predictor, except the two interactions terms. Attempts at estimating the random slopes for the interaction terms resulted in a model that would not converge. The differing degrees of freedom between the t-test for the main effects and the t-tests for the two interactions reflect the removal of the random slopes from the model.

Analyses revealed a significant Social Support × Anxious Attachment interaction, b = −0.22, t(354) = −2.97, p = .003, r_p = −.16 (see Figure 2), but not a significant Social Support × Avoidant Attachment interaction, b = 0.03, t(354) = 0.32, p = .75, r_p = .02. The main effect for perceived social support was significant, b = −0.33, t(163) = −2.90, p = .004, r_p = −.22, such that people who reported more social support reported less depressive symptoms. The main effect for anxious attachment was also significant, b = 3.68, t(163) = 5.32, p < .001, r_p = .38, such that those who exhibited an anxious attachment reported more depressive symptoms than those who did not exhibit an anxious attachment. Finally, the main effect for avoidant attachment was significant, b = 2.87, t(163) = 3.67, p < .001, r_p = .28, such that those who exhibited an avoidant attachment reported more depressive symptoms than those who did not exhibit an avoidant attachment.

Figure 2.

Interactive effect between perceived social support and anxious attachment on depressive symptoms.

We next decomposed the significant Social Support × Anxious Attachment interaction by examining the simple association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms among participants who did not report anxious attachment (−1) and those who did (+1) (Aiken & West, 1991). Among participants who did not have anxious attachment, perceived social support was not related to depressive symptoms, b = −0.11, t = −1.14, p = .26, r_p = −.09. However, among people with anxious attachment, perceived social support was significantly associated with depressive symptoms, b = −0.55, t = −3.30, p = .001, r_p = −.25, such that greater perceptions of social support were associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms.

Discussion

Previous research on adult attachment has shown that approximately 55%–65% of adults are categorized as securely attached (Magai, 2008). Consistent with prior research, 63% of our sample was categorized as securely attached. Previous research on social support has also provided ample evidence that in general, higher levels of social support are related to lower levels of depressive symptoms (e.g., Brummett et al., 2000; George et al., 1989; Stephens et al., 2011). Our results replicate these findings. Higher levels of social support were associated with fewer depressive symptoms independent of attachment within our sample. Last, previous research has also shown that insecure attachment is consistently associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms (Barnas et al., 1991; Cantazaro & Wei, 2010; Eng et al., 2001; Hankin et al., 2005; Hinnen et al., 2012; Li et al., 2008; Marganska et al., 2013; Monti & Rudolph, 2014; Pielage et al., 2005; Priel & Shamai, 1995; Roberts et al., 1996). These findings were also replicated. We found that higher levels of vulnerable attachment were associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms in our sample. Taken together, our results are consistent with a wide body of research and indicate that the VASQ may be an appropriate measure of global attachment within a nonclinical sample of adults.

The purpose of the current study was to provide additional support for the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood by examining the moderating influence of attachment on the association between social support and depressive symptoms (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Our results support this model. First, we found that higher levels of perceived social support were associated with lower levels of depressive symptoms for vulnerably attached (insecure) individuals generally, but not for securely attached individuals. These results suggest that higher levels of perceived social support may be psychologically protective for individuals who report higher levels of vulnerability or insecurity, regardless of insecure style. Next, we examined whether the moderating influence of attachment was driven more so by avoidant attachment or anxious attachment style. Although both avoidant and anxious attachment were significantly associated with depressive symptoms, the interaction between social support and attachment style differed. For avoidant individuals, depressive symptoms were not significantly predicted by perceived social support. These results appear to be consistent with the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood. Avoidantly attached individuals have internal working models built upon the consistent inaccessibility of their primary caregivers. These working models have been reinforced over time as avoidantly attached individuals learned to deactivate the attachment system. Rather than expect, value, and rely upon social support, avoidantly attached individuals actively disregard internal cues driving them to seek support from attachment figures and others and instead rely on other mechanisms to cope with threats (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Thus, our results suggest that the degree to which an avoidantly attached individual experiences depressive symptoms is largely independent of the perceived availability of social support not only within close relationships but in broader social contexts.

In contrast, for anxiously attached individuals, depressive symptoms were significantly predicted by perceived social support. These results also support the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood. Anxiously attached individuals have internal working models built upon the inconsistent availability of their primary caregivers. These working models have been reinforced over time as anxiously attached individuals learned to hyperactivate the attachment system. Unlike avoidantly attached individuals who essentially ignore attachment-related cues, anxiously attached individuals are hyperaware of internal cues driving them to seek support and engage in persistent and exaggerated support-seeking behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Our results suggest that the degree to which an anxiously attached individual experiences depressive symptoms may be dependent not only on their relationships with attachment figures but also on more global perceptions of the availability and reliability of social support in broader contexts. Together, these results provide further support regarding the impact different internal working models have on the perceived importance, availability, and utility of social support among insecurely attached individuals. Avoidantly attached and anxiously attached individuals place different values upon social support in attachment-related relationships, but also in general. As a result, the perceived availability of social support is significantly associated with depressive symptoms for one group of insecurely attached individuals but not the other.

These results have important implications clinically. Our results suggest that treating depressive symptoms among insecurely attached individuals may require different approaches. For example, previous research has found that avoidantly attached individuals are less likely to seek professional help (Vogel & Wei, 2005). In addition to being less likely to seek professional help, certain types of help might be more or less appealing to avoidantly versus anxiously attached individuals. For example, avoidantly attached individuals may doubt the reliability and utility of alternatives to therapy like support groups, whereas anxiously attached individuals may find such support appealing. In general, our results suggest that it may be beneficial for clinicians to assess and target not only the way insecurely attached individuals view the availability and reliability of their attachment figures but the way they view the availability and reliability of social support more broadly.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the most obvious limitation relates to our sample. Our sample consisted of a convenience sample of college students and their family members. Further, our sample was predominately White and female. Both of these factors may limit the generalizability of our results. Given that our results are consistent with previous studies, this convenience sampling did not appear to have a negative impact on our results; however, future studies should incorporate a more diverse sample to examine whether the association between attachment, depressive symptoms, and perceived social support is consistent across different populations. Next, the cross-sectional nature of the current study limits the causal conclusions we can draw regarding the power of perceived social support in reducing depressive symptoms among those with anxious attachment styles. Attachment, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms may interact with one another and evolve over time. The relationship between attachment, social support, and depressive symptoms is multidirectional and dynamic (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Future longitudinal work is needed to fully understand under what circumstances anxiously attached individuals will engage in social support-seeking behaviors and how successful those behaviors are at reducing depressive symptoms. Furthermore, future work should examine what strategies (if not social support-seeking) avoidant individuals may employ to thwart depressive symptoms. Last, the attachment measure we chose to use is a clinical measure not commonly used among social or developmental psychologists. Although the measure is not the most widely used measure of attachment, our results are consistent with previous research indicating that the VASQ is an appropriate tool for assessing attachment in both clinical and nonclinical samples. Future research should compare the VASQ along with the ECRS to further establish its validity in clinical and social psychological research. Along these lines, our measure of social support was initially designed for use in medical contexts. Comparing measures of social support may be useful in future research. Despite these limitations, the results of the current study point to an important relationship between attachment style, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms that support the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver (2008).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current study provides support for the model of attachment system activation and functioning in adulthood proposed by Mikulincer and Shaver (2008). Attachment style acts as a moderator of the association between perceived social support and depressive symptoms. These results further underscore the differences between anxiously attached and avoidantly attached individuals. Social support may indeed be beneficial, but those benefits are not equally distributed. These differences are important and suggest that different approaches may be needed when assessing and treating individuals with different types of insecure attachment.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alissa Dark-Freudeman

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at or by emailing freudemana@uncw.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained at https://osf.io/ or by emailing freudemana@uncw.edu.

Note

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Barnas

M. V.

Pollina

Cummings

M. E.

(1991). Life-span attachment: Relationship between attachment and socioemotional functioning in adult women. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117, 175–202.

Bifulco

Mahon

Kwon

Moran

P. M.

Jacobs

(2003). The Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire (VASQ): An interview-based measure of attachment styles that predict depressive disorder. Psychological Medicine, 33, 1099–1110.

Bifulco

Morgan

P. M.

Ball

Bernazzani

(2002). Adult Attachment Style. I: Its relationship to clinical depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37, 50–59.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2. Separation: anxiety and anger. Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Tavistock.

Bowlby

(1980). Attachment and loss, Vol 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.

10.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

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

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

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

11.

Brummett

B. H.

Barefoot

J. C.

Siegler

I. C.

Steffens

D. C.

(2000). Relation of subjective and received social support to clinical and self-report assessments of depressive symptoms in an elderly population. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 41–50.

12.

Cantazaro

Wei

(2010). Adult attachment, dependence, self-criticism, and depressive symptoms: A test of a mediational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1135–1162.

13.

Carr

Colthurst

Coyle

Elliott

(2013). Attachment dimensions as predictors of mental health and psychosocial well-being in the transition to university. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 281, 157–172.

14.

Carstensen

L. L.

Isaacowitz

D. M.

Charles

S. T.

(1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.

15.

Consedine

N. S.

Magai

(2003). Attachment and emotion experience in later life: The view from emotions theory. Attachment & Human Development, 5, 165–187.

16.

Eng

Heimberg

R. G.

Hart

T. A.

Schneier

F. R.

Liebowitz

M. R.

(2001). Attachment in individuals with social anxiety disorder: The relationship among adult attachment styles, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Emotion, 1, 365–380.

17.

Fiori

K. L.

Consedine

N. S.

Merz

E.-M.

(2011). Attachment, social network size, and patterns of social exchange in later life. Research on Aging, 33, 465–493.

18.

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.

19.

George

Kaplan

Main

(1985). The Adult Attachment Interview [Unpublished manuscript]. University of California at Berkeley.

20.

George

L. K.

Blazer

D. G.

Hughes

D. C.

Fowler

(1989). Social support and the outcome of major depressive symptoms. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 478–485.

21.

Green

B. L.

Furrer

C. J.

McAllister

C. L.

(2011). Does attachment style influence social support or the other way around? A longitudinal study of early head start mothers. Attachment & Human Development, 13, 27–47.

22.

Hankin

B. L.

Kassel

J. D.

Abela

J. R. Z.

(2005). Adult attachment dimensions and specificity of emotional distress symptoms: Prospective investigations of cognitive risk and interpersonal stress generation as mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 136–151.

23.

Hinnen

Schreuder

Jong

van Duijn

Dahmen

van Gorp

E. C. M.

(2012). The contribution of adult attachment and perceived social support to depressive symptoms in patients with HIV. AIDS Care, 24, 1535–1542.

24.

Kobak

R. R.

Sceery

(1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representation of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.

25.

Kuan Mak

M. C.

Bond

M. H.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(2010). Adult attachment, perceived support, and depressive symptoms in Chinese and American cultures. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29, 144–165.

26.

Dai

(2008). Adult attachment, social support, and depressive symptoms level of poststroke patients. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 1341–1352.

27.

Magai

(2008). Attachment in middle and later life. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 532–551). Guilford Press.

28.

Mallinckrodt

Wei

(2005). Attachment, social competencies, social support, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 358–367.

29.

Marganska

Gallagher

Miranda

(2013). Adult attachment, emotion dysregulation, and symptoms of depressive symptoms and generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 131–141.

30.

McGuire

Gillath

Jackson

Ingram

(2018). Attachment security priming as a potential intervention for depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 37, 44–68.

31.

Mikulincer

Florian

(2001). Attachment style and affect regulation: Implications for coping with stress and mental health. In Fletcher

G. J. O.

Clark

M. S.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 542–557). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

32.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment patterns in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

33.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2008). Adult attachment and affect regulation. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 503–531). Guilford Press.

34.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 11, 11–15.

35.

Monti

J. D.

Rudolph

K. D.

(2014). Emotional awareness as a pathway linking adult attachment to subsequent depressive symptoms. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 374–382.

36.

Nezlek

J. B.

(2011). Multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Sage.

37.

Pielage

S. B.

Luteijn

Arrindell

W. A.

(2005). Adult attachment, intimacy and psychological distress in a clinical and community sample. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 455–464.

38.

Potik

Peles

Abramsohn

Adelson

Schreiber

(2014). The relationship between vulnerable attachment style, psychopathology, drug abuse, and retention in treatment among methadone maintenance treatment patients. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 46, 325–333.

39.

Priel

Shamai

(1995). Attachment style and perceived social support: Effects on affect regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 235–241.

40.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depressive symptoms scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

41.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Sage.

42.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Cheong

Y. F.

Congdon

R. T.

(2000). HLM (Version 7.1) [Software]. Scientific Software International.

43.

Roberts

J. E.

Gotlib

I. H.

Kassel

J. D.

(1996). Adult attachment security and symptoms of depressive symptoms: The mediating roles of dysfunctional attitudes and low self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 310–320.

44.

Roisman

G. I.

(2006). The role of adult attachment security in non-romantic, non-attachment-related first interactions between same-sex strangers. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 341–352.

45.

Rosenthal

. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Sage.

46.

Sherbourne

C. D.

Stewart

A. L.

(1991). The MOS Social Support Survey. Social Science Medicine, 32, 705–714.

47.

Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

Nelligan

J. S.

(1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434–446.

48.

Stephens

Alpass

Towers

Stevenson

(2011). The effects of types of social networks, perceived social support, and loneliness on the health of older people: Accounting for the social context. Journal of Aging and Health, 23, 887–911.

49.

Vogel

D. L.

Wei

(2005). Adult attachment and help-seeking intent: The mediating roles of psychological distress and perceived social support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 347–357.

50.

Wei

Vogel

D. L.

Zakalick

R. A.

(2005). Adult attachment, affect regulation, negative mood, and interpersonal problems: The mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 14–24.

51.

Weinfeld

N. S.

Sroufe

Egeland

Carlson

(2008). Individual differences in infant-caregiver attachment: Conceptual and empirical aspects of security. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 78–101). Guilford Press.