Attachment Style Dimensions, Network Orientation and the Process of Seeking Help from College Teachers

Abstract

In this study, a model was tested positing that attachment style dimensions affect the individual's social support network orientation, which, in turn, influences the process of seeking help from teachers. Data from two independent samples of college students using global and dyadic interaction reports of the quality of their help-seeking behaviours were used to assess the model. Evaluation by the EQS method indicated acceptable levels of fit, with the models explaining 49 percent and 23 percent of the variance in help-seeking behaviours. The results are discussed in light of the relations between attachment and social support theories.KEY WORDS • attachment • college teachers • help-seeking behaviours • social support Over the last two decades, studies aiming to understand the nature of general support expectations have led to the emergence of two important trends of research. Some have examined the antecedents and correlates of

Attachment anxiety and friendship group identification under attachment threat: The moderating role of priming support network expectations

“…In order to align with previous research on attachment anxiety and group identification (Crisp et al, 2009) and the recent conceptualization of attachment as dimensional (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003;Fraley & Waller, 1998), the pilot examined the link between attachment anxiety, as measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR: Brennan et al, 1998) and expectations of network support (as measured by the NOS) to establish whether scores on attachment anxiety would be negatively associated with network expectations consistent with previous findings (Larose et al, 1999;Wallace & Vaux, 1993).…”

“…The findings of Wallace and Vaux (1993) and Larose et al (1999) suggest that expectations of the usefulness of one's support network may be an important additional aspect to consider when examining the association between attachment anxiety and interpersonal threat as predictors of group identification. Crisp et al (2009) examined the link between attachment anxiety and group identification under conditions of attachment threat (i.e., separated, ignored, or rejected, see Dewitte, Koster, De Houwer, & Buysse, 2007) , and found that under threat (an envisaged argument with partner), individuals higher in attachment anxiety identified less with their friendship group than those lower in attachment anxiety.…”

“…Negative expectations of network support can be defined as "a set of expectations or beliefs that it is inadvisable, impossible, useless, or potentially dangerous to draw on network resources" (Vaux, Burda, & Stewart, 1986, p. 413). Previous research has found secure individuals to hold more positive network expectations than insecure individuals (Wallace & Vaux, 1993), with both avoidant and ambivalent (also known as anxious) attachment styles associated with negative network expectations (Larose, Bernier, Soucy, & Duchesne, 1999). …”

“…Although network expectations measured by the Network Orientation Scale (NOS) have previously been examined with regard to attachment anxiety, attachment orientation in these earlier studies was assessed by the three-factor model of attachment (Wallace & Vaux, 1993) and the Attachment Style Questionnaire (Larose et al, 1999). In order to align with previous research on attachment anxiety and group identification (Crisp et al, 2009) and the recent conceptualization of attachment as dimensional (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003;Fraley & Waller, 1998), the pilot examined the link between attachment anxiety, as measured by the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR: Brennan et al, 1998) and expectations of network support (as measured by the NOS) to establish whether scores on attachment anxiety would be negatively associated with network expectations consistent with previous findings (Larose et al, 1999;Wallace & Vaux, 1993).…”

“…The scale is conceptualized in terms of positive-negative expectations (see Vaux et al, 1986). We calculated the scale in accordance with Larose et al (1999) so that a higher mean score indicates positive network expectations, while a lower mean score indicates negative network expectations (α = .78).…”