That is, fewer intrusive memories occurred after being primed with an attachment prime but only for participants with
low avoidant attachment tendencies.
Participants with
low avoidant attachment tendencies who received the attachment primes recalled fewer memories and reported fewer intrusions than those who received the non-attachment primes.
Specifically, participants with
low avoidant attachment reported fewer subsequent intrusive memories when an attachment prime was presented relative to a non-attachment prime (p <.05).
Not exact matches
Duration of breastfeeding was not related to the risk of insecure -
avoidant or insecure - resistant versus secure
attachment classification, but longer duration of breastfeeding predicted a
lower risk of disorganized versus secure
attachment classification (n = 151; odds ratio [OR] = 0.81, 95 % CI 0.66 to 0.99, p =.04).
Indeed, a German study involving a small sample of grandparents found that individuals with an
avoidant attachment had
lower scores on both social integration and physical health than secure individuals (Wensauer and Grossmann 1995).
The previously mentioned findings of high rates of avoidance and
low rates of security in older samples, if replicated in a larger, population - based study, warrant some concern, given the fact that
avoidant attachment is associated with compulsive self - reliance under conditions where it is often not adaptive.
For people
low in
avoidant attachment (i.e., those with less of a need for emotional distance in relationships), their desire for sex was higher when their partners were more responsive, but for those who are highly
avoidant (i.e., those who do express desires to be distant from partners) actually desired sex less as partner responsiveness increased.
Contrary to meta - analytic findings of the earlier literature that focused only on the effects of the amount of care provided without adequately controlling for selection effects, the NICHD Study found that a number of features of child care (the amount of child care, age of entry into care, and the quality and stability of child care) were unrelated to the security of infant — mother
attachments or to an increased likelihood of
avoidant attachments, except when mothers provided less sensitive parenting of their infant.11 For the children who received less sensitive maternal care, extended experience with child care,
lower - quality child care, and more changes in child care arrangements were each associated with an increased likelihood of developing an insecure
attachment with their mothers.
According to Amir Levine,
avoidants tend to end their relationships more frequently, have higher rates of divorce, and score the
lowest on every measure of closeness in contrast with the other
attachment types.
However both subtypes of the
avoidant style did not report higher levels of cognitive avoidance; the level of cognitive avoidance was even very
low in the
avoidant - cooperative
attachment group though these differences have not been significant.
Seven studies on
attachment security / disorganization and child maltreatment in families have been reported, and six studies on
attachment in institution - reared children using the (modified) Strange Situation procedure to assess
attachment.8 In order to examine the impact of child maltreatment on
attachment we compare the studies» combined distribution of
attachment patterns to the normative
low - risk distribution of
attachment (N = 2104, derived from the meta - analysis of Van IJzendoorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans - Kranenburg9): insecure -
avoidant (A): 15 %, secure (B): 62 %, insecure - resistant (C): 9 %, and disorganized (D): 15 %.
The
avoidant attachment is characterized by
low scores on all three subscales.
Persons who displayed more suspicious jealousy had greater insecurity, greater anxious
attachment, greater
avoidant attachment, greater chronic jealousy, and
lower self - esteem.
Median splits were calculated to determine high and
low scorers on the ECR anxious
attachment and
avoidant attachment scales, respectively.
In terms of high and
low scorers on
avoidant attachment, a 2 (Attachment Condition) x 2 (Anxious Attachment) x 2 (Memory Valence) ANOVA of recall responses indicated a significant main effect for Valence [F (1, 56) = 48.22, p =.04], and a significant Attachment Condition x Anxious Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27,
attachment, a 2 (
Attachment Condition) x 2 (Anxious Attachment) x 2 (Memory Valence) ANOVA of recall responses indicated a significant main effect for Valence [F (1, 56) = 48.22, p =.04], and a significant Attachment Condition x Anxious Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27,
Attachment Condition) x 2 (Anxious
Attachment) x 2 (Memory Valence) ANOVA of recall responses indicated a significant main effect for Valence [F (1, 56) = 48.22, p =.04], and a significant Attachment Condition x Anxious Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27,
Attachment) x 2 (Memory Valence) ANOVA of recall responses indicated a significant main effect for Valence [F (1, 56) = 48.22, p =.04], and a significant
Attachment Condition x Anxious Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27,
Attachment Condition x Anxious
Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27,
Attachment interaction [F (1, 56) = 4.27, p =.000].
To determine the potential impact of being highly
avoidant or anxious on the
attachment scale (ECR) on the dependent variables, we conducted separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) that factored in high and
low scores on the anxious
attachment and
avoidant attachment dimension, respectively.