University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Attachment style as a predictor of group conflict, post-conflict relationship repair, trust and leadership style

(USC Thesis Other)

Attachment style as a predictor of group conflict, post-conflict relationship repair, trust and leadership style

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ATTACHMENT STYLE AS A PREDICTOR OF GROUP CONFLICT, POST-
CONFLICT RELATIONSHIP REPAIR, TRUST AND LEADERSHIP STYLE

by
Christopher G. Bresnahan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Christopher Bresnahan

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to many people for helping me become a better
person, researcher and friend throughout my graduate school education.
To my family, all of them, for helping me become the person that I am today. To my
father, for being a rock, a shelter, a friend and the best role model that a son could have.
For the long days and long nights spent providing a place to be heard, to be felt, and to be
loved; thank you. To my moms, for being wonderful role models for what true women
ought to be: caring, compassionate and dedicated to the end. To my brother, for being a
better writer and the best brother that a person could have ever dreamed of. To my step
brothers and sisters, for creating a family when we could have done otherwise. And to
Elyse, for always having a smile. Finally, to Hillary, who has helped me build something
wonderful this summer.
I would also like to thank my educational parents. To Dr. Goodyear, for being a
supportive figure who was there to cajole, to teach and to guide me as I became a
counselor; a truer gift could not have been given. To Dr. David C. Herzog, the best
supervisor and counseling mentor I could have had; if only his laughter could fill every
room! To Dr. Stone, for being supportive, for helping me navigate the process, and for
being honest and true to the process. To Dr. Alpaslan, who helped build me and develop
me into a researcher; the Hatchet still has much work to do. Finally, to Dr. Ian I Mitroff,
who helped me ask questions I couldn’t answer, for giving me the room to succeed and
for always, always insisting that I follow the road less traveled. Without him, I would not
be here today. His heavy hand is etched out in my goals, my dreams and who I am; thank

iii
you. And a thank you is necessary for all the people that helped me edit this dissertation,
both inside and outside of the university.
I would also like to acknowledge all of my friends. To Ryan Smith, for knowing more
about attachment theory and life than I would have hoped, to Michael Summerland, for
listening when I needed, to Nicholas Betty, for keeping my library safe, to Harold
Goodman, for being life’s oldest friend and to Saul Bush, for pushing me when I needed
it. Finally, I would like to thank Travis and Kim Anthony. They helped keep me sane,
they helped keep me laughing, and they helped keep me going. Better friends I could not
asked for in life, especially when the road curved. A special thanks to Travis, who
always made life seem half full, all fun and full of hope.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my grandfather, William H.
Rudloff, who passed away on May 30, 2008. He saw me graduate, which is a small
return on his investment in helping to raise me.
May the rode rise to meet all of you, the wind be always at your back and the sun
shine warm upon your face.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT viii

Chapter I: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations 1
Adult Attachment Theory 3
Purpose of This Study 6

Chapter II: Literature Review 9
An Introduction to Adult Attachment Theory 9
Childhood Attachment Theory 10
Adult Attachment Theory 13
Attachment Style and View of the Self 15
Stability Over Time 16
Attachment Style Differences 17
Attachment Behaviors and the Workplace 21
The Influence of Attachment in Group Settings 24
Group Conflict and Attachment Style 26
Group Conflict: Types and Effects 26
Attachment Style and Conflict 28
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair 31
Relationship Repair 33
Attachment Differences and Repair 37
Interpersonal Trust 39
Attachment Style and Trust 43
Leadership and Attachment 44
Attachment Theory and Leadership 49
Significance of the Study 50
Summary of the Hypotheses 51

Chapter III: Methods 60
Participants 60
Groups 60
Instruments 61
Attachment Style Measures 61
Cognitive and Affective Trust Measure (McAllister, 1995) 62
Intragroup Conflict Scale (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) 63
Post Conflict Relationship Repair 64

v
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII 64
(LBDQ; Stogdill, 1963)
Procedure 66

Chapter IV: Results 69
Preliminary Analyses 69
Participant Attachment Style 69
Group Level Aggregation 70
Correlations and Preliminary Findings 72
Correlations at the Group Level 73
Leadership Level Correlations 75
Hypothesis Testing 78
Hypothesis One 78
Hypothesis Two 80
Hypothesis Three 81
Hypothesis Four 83
Hypothesis Five 84

Chapter V: Discussion 87
Original Findings 87
Hypotheses Findings 88
Hypothesis One 88
Hypothesis Two 91
Hypothesis Three 93
Hypothesis Four 95
Hypothesis Five 95
Summary of Individual Hypotheses 97
Limitations 97
Participant Pool 97
Task 99
Single Data Point Collection 100
Motivation of the Participant 101
Unit of Analysis 101
Future Directions 102
Expansion of Measures 102
Time Stagger 103
Participant Pool 103
Research Directions 104
Conclusion 105

References 107

vi
Appendix A: Template for Grading the Case Analysis 126
Appendix B: Post Conflict Relationship Repair Scale 127

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Measures Used and Target for each Measure 65

Table 2: Group Attachment Style and Number of Each Type of Group 72

Table 3: Correlations 77

Table 4: Group Average Attachment MANOVA for Relationship and 80
Process Conflict

Table 5: Group Attachment and Conflict Type 80

Table 6: Group Attachment Style and Relationship Repair 81

Table 7: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 82
Three

Table 8: Group Average Attachment MANOVA for Individual Level 84
Affective Trust and Cognitive Trust

Table 9: Group Attachment Style and Level of Trust 84

Table 10: Leader’s Attachment MANOVA for Initiating Structure and 85
Showing Consideration

Table 11: Leader Attachment Style and Leadership Behavior 86

Table 12: Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale, Initial Communalities 129
Estimates and Factor Loadings

viii
ABSTRACT
This study focused on attachment theory and its relationship to trust, conflict,
relationship repair and leadership style. Participants were 226 undergraduate students
that completed a case analysis project in teams as part of a class. Data was collected
from the individual participants regarding level of team conflict, level of trust between
the group members and attempts at relationship repair after a conflict. Data was also
collected at the individual level regarding that individual’s attachment style, their trust in
the group leader and their perception of the group leader’s leadership style. Individual
responses were aggregated to the group level, and data was analyzed at the group level.
Two of the five hypotheses proposed were supported, at least partially, by the data.
Groups that were higher in avoidance were shown to experience the most amount of
conflict relative to the other attachment styles. Also, there was a relationship shown
between level of conflict, post-conflict relationship repair and affective trust. These
results are discussed in relationship to research on attachment theory, and future
directions for research are also discussed.

1
CHAPTER I
Conceptual and Empirical Foundations
Organizational behavior theorists have borrowed liberally from psychology.
Psychological theories and concepts such as interpersonal trust (Deutsch, 1973),
motivation (Maslow, 1970), locus of control (Rotter, 1971) and coping mechanisms
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) all have been applied to phenomena within the working
environment, as has the concept of emotional intelligence (Goleman, Boyatzis, &
McKee, 2002). These theories have enhanced our understanding of workplace-related
issues such as trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), leadership training (Bennis,
2003), negotiation/conflict resolution (Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000), employee
empowerment and self-managed teams.
Organizational behavior is an area that profits from the use of psychological theories,
but also provides a service for psychological theories at the same time. That is,
organizational behavior research extends psychological theories to real-world settings,
allowing for an increase in the understanding of the psychological theories themselves.
This between-discipline complementary allows both fields to benefit, increasing our
understanding of human behavior (Mitroff & Linstone, 1993).
But applications of some psychological theories have been difficult to validate in
organizational behavior research. Specifically, applications of psychodynamic theory to
organizational behavior have been limited mainly to theoretical work (e.g. Brown, 1997;
Brown & Starkey, 2000; de Vries & Miller, 1985; Zaleznik, 1995, 2004). Though the
writings of these authors often are illustrative, insightful and useful, their fundamental

2
insights can be difficult to turn into measurable constructs; the unconscious and most
other psychodynamic constructs can be difficult to study in any context.
But there is one psychodynamic-derived construct that has been reliably studied and
which has obtained strong research support: Attachment theory. First studied by Bowlby
and his associates (Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1969; Robertson & Bowlby, 1952),
attachment theory looks at the fundamental importance that the relationship between
caregiver (usually the mother) and child plays in personality development. This bond
between caregiver and child is seen as a secure base from which the child explores
reality. The way a parent differentially responds to the child creates a relational
attachment between them, and influences the interaction between the two as the child
grows older.
Attachment styles are defined as the child’s internalized models (“mental
representations of attachment figures and the self” (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995; p. 1203),
that “direct thoughts, feelings and behavior in interpersonal interactions” (Pietromonaco
& Feldman-Barrett, 1997: p. 1409). These internal working models not only have been
hypothesized to continue into adulthood (Bowlby, 1988), but also have been shown to
influence adult relationships (Simpson, Collins, Tran, & Haydon, 2007). This
hypothesized relationship has been the basis for a new field of study, adult attachment
theory. The study of adulthood attachment began with the work of Hazan and Shaver
(1987), and has been an active area of inquiry. It also has informed this study.

3
Adult Attachment Theory
Adult attachment theory has been applied to many interpersonal behaviors. Coping
with interpersonal conflict (Collins & Feeney, 2000, 2004; Feeney & Collins, 2001;
Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996) trust of others (Collins & Read, 1990; Mikulincer,
1998c), daily interactions (Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 1997; Tidwell, Reis, &
Shaver, 1996) and even viewpoints on religiousness (Kirkpatrick, 2002; Rowatt &
Kirkpatrick, 2002) all have been linked to the emotional bonding process between
caregiver and child.
Attachment-related phenomena can occur in a variety of settings and with people
outside of close relationships, such as friends, teachers or individuals at work. Hazan and
Shaver (1990) showed that attachment affects many aspects of human behavior in the
workplace, including time spent at work, work-family balance and desire for recognition
within the workplace (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).
Hazan and Shaver noted that “an important question that remains unanswered
concerns how attachment type related to actual work performance” (1990: p. 279). The
several attempts to look at this question have obtained mixed results. Burge, Hammen,
Davila, Daley, Paley, Herzberg, and Lindberg (1997) found no significant relationship
between attachment and school performance. Joplin, Nelson and Quick also looked at
performance in school, adding a self-report performance in the workplace measure, but
again with null findings (Joplin, Nelson, & Quick, 1999).
But several studies did find that attachment style predicted performance. Horppu and
Ikonen-Varila (2001) found that individuals who differed in attachment style performed
differentially during actual college entrance interviews. Rom and Miklunicer (2003), too,

4
found significant differences between individuals’ performance when their attachment
style was taken into account.
Participants in the Rom and Milulincer (2003) study were Israeli army recruits who
were placed into temporary teams and asked to complete several tasks related to army
training. Their individual attachment styles were found to affect their individual
performance within the group. This and an earlier study (Smith, Murphy & Coates,
1999) point to individual effects on performance within a group setting, indicating that
attachment style predicts performance differences when individuals are in groups.
Yet, neither study examined performance of the group as a whole. Researchers have
shown that individual differences can influence overall group performance (Chatman,
Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, &
Xin, 1999). But neither of these studies (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003; Smith et al., 1999) nor
any others have examined both overall group performance and individual group member
attachment style. This leaves an important gap in the literature.
Individual differences influence overall group performance in many ways. Chatman,
Polzer, Barsade and Neale (1998) found that individual differences such as cultural
background and ethical diversity impacted overall group performance. They found that
cultural and ethical diversity decreased interpersonal interactions, which reduces group
performance on complex, interdependent tasks. Jehn, Northcraft and Neale (1999) found
that value-based diversity increases relationship conflict and decreases group
performance. Finally, Pelled, Eisenhardt and Xin (1999) found that individual
differences such as ethnic, gender and values diversity impacted overall group

5
performance. This research indicates that individual differences as a whole interact with
group dynamics that affect group performance.
Attachment-based individual differences are fundamental differences that affect an
individual’s worldview (Mikulincer, Shaver & Zanna, 2003). As these differences affect
an individual’s thoughts, behaviors and feelings when interacting with others, this study
posits that they are as valid a form of diversity as cultural or demographic diversity. As
cultural and demographic diversity affects group performance, this study aims to explore
if attachment-based individual differences also affect group performance in a similar
manner.
Specifically, research has shown that individuals with insecure attachment styles
perform differently on group related tasks. Mikulincer and Rom (2003) found that
anxiously attached individuals display below average skills in group tasks. Both
anxiously and avoidantly attached individuals showed lower levels of instrumental
functioning during group tasks. Avoidantly attached individuals also showed lower
levels of group cohesion during this research. In business, group cohesion is seen as an
important factor in overall group performance (Beal, et al, 2003). Thus, research that
looks at attachment and group performance tasks that require cohesion and
interdependent functioning could uncover factors that influence overall group
performance. This research will analyze how these individual differences affect group
performance, and see if the Mikuincer and Rom (2003) findings also apply to work
situations. It will also extend the previous research by looking at the actual performance
of teams performing business-related tasks.

6
Researchers have shown that attachment-related differences predict interpersonal
thoughts, feelings and responses. This research has occurred at the dyadic level in
counseling relationships (Lopez & Brennan, 2000), romantic relationships (Collins &
Read, 1990; Feeney, 2004a; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994) and
supervisor-supervisee relationships (Tsong, 2004).
Leadership style also has been shown to be affected by attachment style (Mikulincer
& Florian, 1995; Popper, Mayseless, & Castelnovo, 2000; Towler, 2005). Both
established leaders and individuals with leadership capabilities -- also known as emergent
leaders -- have been linked to attachment style (Popper et al., 2000; Towler, 2005). In
summary, whereas attachment-related phenomena have been looked at extensively at one
level of analysis (the dyad), this has not occurred at the group level, despite hypotheses
about this relationship at the organizational or large group level (Kahn & Kram, 1994;
Manning, 2003).
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this study was to extend previous research about the effect of
attachment style on group performance. Currently the literature on individual differences
between group members has been dominated by issues related to diversity (Jehn,
Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999) and the Big Five personality types (Bono,
Boles, Judge, & Lauver, 2002; Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt,
2002). These are vital to understanding group dynamics and performance issues. Yet,
adding the lens of attachment could bring a broader understanding of interpersonal
interactions into this phenomenon.

7
The usefulness of attachment theory is to focus individual differences at the relational
level. One of attachment theories’ basic assumptions is that people are inherently
relational, and that we seek out different relationship patterns based on our attachment
style (Bowlby, 1988). This dissertation examined how one’s attachment-based
relationship orientation affected group-level issues such as trust, conflict resolution and
relationship repair, issues that can all affect group dynamics and, in turn, performance.
To look at these issues, functioning case analysis groups were assembled randomly
from students in a business school’s organizational behavior class. These students were
given a written overview of a company that had several different problems to address,
asked to analyze those problems, and then turn in a written report about the problems and
these problem’s potential solutions. This task was a useful vehicle to study attachment-
related behaviors because case analyses are seen as complex and interdependent (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001), prerequisites for necessitating a group of individuals to solve the problem
efficiently and effectively (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003).
After the students submitted their case analysis project, they were asked about: (a)
group trust (their individual viewpoint of how much they felt the group trusted each
other), (b) group conflict (the level of conflict within the group) and, (c) relationship
repair after a conflict within the group. They also were asked to name a single student
from the group as that group’s leader, and asked how strongly they trusted that person,
how well that student performed his or her leadership role and other issues that will be
discussed later in the paper. Finally, they were asked about their own individual
attachment style. The purpose of this project was to examine how individual attachment

8
style might affect group trust, group conflict, level of relationship repair, within group
leadership style, and group performance.

9

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
In this chapter, I will address five areas of research in this chapter: attachment theory,
conflict that occurs within groups, relationship repair after a conflict, interpersonal trust
and leadership issues. Each section will define one of these concepts, provide a relevant
history for it, present relevant research and theory, and then expand upon the basic
definition of the concept. Finally, each body of research will be applied to the current
study, and hypotheses about how that concept will interact with the other concepts will be
given.
Extensive research joins several of these topics, and I will attempt to address these
overlaps as they occur. For example, the literatures on conflict and trust have significant
overlap in several areas, and I will discuss each separately, and then attempt to look at
how they affect each other. I also will then conclude this chapter with a summary of all
of my hypotheses.
An Introduction to Adult Attachment Theory
Adult attachment theory (Hazan & Shaver 1987, 1990) is an extension of Bowlby’s
(1969) theory of the bond between infant and caregiver. Bowlby (1969, 1971, 1973) was
extremely interested in Konrad Lorenz’s ducks and the bonding process that occurred.
He extended the idea of an innate bonding process from ducks to humans, asserting that
there was an extended bonding period between the child and the caregiver. This
behavioral system enables the child to achieve a felt security (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). It
keeps a child within the proximity of a primary caregiver, and provides actual security

10
from dangers, a platform from which to explore (what Bowbly referred to as a secure
base (1988), and provide an evolutionary advantage to the child (Simpson, 1999).
As caregivers respond to children’s attempts to seek proximity (by crying and facial
expressions as an infant and, later, in more ambulatory ways), their children develop
internalized models of themselves and of their caregivers (Bowlby, 1973). These
internalized models serve two purposes:
1. They achieve the goal of “predict[ing] the behavior of others and [for] plan[ning]
one’s own behavior to achieve relational goals” (Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 1999, p.
192) and,
2. To “direct thoughts, feelings and behavior in interpersonal interactions”
(Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 1997, p. 1409).
Attachment working models, although pervasive, tend to be reliably activated within
three situations (Kobak, 1994): Fear-provoking situations, challenging situations, and
interpersonal conflict. These three situations create separate, attachment-based desires.
These desires are to: Seek out supportive others, make contact with others who are seen
as a secure base, and preserve the relationship with the other person in the relationship
(Kobak & Duemmler, 1994).
Childhood Attachment Theory
Adult attachment theory is grounded in childhood attachment theory. Therefore, a
review of childhood attachment theory will allow adult attachment theory to be placed in
a broader historical context. Whereas Bowlby (1969) and others (Ainsworth, 1969)
conceptualized attachment theory as important for overall personality development from
child into adult, they mainly focused on parent-child interactions.

11
Bowlby began to develop attachment theory when he worked in a children’s ward
during World War II (the following history is summarized from Karen, 1994). He was
focused on the reunion between a child and his or her parents after wartime separations or
a child’s illness (at the time, isolation of the child was recommended if the child was ill).
He studied these children, pre- and post-reunion with their parents, and theorized that
parental separation for a significant period of time (e.g., two to six weeks) had an effect
on the quality of the parent-child relationship.
He noted that after extended separations from a parent, children displayed a
constellation of responses during the reunion. They tended then to be colder,
inconsolable by parents, unemotional to the point of disinterest in the parent and
otherwise distant from the parent.
Bowlby and his assistant, Mary Ainsworth, explored these children’s different
responses to separation and reunion in a laboratory setting using the “strange situation”
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). The experimenter, the parent and the child
all would enter a room with toys; the room is equipped with a video camera and a one-
way mirror. The experimenter then would engage the child in play with the toys and
unnoticed by the child, the parent would leave the room. The experimenter then would
point out to the child that the parent is gone and note the child’s response. After 90
seconds the parent would re-enter the room, and the experimenter again would note the
child’s response.
This cycle of separation and return would be repeated up to seven times. These
experiments (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall, 1978) led to the development of a
differential taxonomy of responses to the absence and return of the child’s primary

12
caregiver (in the experimental case, the mother of the child). That taxonomy is the basis
of attachment theory.
The taxonomy had three different attachment styles (as defined by Ainsworth et al,
1978): Secure (approximately 60% of children), anxious (roughly 30%) and avoidant
(roughly 10%). The secure child was despondent that the parent had left, but consolable
by the parent upon return to the room. Reunification with the parent consisted in an
increase in proximity between parent and child, a reduction in distress by the child, and a
re-engagement in play with the experimenter after some time. The child with an anxious
attachment style also responded tearfully when the parent was gone, but during reunion
with the parent responded with an increase in crying, tantrum-like behavior and, at times,
physical attacks towards the parent. The child also was mostly inconsolable by the
parent.
The avoidantly attached child showed little to no response to his or her awareness that
the parent had left. The child had a reunion similarly devoid of affect, with the child
either not acknowledging the parent’s return to the room or offering a minimal response
to the parent’s return. This taxonomy later was expanded to include a fourth, fearful
attachment style since (Crittenden, 1985), characterized by freezing behaviors and
approach-avoidance behavior during reunification with the parent.
The child’s response in this situation is understood as a microcosm of the relationship
between the caregiver and the child. It is inferred in these situations that a child’s
internal working model of the parent’s ability to care for that child is activated, and drives
the behaviors of the child during the strange situation experiment.

13
Extensive empirical work has validated the taxonomy. Intelligence, social skills,
coping mechanisms, and types of psychopathology have been linked to attachment style
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These attachment styles have been measured reliably (see
Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998, for a review of measurement issues) and shown to
persist over time (Davila, Burge & Hammen, 1997), with around 70% of participants
showing the same attachment style in spans up to four years (Kirkpatrick & Hazan,
1994). Adult internal working models are also shown to operate largely outside of
conscious awareness (Banai, Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005; Kobak & Hazan, 1991).
Adult Attachment Theory
The taxonomy of adult attachment styles mirrors those of childhood attachment styles
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Originally, adult attachment research was based on the
categorical typology used by Ainsworth, et al (1971). Hazan and Shaver (1987) adjusted
this typology to adult equivalents using a self-report, categorical measure to research
adult romantic love (there were three categories at that time: Secure, avoidant and
anxious). This measure focused on how the individual thought about other individuals
while in a romantic relationship. The original studies of adult attachment were
promising, and used the self-report, categorical measures for the most part.
Research showed that individuals with different attachment styles behaved in
differentially predicted ways that were appropriate to that individual’s attachment style
(Collins & Read, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1990; Kobak & Hazan, 1991). But, for
the most part, the original three-category model now has been replaced by a four-
category model, or is used as a preliminary measure of attachment (Fraley & Shaver,
1998).

14
The Hazan and Shaver measure (1987) focused on attitudes towards others. But this
provides a partial story about how attachment based, internalized working models
function. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) showed that adult attachment models are
based on a cross-classification of positive and negative models of the others and on
positive and negative models of the self.
The current trend is to assess attachment-related thoughts using two orthogonal
dimensions (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000b). One
dimension concerns high versus low avoidance (i.e., “the tendency to avoid or withdraw
from closeness and intimacy in relationships,” Simpson, Rhodes & Phillips, 1996, p.
900), with higher scores indicating more avoidant behaviors. The other dimension
concerns high versus low anxiety (i.e., “the tendency to have conflicted and
countervailing thoughts and feelings about whether others can be counted on in
relationships,” Simpson et al, 1996, p. 900), with higher scores indicating more anxious
behaviors.
These dimensions of avoidance and anxiety are gaining prominence as a way to
conceptualize attachment (Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Fraley et al., 2000b). In fact, one way
that the field is consolidating the research is to place the avoidant and anxious dimensions
on X and Y, creating four quadrants. An individual’s response to these dimensions are
placed on the quadrant and assigned an attachment style that is generally related to the
original four adult attachment styles. Nevertheless, the use of continuous anxiety and
avoidance scales picks up more subtleties than this categorical system permits (Fraley et
al., 2000b).

15
In the next section, I will define the four different adult attachment styles using both
the continuous, dimensional terminology as well as the discrete categorical terms. All of
the definitions that follow in italics are taken from Collins and Feeney (2000, p. 1054),
which use the continuous conceptualization of the variables. These definitions are
expanded using the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) categorical conceptualization of
how the individual views the self and the other. Although most current research is
conducted using the continuous variables, some researchers continue to use the
categorical conceptualization of attachment styles.
Attachment Style and View of the Self
Two attachment styles – both with low levels of attachment anxiety -- are
characterized by a positive view of the self. An individual who is low on both avoidance
and anxiety is seen as being secure. He or she is willing to rely on others for support, and
is able to tolerate closeness and feel valued by others.
On the other hand, an individual who is high on avoidance and low on anxiety is seen
as being dismissing-avoidant; he or she views relationships with others as relatively
unimportant, and value independence and being self-reliant. These individuals have a
negative view of others and a positive view of self (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
The two attachment styles characterized by a negative view of self both also carry
high anxiety. An individual who is low on avoidance and high on anxiety is seen as
anxious-preoccupied: worrying about being rejected by others and having an exaggerated
desire for closeness and intimacy with others. Such an individual has a positive view of
others, and a negative view of self (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). On the other hand,
an individual with high avoidance and high anxiety is seen as avoidant-fearful, desiring

16
close relationships and approval from others, but fearing rejection to the point of avoiding
getting close to others (Collins & Feeney, 2000, p. 1054). Such an individual has a
negative view of others and of the self (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Whereas research has shown some of what avoidant-fearful individuals experience
and their social histories (e.g., a history of abuse as a child (Crittenden, 1985; Siegal,
1999), they tend to be rare and so have been lightly studied (see Vasquez, Durik & Hyde,
2002, for an example of research done on fearful attachment).
Stability Over Time
Although these attachment styles are relatively stable, some changes occur as the
individual’s life circumstances evolve Approximately 30% of people change attachment
style over a four-month to four-year period (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997; Davila,
Karney, & Bradbury, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994). Changes towards insecure
attachments can be in response to such events as the death of a loved one or being in an
abusive relationship (Davila et al., 1997). Changes towards having more secure
attachments occur through interaction with significant others--such as friends, getting
married, being with a close romantic partner--or within the context of a therapeutic
relationship (Davila et al., 1999; Lopez & Brennan, 2000). Travis, Bliwise, Binder, and
Horne-Moyer (2001) found that individuals were more secure after an average of 25
sessions of individual psychotherapy.
Generally, though, attachment style is relatively stable unless something profound
happens to challenge one’s assumptions about the world. In fact, attachment style has
been shown to be stable enough to transfer through three different generations (Benoit &
Parker, 1994). These different findings show that in order for attachment style to change

17
individuals must, over time, confront their automated, mostly unconscious
preconceptions about others. This can be done in the context of a marriage, where people
learn to depend on each other, thus changing internal working models towards a more
secure orientation (Davila et al., 1999). On the other hand, attachment style can also
change when a life event so dramatically alters the individual’s perception of reality that
his or her attachment style changes towards being less secure (Davila et al., 1997).
Attachment Style Differences
There are many differences between attachment patterns, several of which will be
explored in this section. Each attachment style predicts a particular pattern of feeling and
thinking (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Collins, 1996; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These
differences can be pervasive, especially if one’s attachment style is activated by threat or
worry (Mikulincer, Gillath, & Shaver, 2002; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Zanna, 2003b).
Some differences between the attachment styles concern differences in willingness to
trust others (Mikulincer, 1998c), the ability to provide and receive emotional support
from others (Collins & Feeney, 2000; 2004), the use of defense and coping mechanisms
(Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995), the size of social support network (Anders & Tucker,
2000), health differences (Berant, Mikulincer, & Florian, 2001; Florian, Mikulincer, &
Taubman, 1995; Joplin et al., 1999) and many others (see the Handbook of Attachment,
Theory, Research and Clinical Applications (1999) for an extensive review).
Another area of difference is how individuals seek support from others. When
individuals experience threat, their internal working model for attachment may be
activated, which then creates a behavioral response (Mikulincer et al., 2003b). This
pattern also occurs if an individual feels the relationship with a close other is threatened.

18
There are constellations of behaviors associated with the activation of the attachment
system. The first has to do with individuals who are high on attachment anxiety. They
have a “hypervigilant” attachment-related response to these types of threats in which they
frantically seek out others and excessive reassurance (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Avoidant
types have a second, “deactivating” attachment-related response, in which they over-
control their desire to relate to others via a series of defense mechanisms and concentrate
on issues unrelated to the current threat (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Secure individuals tend
to increase proximity to close others and increase emotional expression at the same time,
signaling their distress without needing excessive reassurance, and engage in
instrumental problem solving, as needed (Waters, Rodrigues, & Ridgeway, 1998).
One of the overarching issues is how people with different attachment styles interact
with others, and what their goals are for these interactions. The following paragraphs
will summarize research done on people with the three main attachment styles when the
they are interacting with others. Each paragraph also will address research that looks at
the relational goal for that particular attachment type. Whereas I have discussed internal
working models previously, the following paragraphs will summarize some of what the
literature shows about these internal working models. The fearful attachment style
(negative view of both self and other) will not be included in this summary, as it is not as
well researched as the other attachment styles at this time.
Secure Attachment Style. Tidwell et al. (1996) showed that individuals with secure
attachments were, relative to those with other attachment styles, more able in day to day
interactions to differentiate among their friends and romantic partners, showing that each
relationship was seen as a unique experience. When in a relationship, person with the

19
secure attachment style has the goal of maintaining a close relationship, and will express
warm emotions as relationship-enhancing behavior (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Secure
individuals also tend to be more discerning with whom they share their feelings, and tend
to be more open with close others when expressing themselves (Mikulincer & Nachshon,
1991).
Individuals with this attachment style tend to view themselves and the person with
whom they are in a relationship positively (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). This positive
mind-set has been seen in several different settings, from the workplace (Sumer &
Knight, 2001) to working more effectively and creatively when a positive mind-set is
induced (Mikulincer & Sheffi, 2000). When in a close relationship, individuals with a
secure attachment style also make active efforts, even after a conflict, to continue to think
positively about the other person and the relationship (Simpson et al., 1996).
Anxious Attachment Style. Anxiously attached individuals have higher levels of
emotional fluctuation (and perhaps control) than do avoidant or secure individuals
(Tidwell et al., 1996). Pietromonaco and Feldman-Barrett (1997) found that anxious
individuals respond to conflict in the moment, as do those with other attachment styles.
But, when asked to recall it later, they tend to magnify the conflict. Here, the internal
working models could be filling in the gaps of an experience with working model-
congruent thoughts, which would lead to recall of conflicts as more intense.
The goal of a person with anxious attachment style is to maximize closeness for
security purposes, as there are points where their self-concept comes from the validation
and support of others (Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005; Wei, Mallinckrodt,

20
Larson, & Zakalik, 2005). Lack of this validation is linked to depression (Shaver et al.,
2005; Wei et al., 2005).
One of the most important issues that individuals with anxious attachment face is the
threat, real or imagined, of abandonment. This threat can generate behaviors intended to
increase closeness to the other (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These behaviors can be
clingy or the seeking of excessive reassurance at times (Shaver et al., 2005). Moreover,
anxiously attached individuals are more likely than those with other attachment styles to
increase the intensity of a conflict (Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005) as a
strategy for increasing closeness. Interestingly, after a conflict, anxiously attached
individuals feel closer to their partner (Pistole & Frank, 2003), though they are not
positive about the relationship when asked about it (Simpson et al., 1996).
Avoidant Attachment Style. Individuals with an avoidant attachment style tend to
structure their world to minimize interpersonal interaction, and to avoid situations that
may increase closeness within a relationship (Tidwell et al., 1996). These individuals
also seek control over their emotions, to the point where they can actively suppress them
(Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Individuals with an avoidant attachment style not only desire
control, but have a series of well-structured defense mechanisms that enable them to
deny, distort and devalue what goes on around them in reality (Fraley, Davis, & Shaver,
1998).
Individuals with avoidant attachment style also tend to want to control social
interactions, at times imposing their will on others so that they can control not only their
feelings, but the physical space between themselves and their partner (Kaitz, Bar-Haim,
Lehrer, & Grossman, 2004), as well as their partner’s emotions (Feeney & Collins, 2001;

21
Feeney, 1999). The goal of the avoidantly attached individual is to maintain distance, but
not to the point where the other person leaves the relationship (Pietromonaco,
Greenwood, & Barrett, 2004). This leaves them in what can be termed an approach-
avoid dynamic with another person when in a relationship.
Attachment Behaviors and the Workplace
Only a few studies have examined the utility of attachment theory in predicting
workplace behaviors and performance. Hazan and Shaver (1990), for example, showed
there was a relationship between different attachment styles and several workplace
attitudes. In particular, they found that anxious individuals felt underappreciated at work,
and took on too many responsibilities. Anxious individuals also worked to gain the
approval of the people around them at work. Hazan and Shaver (1990) also found that
avoidant types tended to use work to cover up difficult relationships at home, and to
believe they spent too much time at work. Secure individuals were found to be the
happiest. They were most likely to rate themselves as positive employees while also
believing others would rate them as good employees as well.
Several studies have used the lens of attachment to examine the relationship between
leaders and followers (Popper, Amit, Gal, Mishkal-Sinai, & Lisak, 2004; Popper et al.,
2000; Towler, 2005). This research will be discussed further in the section on leadership.
Other workplace-related behaviors, including the desired contractual relationship
between employee and employer (Krausz, Bizman, & Braslavsky, 2001), health-related
issues and work (Joplin et al., 1999; Nelson & Quick, 1991), work difficulties (Hardy &
Barkham, 1994) and work-family balance issues (Sumer & Knight, 2001; Vasquez et al.,
2002) have been shown to differentiate individuals with different attachment styles.

22
Sumer and Knight’s (2001) research illustrates these attachment style differences well.
They found that secure individuals transfer positive experiences and the related positive
affective state between work and family environments (what is called “positive
spillover,” p. 653) in both directions but that they do not transfer negative experiences
and related affect between environments. Anxious individuals, though, tend to leave
positive experiences and related affect in one environment, but to transfer negative
experiences and affect between settings. Finally, avoidant individuals were found to have
no spillover between these two environments (Sumer & Knight, 2001).
In short, individuals with secure attachment styles are seen as able to cope with
stressors more effectively, and carry positive experiences with them. Staw, Sutton and
Pelled, (1994) showed that positive affect in the workplace leads to higher evaluations
and higher pay, as determined by a supervisor. Thus, theoretically, secure individuals,
who have more positive spillover in affective state, may have an advantage due to this
positive spillover.
Although hundreds of scholarly articles have discussed the differential expressions of
attachment style, this subject has been underemphasized in the business literature. This is
surprising because attachment theory addresses many individual differences that are
important in organizations. Issues such as leader-member relationships (Dirks & Ferrin,
2002), interpersonal trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Rotter, 1971) and conflict resolution
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996) have potential overlay with dispositional-based attachment
differences.
In addition to the small research literature, several theory papers have looked at the
application of attachment theory to workplace phenomena. These have included

23
theoretical pieces on the relationship between organizations and employees (Kahn &
Kram, 1994; Keller, 2003), leadership behaviors (Popper & Mayseless, 2003) and dyad
leader-follower relationships (Keller, 2006).
Kahn and Katz (1994) and Keller (2003) have proposed maps of what the relationship
between supervisors and supervisees who exemplify the different attachment types would
look like. For example, what a secure supervisor and an avoidant supervisee, or an
avoidant supervisor and a secure supervisee, etc., would look like during daily
interactions. Although a nice first step in creating hypothetical, predictive relationships,
they have not been validated.
These theoretical articles also tend not to incorporate research findings from the
attachment literature. This results in omissions, such as the failure to include the fearful-
avoidant attachment type, which is estimated to comprise about 10% of the population
(Siegal, 1999). It also results in misinformation. For example, theoretical articles tend to
posit that similar attachment styles (secure-secure, avoidant-avoidant and preoccupied-
preoccupied) would relate best and prefer working with each other over other types of
attachment styles (Kahn & Kram, 1994; Keller, 2003), though this is not supported
empirically (Collins & Read, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson, 1990). It has
been shown that most people prefer secure individuals when looking at close
relationships with others (Chappell & Davis, 1998; Klohnen & Luo, 2003).
Research on close relationships also shows that assorted pairing, or pairing with other
individuals with similar attachment styles, does not occur regularly among many of the
attachment styles (Collins & Read, 1990; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson, 1990).
Thus, “birds of a feather don’t flock together,” with one exception: The previous studies

24
(e.g., Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994) indicate that secure individuals tend to prefer other
secure individuals in dating, within friendships and as ideal people with whom to interact.
Some studies have found that assortive mating does occur outside of secure-secure
couples (Banse, 2004), though findings are infrequent.
Although individuals prefer relationships with secure individuals, they have secondary
preferences as well. When asked about an ideal situation, people prefer others with
secure attachments, then they prefer their own attachment style (in other words, one’s
own attachment style comes in second place for preferred alternative to secure attachment
style; Klohnen & Luo, 2003; Latty-Mann & Davis, 1996). Therefore, leadership theorists
are partially correct about preferring one’s own attachment style as an ideal working
relationship, but only when looking at the secure-secure relationships (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007), or if a secure individual is not available for a relationship.
The Influence of Attachment in Group Settings
The overarching assumption of this study is that attachment-related differences will
play a significant part in interpersonal interactions in group-related and dyad-related
phenomenon (see, e.g., Rom & Mikulincer, 2003; Smith et al., 1999; Towler, 2005).
This is based on the assumption that attachment working models are activated within
three main situations (Kobak, 1994): Fear-provoking situations; challenging situations,
and, interpersonal conflict.
These three situations create separate, attachment-based desires. These desires are to:
seek out supportive others; make contact with others who are seen as a secure base; and,
preserve the relationship with others (Kobak, 1994). These three triggering events (fear,
challenge and conflict) occur within group-related phenomena, dyad-related behaviors or

25
within the workplace in general. A surprise visit to an individual’s office by a vice
president, a looming deadline or union-management quarrels can all be sources of fear,
challenge or conflict (or a combination of all three!).
Thus conflict, challenge or fear most likely will occur if individuals are placed in
group situations and motivated to perform well. This activates attachment-related internal
working models. To exam that process in this study, undergraduate case analysis teams
were examined to examine if attachment style predicted response to conflict and trust
issues. Case analysis teams have been shown to engage reliably in conflict (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001; Jehn & Shah, 1997), experience different levels of trust (Simons &
Peterson, 2000) and perform differently based on differing levels of conflict and trust
(Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Porter & Lilly, 1996). Therefore I predict that an individual’s
attachment style will affect individual’s level of trust and conflict within these case
analysis groups.
In other words, individuals who have a specific attachment style (secure, anxious-
ambivalent, etc.) will respond differently to group phenomena based upon their
attachment-related internal working models. If these models are not activated, no
differences will appear between individuals from different attachment types. Due to the
large body of research that looks at attachment differences, this assumption is well-
supported and does not need a hypothesis of its own. Future assumptions about the role
that attachment differences play will be expanded upon with their own hypotheses.

26
Group Conflict and Attachment Style
I hypothesized that attachment-related differences would predict group-level
interpersonal conflict as well as conflicts that occur between group members. Conflict is
the involved parties’ awareness of discrepancies, incompatible wishes or irreconcilable
desires (Boulding, 1963). Deutch (1973) extended the definition further and stated that
conflict could be positive in some cases in that it can provide a way for movement out of
stagnant thinking. In fact, conflict has gone from being understood as something to be
prevented to something that can be positive. As the orientation towards conflict has
changed, the definition of conflict has been broadened to look at potentially useful and/or
destructive forms of conflict.
Group Conflict: Types and Effects
Three different aspects or types of intra-group conflict have been researched
extensively at the small group (i.e., fewer than 20 people) level. Relationship conflict is
“an awareness of interpersonal difficulties, includes affective components such as feeling
tension and friction” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). It has been found to be negatively
related to group performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), interpersonal trust between
group members (Simons & Peterson, 2000) and team members’ willingness to work
again with fellow group members (Jehn, 1995).
Process conflict is “an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task
accomplishment will proceed” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 239). It is associated with
lower group morale and poorer performance of the group (Jehn, 1997). Finally, task
conflict, is “an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to group
task,” but devoid of intense negative interpersonal emotions (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p.

27
238). Task conflict has been found to be somewhat beneficial to the group process, as it
stimulates creative ideas, consolidates the goals of the group and encourages different
viewpoints to be aired, all of which results in better decision making and reduces
groupthink (Jehn, 1995).
The debate within the small group literature has circled around two main questions:
(1) Does one type of conflict cause another type of conflict (e.g., does having a
relationship conflict in a group cause task conflicts to occur?); and, (2) can one type of
conflict be induced without having the other types raise in intensity (e.g., can a leader
stimulate task conflict by introducing a devil’s advocate into the group without raising
the level of relationship conflict?). Findings related to these questions have been mixed
(see De Dreu and Weingart, 2003, for a review), though it has been shown consistently
that the greater the relationship conflict between group members, the lower the level of
group performance.
With respect to the first question, relationship conflict has been found to cause higher
levels of task and process conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; De Dreu & Weingart,
2003; Jehn, 1995). When people disagree with each other personally, disagreements
begin in what previously were neutral and agreed-upon group standards, such as deciding
roles, delegating tasks, etc. (Barki & Hartwick, 2004; Jehn, 1997). This generalization
moves beyond interpersonal conflict and starts to affect the goals, motivation and desire
to remain a team among the group members (Jehn et al., 1999). This lowers the
performance of the group and increases the level of within-group task conflict.
The second question, whether one type of conflict can be induced without having the
other types raise in intensity, has several findings associated with it. It has been shown

28
that you can split, or at least attenuate, the link between relationship and task conflict if
there are high levels of trust between the group members (Simons & Peterson, 2000).
Thus, you can increase task conflict, which has been shown to increase group
performance (Jehn, 1995), without an increase in relationship conflict (Simons &
Peterson, 2000).
Several mediators and moderators affect the means by which conflict affects the
group. Individuals’ values (Jehn et al., 1997), the diversity of the members of the group
(Ely & Thomas, 2001; Jehn et al., 1999) and interpersonal trust (Peterson & Behfar,
2003) have been shown to influence intra-group conflict. These issues affect the level
and types of conflict within a group (Jehn et al., 1999), as well as perception of conflict
(Bono et al., 2002).
Attachment Style and Conflict
Conflict is inherent to most groups of people or work teams, but how people cope
with, experience and engage in conflict can be an intra-psychic issue in many ways
(Bono et al., 2002). Attachment style is potentially an intra-psychic phenomenon, but
this has not yet been validated.
Two circumstances predict the activation of attachment-based internal working
models. The first circumstance concerns whether a conflict is a threat to the attachment
relationship itself (e.g., discussing breaking up, a serious illness in one of the partners), or
more peripheral (e.g., where to go to dinner, where to vacation) (Bowlby, 1980). If the
conflict threatens the overall relationship, it is likely the attachment system is activated.
Conflict less centrally threatening to the relationship may activate the attachment system.

29
But whether that occurs or not depends on the situation and at times, the individual’s
attachment style (Pietromonaco et al., 2004).
The second circumstance concerns whether the specific instance of a conflict provides
an opportunity for one partner in the relationship to express emotions and increase
intimacy with the other (Bowlby, 1980). In that circumstance, the person’s attachment
system is most likely activated to resolve the conflict and discuss emotions that occur
within the context of the relationship problem. In any case, people will respond to
conflict differently, depending on attachment style.
Conflict and the person with a secure attachment style. Individuals with a secure
attachment style are more willing to compromise or to use mutually beneficial strategies
(Sanderson & Karetsky, 2002; Shi, 2003) and to be more positive than insecure
individuals (Creasey, 2002). They also will show fewer dysfunctional emotions
(Mikulincer, 1998b), be willing to discuss a conflict until it is resolved (O'Connell &
Mallinckrodt, 2000) and not attempt to dominate or use coercion when attempting to
solve a problem (Creasey, 2002). Secure individuals also are more creative when
attempting to solve a problem (Mikulincer & Sheffi, 2000), a useful skill in a conflict
situation.
Conflict and the person with an anxious attachment style. People with other attachment
styles deal with conflict in less effective ways. Individuals with an anxious attachment
style tend to become overly emotional (Creasey, 2002), thereby increasing the intensity
of the conflict (Campbell et al., 2005). Moreover, they tend not to use mutually satisfying
strategies, but instead to focus on emotion-focused coping (Lussier, Sabourin, &
Turgeon, 1997; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995). Anxiously attached individuals tend to

30
become hypervigilant in times of threat, as their fear of losing the relationship and the
potential abandonment or loss of safety that would occur with this dissolution causes
hyper activation (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). They focus on the relationship, and no longer
are as focused on the conflict at hand (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003a).
Anxiously attached individuals also will be more obliging to their partner during
conflict in order to maintain the relationship (O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000; Pistole,
1989), controlling their emotions as a response to their fear of abandonment (Feeney,
1995). Anxious individuals also view the relationship more negatively after a conflict
(Simpson et al., 1996), which can reduce relationship quality and increase the potential of
it ending (Campbell et al., 2005). Relationships that have one anxiously attached partner
tend to have lower ratings of personal satisfaction than is true of relationships in which
either both partners are secure or in which there is a secure/avoidant partnership (Collins
& Read, 1990; Creasey, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Lussier et al., 1997; Simpson
et al., 1996). Some of this could be attributed to poor conflict management styles.
Individuals with an anxious attachment style also will respond to a stressful event such as
a conflict with ruminative worry (Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995),
which increases their negative affect and does not resolve the conflict.
Conflict and the person with an avoidant attachment style. Avoidant individuals
attempt to assert control over the situation by withdrawing from others during conflict,
(Feeney, 1999; Fraley et al., 1998). They report less distress after a conflict (Fraley,
Garner, & Shaver, 2000a), pay less attention to emotional material in general, potentially
miss some of the emotive issues at hand (Fraley & Shaver, 1997), solve problems less
effectively than do securely attached individuals (O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000;

31
Pistole, 1989) and are less emotionally open when they discuss issues (Simpson et al.,
1996). They tend to remain cold and distant in conflict, and do not utilize mutual
problem solving strategies when given the opportunity to do so (Gaines, Reis, Summers,
Rusbult, Cox, Wexler, Marelich, & Kurland, 1997; O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000).
Avoidantly attached individuals also will use a series of defensive mechanisms to deal
with issues on which they do not want to focus (Davis, Shaver, & Vernon, 2003). This is
also the only attachment style in which the person can actively block out feelings and
experiences they do not wish to think about (Fraley & Shaver, 1997); although they
occasionally may have a Freudian slip, they tend to be able to block material out of their
consciousness (Fraley et al., 1998). Yet, avoidantly attached individuals can become
overwhelmed when they are confronted with a threat, such as a disaster or a personal
tragedy, as they have few coping skills other than distancing skills with which to cope in
the face of extreme difficulties (Birnbaum et al., 1997; Mikulincer, Florian, & Weller,
1993). In summary, avoidant individuals generally tend to engage less in the conflict, to
use controlling and coercive tactics when in conflict, and to recall less and worry less
about the conflict than people with the other two attachment styles.
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair
Attachment style differences can be seen during group-level post-conflict relationship
repair. This section will draw from the counseling literature to examine (a) the ways
relationship repair can be executed, and (b) what relationship repair is useful for. The
therapeutic alliance differs from relations among group members. Nevertheless, to know
how disruptions in a therapeutic relationship occur and can be addressed potentially can
be applied to relations among group members.

32
Bordin (1979, 1983), asserted that three components must be attended to in a
therapeutic relationship in order for a strong therapeutic alliance to exist: agreement on
the task of therapy, agreement on the goals of therapy, and the bond between the therapist
and client. Safran and Muran (2000a, 2000b) noted that a focal point of therapy is to
attend to these three necessities for therapeutic alliance, negotiate them with the client
and discuss ruptures related to them as they occur (Safran & Muran, 2000b). Bordin
(1983) theorized that not attending to these three issues can cause therapeutic
misalignment and affect the strength of the therapeutic alliance.
The first aspect, agreement on task, is “a clear mutual understanding by the
participants of the tasks that their shared goals impose on each of them” (Bordin, 1983, p.
35). The second aspect, mutual agreements on goals, is “a basic understanding and
agreement between the principles involved” (Bordin, 1983, p. 35). Bond between
therapist and client, is “the component of the alliance [that] consists of the affective
quality of the relationship between patient and therapist (e.g., the extent to which the
patient feels understood, respected, valued, and so on)” (Safran & Muran, 2000, p.12).
These aspects of therapeutic alliance could be seen as generally similar to the three
types of group-level interpersonal conflict Jehn (1995) defined. For example, task
conflict assumes that there are tasks that need to be done within the group, and that
normally functioning groups can have conflict (Jehn, 1995). Thus, the very concept of
group implies that there is an underlying group process that has the potential to be
disrupted. The same could be said for process and relationship conflict: there are
underpinning group behaviors and interactions that are necessary for functioning (such as

33
deciding on a process for a task, or establishing working relationships with group
members), and these issues can cause conflict between group members.
The agreement on goals that Bordin conceptualized and the task Jehn described look at
the hoped-for end states created by the individuals within the relationship; both are
focused on the goals of the relationship. Agreement on task, according to Bordin (1979),
looks at what needs to get done within the session by the patient in order for therapy to
work; a process, according to Jehn and Mannix (2001), is what is going to get done and
how each of the steps will done. The final, and most closely matched set, is the bond and
the relationship construct. Bond is the working relationship between therapist and client
Bordin (1979), whereas relationship refers to interpersonal closeness (Jehn, 1995).
This overlap between these two conceptual models, though imperfect, was pointed
out so that when one looks at the relationship repair that Bordin (1981) emphasizes as
important, we can see group level issues that can be understood and explored using his
framework. Research findings regarding rebuilding the therapeutic working alliance
(Safran & Muran, 2000a; Safran, Muran, Samstag, & Stevens, 2001) could be extended
to look at ways that ruptured group processes could be repaired. Both processes are
focused on rebuilding lost rapport and re-establishing communal goals, tasks and needs
during this process.
Relationship Repair
Relationship repair is crucial in the maintenance of interpersonal relationships (Kell &
Mueller, 1966; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewis, 2000; Safran, 1993a; Safran & Muran,
1996). As noted earlier, conflict can disrupt a working relationship, create tensions
between individuals and impede group performance (Jehn et al., 1997). Because group

34
conflict is a reality, interventions to reduce post-conflict relationship ruptures could be a
positive step towards creating work teams with lower levels of relationship conflict
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996).
Counseling research has been shown that the “tear and repair” (Lansford, 1986)
experience creates a stronger working alliance, an important factor in treatment outcome
(Horvath & Symonds, 1991). Tear and repair is a pattern of disruption of rapport,
addressing this disruption and attempting to reconnect with the other person (Lansford,
1986; Safran et al., 2001). A disruption can be anything from minor insults between
people (an individual taking offense, for example, when someone says “that’s a tall
order” to a short person) to full-blown physical aggression. Tear and repair processes
involve the discussion of the disruption, acknowledgement of something going on within
the dynamic of therapy and the behaviors that attempt to repair the relationship between
the individuals (Safran, 1993b; Safran et al., 2001).
Post-conflict relationship repair refers to a constellation of behaviors that address or
attempt to minimize ‘tears’ or relational disputes between individuals after a conflict.
This process looks at how individuals, after a conflict, address the relationship/affective
components of the conflict and attempt to move beyond and/or repair this rupture within
their relationship (Safran & Muran, 2000a; Safran et al., 2001)
In a series of studies, Safran and colleagues found that addressing the conflict
appropriately , as opposed to ignoring, confronting the other person or blaming the other
person, creates a stronger relationship between two people (Safran & Muran, 1996). In
therapy, this process leads to the client remaining in therapy so that the treatment can
continue. But there is a different process in business, for there are multiple possible

35
responses to conflicts. Disagreements can lead to people leaving, but also can lead to
political maneuvering within the company, which can disrupt normal processes and slow
down the organization as a whole.
Businesses have addressed the destructive nature of tearing and repairing by trying to
minimize tears in the first place. Organizations attempt to build stronger relationships by
increasing within-group cohesion (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003; Jehn &
Shah, 1997; Shah & Jehn, 1993), using off-site retreats and vacation parties. The
increase in relational trust between members of a group could allow groups to deal with
tear and repair more efficiently and effectively.
Conflict can be instrumental in causing trust to “spiral,” in both positive and negative
directions (Miller & Rempel, 2004; Zand, 1972). Thus, repairing a relationship after a
conflict can be a crucial step in either: (a) maintaining a positive trust “spiral,” with
higher levels of trust decreasing interpersonal conflict, or (b) stopping a negative trust
“spiral,” where conflict continues to escalate, thus decreasing interpersonal trust, leading
to “watching your back” behaviors (Mayer & Gavin, 2005) and a decrease in
performance (Zand, 1972).
Safran and Muran (2000a; Safran et al., 2001) mention that one should focus on the
event itself in order to accomplish post-conflict relationship repair. This means being
willing to discuss what has occurred and to take ownership of one’s own role within the
conflict. When looking at group-related issues, Lewicki and Wiethoff (2000) advise
several steps:
1. address the behaviors which created distrust,

36
2. have each person responsible for a violation of trust apologize and explain the
violation,
3. have each party negotiate expectations for one another and agree to the terms,
4. establish evaluation procedures that can be agreed upon by both parties
5. help parties to establish alternative ways to get needs met (p. 103)
Although Lewicki and Wiethoff (2000) focus on trust repair, these steps also could be
useful in repairing a relationship after a conflict. In fact, these steps appear similar to the
Safran et al. (2001) concepts of relationship repair.
A first step in relationship repair is to acknowledge that a conflict has occurred. To do
otherwise forestalls resolution in counseling (Bordin, 1981), though some researchers
have found it effective (De Dreu & Vianen, 2001). After acknowledging the conflict, the
parties should engage in some sort of discussion about resolving it.
This resolution could take several directions. First, a conflict can be addressed at two
different levels. One concerns the process of the conflict, affected by the emotional
underpinnings, power dynamics and other affect-related issues of the individuals. The
other concerns the content of the discussion. These two levels of the conversation occur
simultaneously, and have been studied extensively in both counseling and business
literatures. Dealing with both levels of a conflict are important.
The parties’ first attempt to rebuild their relationship typically will involve the use of
positive responses. One could be to see if there is consensus about the conflict. If all
parties agree it was harmful and unproductive, then something as simple as an apology
might resolve it. This addresses both the emotional and content aspects of the message.
Another possible response would be just to agree that the conflict was necessary for the

37
group to move forward. At this point the content, but not the process level of the conflict
has been addressed.
For participants to leave conflict with unresolved emotions could prevent further group
movement. Therefore, to address directly the conflict and any underlying feelings could
be a post-conflict relationship repair strategy. Also, to engage the group in a relationship-
building process could address the underlying tensions and allow individuals to feel safe
in the dynamic and re-engage in the group process. A final possible resolution would be
to assert that the discussion has ended, with parties acknowledging the conflict, though
still with some contention about how the conflict was resolved.
There also are several negative ways individuals can deal with a conflict. To ignore the
emotional tension between individuals can be damaging to their relationship. Also, to
continue to bring up the conflict with no resolution plan; but to argue to be correct, as
opposed to being heard, could damage to the group process. Finally, complete
withdrawal from the group could be a negative, non-reparative step. Finding reasons to
avoid the meeting or fellow group members, de-emphasizing the group task as important
or minimizing relational contacts between oneself and fellow group members could be
detrimental to the group process.
Attachment Differences and Repair
As noted earlier, individuals with insecure attachment styles tend to engage in the
conflict-resolution process differently than secure individuals. Anxious individuals
worry that conflict will end the relationship (Simpson et al., 1996) (referred to as
ruminative worry; Mikulincer & Florian, 1995), and their worries and fears relating to
abandonment can lead to disorganized functioning and the amplification of conflict as

38
opposed to attempting to resolve it (Campbell et al., 2005). This might be described as
“sky is falling” mentality.
Anxiously attached individuals tend to view both conflict and the relationship as both
positive and negative when in conflict, which can contribute to this disorganized
functioning (Fishtein, Pietromonaco, & Feldman-Barrett, 1999). They also experience
neutral interactions as hostile when faced with a stressful event (Collins & Feeney, 2004).
This worry about potential abandonment forces their thoughts and feelings to be about
the loss of the relationship, as opposed to solving the issue or addressing the
relationship’s emotional rupture (see Feeney & Collins (2004), for review). Anxiously
attached individuals also are less likely than secure individuals to forgive after a
relationship transgression (Kachadourian, Fincham, & Davila, 2004).
In short, it would appear that rebuilding the relationship after the conflict could be
difficult for anxiously attached individuals. After a conflict, anxiously attached
individuals already feel closer, even though they may not have resolved the relationship
problems (Pietromonaco, et al, 2004). At times, anxiously attached individuals, despite
feeling close to the other member of the relationship, can be extremely negative about the
long-term direction of the relationship (Collins & Read, 1990; Simpson et al., 1996).
Avoidantly attached individuals withdraw from conflict and do not re-engage (Creasey,
Kershaw, & Boston, 1999; Ognibene & Collins, 1998), minimizing the impact that any
form of relationship repair or attempt at being close could have on a relationship (Feeney
& Collins, 2001, a “head in the sand” mentality). They deny feeling anger, and resemble
secure individuals in their self-reports of anger. Yet more subtle studies show that they
have a “preconscious” defensive mechanism that deactivates their ability to experience

39
their anger (Mikulincer, 1998b). In other words, although they appear upset, they deny
anger. Such coping mechanisms have been shown to decrease relationship satisfaction
(Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Simpson et al., 1996), especially in avoidant males.
Individuals with an avoidant attachment style also tend to increase distance between
themselves and others when distressed. They will not be open, nor will they be effective
when providing support to others (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Ognibene & Collins, 1998;
Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002). Moreover, they do not actively seek support
from others when distressed (Anders & Tucker, 2000; Feeney & Collins, 2004; Ognibene
& Collins, 1998). In summary, they seek to increase distance when in conflict.
Secure individuals tend to be open to conflict resolution and to employ a three-part
model for dealing with threats in what is called a secure base script (Waters et al., 1998):
Acknowledgement and display of distress; support-seeking; and, instrumental problem-
solving. Even when angry, securely attached individuals use anger functionally (vs. as a
hostile act), and attempt to rectify the wrongs in the relationship (Mikulincer, 1998b).
They actively engage with the other person, even if that person is part of the stressor
(Feeney, 2005; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000). Secure
individuals not only attempt to resolve the conflict (Bippus & Rollin, 2003; Creasey et
al., 1999; Shi, 2003), but also self-disclose about their feelings (Anders & Tucker, 2000;
Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Pistole, 1993), which could increase post-conflict
relationship repair.
Interpersonal Trust
Trust is a basic building block for social interactions with subordinates, managers and
other members of the workplace (McAllister, 1995). It facilitates cooperation, reduces

40
the need to monitor others’ behavior, and decreases the need to formalize procedures
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Despite roughly 50 years of literature, there is still no generally
accepted definition of trust, either across or within disciplines. There are, however, many
definitions of trust (Deutsch, 1973; Doney, Cannon, & Mullen, 1998; Kramer, 1999;
Mayer et al., 1995; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Rotter, 1971; Rousseau, Sitkin,
Burt, & Camerer, 1998); most of these authors have acknowledged how difficult it is to
achieve a common definition.
This study was based on two overlapping models of trust, each of which has been cited
at least 700 times (Source: google scholar). To rely on these definitions may be to miss
some nuances of trust that have emerged in several streams of research (Lewicki &
Bunker, 1996; Rempel et al., 1985; Rotter, 1971). But such delimitation is necessary in
order to move this study forward.
One model of interpersonal trust used in this study was that of Mayer, et al. (1995),
who defined trust as:
the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor,
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party (p. 712).
This definition is based upon three characteristics of the trustee (the individual being
trusted) that the trustor (the person being exposed to opportunism) uses to evaluate when
investing trust in another. The first is ability, which is “that group of skills competencies,
and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain”
(Mayer et al, 1995, p. 717). The second is benevolence or, “the extent to which a trustee
is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive”

41
(Mayer et al, 1995, p. 718). The third characteristic is integrity, or the “perception that
the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer et al,
1995, p. 719).
The second definition of trust used in this study was that of McAllister (1995), whose
work was based on that of Lewis and Weigert (1985) and Rempel et al. (1985). In this
conception, trust has two components: Affective-based and cognitive-based trust. In
cognitive based trust, individuals are able to “choose whom we will trust in which
respects and under what circumstances, and we base the choice on what we take to be
‘good reasons’” (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970). In this respect, cognitive trust is an
active act of being vulnerable to another.
Affective-based trust consists of emotional bonds between individuals (Lewis &
Wiegert, 1985; McAllister, 1995), where individuals express concern for one and other,
and believe that interpersonal relationships have worth and are reciprocated (Rempel et
al., 1985). Affective trust requires cognitive trust, for the interactions that generate
cognitive trust are seen as the basis for affective trust (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Morrow,
Hansen, & Pearson, 2004; Williams, 2001).
McAllister’s examined the individual affects of these two different types of trust on
organizational behaviors (McAllister, 1995). He focused mainly on the peers and
managerial relationships of one individual, showing that affective trust reduced the need
to monitor the other individual’s behavior, and increased the supervisors mentoring
behaviors (McAllister, 1995). Research using this two-pronged conceptualization of trust
has shown that affective trust is related to worker performance (Erdem & Ozen, 2003;
Morrow et al., 2004), intent to leave an organization (Begley, Lee, Fang, & Li, 2002) and

42
lower levels of within-group conflict (Porter & Lilly, 1996). In a meta-analysis of
research on trust and leadership, Dirks and Ferrin (2002) concluded that the difference
between affective and cognitive trust has been virtually ignored. They noted that future
research should be done to see if these conceptually distinct aspects of trust should be
separated.
In this study, I extended McAllister's (1995) measures to look at interpersonal affective
and cognitive-based trust at the group level. Whereas group level benefits and
consequences of affective and cognitive trust have been theoretically proposed (Williams,
2001), more empirical work on its antecedents (questions such as what causes affective
levels of trust to rise, and how is it related to cognitive trust continue to need to be
explored) and consequences (research into what are the benefits and consequences of
groups that are high or low in levels of affective trust) at the group level are needed.
Research shows that some forms of trust affect the functioning of groups. Studies
exploring the level of trust in top management teams find that trust moderates the effects
of task conflicts on relationship conflicts. For example, Simons and Peterson (2000)
showed that groups high in trust can have moderate levels of task conflict without
corresponding moderate levels of relationship conflict. Simons and Peterson (2000)
theorized that trust allowed individuals to have task conflict without perceiving the
conflict as being a relationship conflict between individuals. Research also has examined
ways organizations can increase between-department cooperation (versus competition),
and found that this emphasis on interdependence increases trust, efficacy and
performance (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Tjosvold, 1988).

43
Attachment Style and Trust
Research on attachment theory has shown that individuals with different attachment
types trust and respond to trust differently. Whereas secure individuals tend to trust other
individuals more readily (Mikulincer, 1998c), to conceptualize others as being
dependable and reliable (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and to have a generalized
sense of interpersonal trust (Bowlby, 1988), no published study at this time has addressed
this issue within the workplace.
Securely attached individuals also are perceived to be trustworthy by others (Collins &
Read, 1990), and when in a relationship with another person, are seen as warm and
supportive (Simpson, 1990). It has been shown that when individuals are in relationships
that they call “secure,” they are more likely to report higher levels of trust than when in
relationships that they call “insecure” (Simpson, 1990).
All of these attributes seem to make secure individuals the ideal group members who
induce trust in others. At the same time, secure individuals also appraise other group
members positively (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003). These findings indicate that secure
individuals tend to act positively towards others when in groups, and to regard others
positively as well (Rom & Mikulincer, 2003; Smith et al., 1999).
Although secure individuals are disposed towards trusting others, insecurely attached
individuals are not (Hazen & Shaver, 1987). Trust levels of insecure individuals
(individuals who have higher levels of anxiety, avoidance or a higher level of combined
anxiety/avoidance than secure individuals) also trust less over time when in a relationship
(Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1994). Also, insecurely attached individuals tend to think more
negatively about a relationship as it progresses (Keelan et al., 1994; Simpson, 1990).

44
Individuals high on anxiety have fundamental doubts about themselves, thus making
themselves feel unworthy of trust (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Also, anxiously
attached individuals tend to increase the intensity and severity of conflicts (Campbell et
al., 2005), and therefore lower the levels of trust. This would happen because
theoretically, the larger the tear in the relationship, the harder it is for that relationship to
be repaired (Kachadourian et al., 2004).
Individuals high on avoidance feel too vulnerable to trust, as they have a negative
viewpoint regarding other people (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Mikulincer (1998)
showed that part of the avoidant’s conceptualization of trust is the desire to control
others, when in combination with a negative model of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991), point towards an unwillingness to be vulnerable towards others, with vulnerability
being a precondition of trust (Mayer et al., 1995).
Leadership and Attachment
Leadership is another area where attachment-related differences can be seen. The
concept of leadership has evolved through history, starting with Greek and Roman
philosophers. Throughout, it has been a poorly defined but necessary construct for
guiding understanding as to what a leader does and how to lead others more effectively.
In his introduction to an American Psychologist special issue on leadership, Bennis
(2007) noted that there is no grand theory of leadership, much less an agreed-upon
definition. As with trust, a unifying definition of leadership has proven elusive. One
difficulty is that there are very different conceptualizations of what is important for
leadership. Another is that some theorists believe that leadership is useless not only as a

45
construct, but in practicality as well (Dalton, Daily, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 1998;
Waldman, Ramirez, House, & Puranam, 2001).
The following definition was employed in this study, as it is broad and encompasses
much of what a leader is required to do:
Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual (or leadership
team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or shared by the leader and
his or her followers. (Gardner, 1990, p. 1).
This definition was selected over the multitude of other definitions because it addresses
both the behavioral aspects of being a leader and the internal objectives held by a leader.
Some definitions (e.g., Bennis, 2003) focus extensively on the internal objectives of the
leader, whereas others are too behavioral in their focus on external issues of leadership,
that is, exclusively on a role (Vroom & Jago, 2007). Despite these many attempted
definitions, leadership continues to mystify those for whom leadership matters. As a
society, we continue to search for leaders, spending millions on executive searches and
leadership courses annually (Bennis, 2007), and we continue to be uncertain of whether
this money is well spent.
Yet research on leadership continues unabated, though it has varied in focus across
time. At times researchers have focused on the traits of a leader (Zaccaro, 2007). Other
research has focused on the context of leadership, indicating that the situation is far more
of a determinate of leadership quality (Vroom & Jago, 2007). These two streams, trait-
centered research (Zaccaro, 2007) and context-centered research (Vroom & Jago, 2007),
have gone back and forth, and have begun to unify somewhat in relational theory
(Avolio, 2007; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001 ).

46
Relational theories conceptualize both the leader and the follower as both being
intimately associated with the act of leadership: Those who attempt to lead without
regard to their followers’ needs, wants and direction will fail (Avolio, 2007; Bennis,
2003; Sternberg, 2007). One of the more prominent conceptualizations of relational
leadership came out of The Ohio State University in the late 1950’s. After studying
leaders and behaviorally tracking their day-to-day interactions with others Stogdill
(1950), and associates conceptualized leadership behavior into two overarching
collections of behaviors: Initiating structure and showing consideration (Fleishman,
1998; Stogdill, 1963). The following definitions of these constructs are taken from
Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004).
• Showing consideration is “the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect
for followers, looks out for their welfare, and expresses appreciation and support” (Judge
et al., 2004, p. 36).
• Initiating structure is defined as the “degree to which a leader defines and
organizes his role and the roles of followers, is oriented toward goal attainment, and
establishes well-defined patterns and channels of communication” (Judge et al., 2004, p.
36).
These two clusters of behavior, although still trait-like, take into account the follower
and the leader. They speak to how the leader engages the follower actively in the
process of co-creating an understanding of what is needed in order for task performance
to be successful. The leader not only sets up a context for success, but also shows
concern and respect for the follower throughout the process.

47
There has been extensive research done on leadership, relational theories and other
strict contextual theories (see Avolio, 2007, for review). Initiating structure and showing
consideration continue to be the basis for some of these alternative theories of leadership
constructs. Whereas most of the more recent theories refer to these concepts as task
behavior (vs. initiating structure) and relationship behavior (vs. showing consideration),
these two concepts continue to be influential in understanding leadership behaviors
(Fleishman, 1998).
Models of leadership have expanded beyond these two constructs to include more
intricate pictures of leadership behavior. Theories such as Fiedler’s (1967), task-goal
theory (a direct offshoot of this research) (Vroom & Jago, 2007) and the more recent
transformational and transactional models of leadership (Bass & Stogdill, 1990), continue
to be build around initiating structure and showing consideration as fundamental,
effective leadership behaviors. Research supports the resilience of these constructs: In a
meta-analysis that spanned 50 years of research, Judge et al. (2004) find that the concepts
show positive and strong relationships with group performance, leadership performance,
group member satisfaction and several other group-related constructs.
Initiating structure by the leader has been linked to better team performance and greater
efficiencies (Judge et al., 2004; Keller, 2006). The original studies found that as team
productivity increased, high levels of initiating structure were also linked to lower
employee satisfaction and higher levels of employee turnover (Fleishman, 1998;
Fleishman & Harris, 1962; Judge et al., 2004). These results indicate that as the group
meets deadlines productively (in response to high levels of initiating structure), this focus

48
on the proverbial bottom line can cause employees stress, lowering their satisfaction and
driving them to seek alternative employment.
Showing consideration also has demonstrated effects. Groups whose leaders show
consideration show higher levels of satisfaction (Fleishman, 1998; Fleishman & Harris,
1962; Judge & Piccolo, 2004), follower motivation and leader effectiveness (Judge &
Piccolo, 2004). When comparing the two leadership behaviors, showing consideration
tends to also have increases in employee performance, just at a slightly lower level than
initiating structure (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Showing consideration also can moderate
the relationship between higher levels of initiating structure and lower levels of employee
satisfaction and turnover issues: Once a leader shows consideration, employees are
willing to tolerate higher thresholds of structuring behaviors.
In fact, there is a curvilinear relationship between both of these concepts and the group
performance and satisfaction measures (Fleishman, 1998). That is, too much or too little
consideration can cause lower performance in groups; too much or too little structure also
can have the same effect. These findings indicate that being able to adapt to the group’s
needs and attend to the demands of the group on the fly, adjusting these two behaviors as
needed, can help lead a group to optimum performance.
This study employed the Stogdill (1963) measures for initiating structure and showing
consideration as ways to assess leadership performance at the group level. Despite the
fact that more intricate relational models exist and are currently being researched (Bono
& Judge, 2004; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Lowe, Kroeck, &
Sivasubramaniam, 1996), the constructs of initiating structure and showing consideration
have not been utilized to look at attachment theory principles. The more mainstream

49
transformational (Berson, Dan, & Yammarino, 2006), charismatic (Popper, 2002;
Towler, 2005) and transactional (Popper et al., 2000) leadership styles have been
explored empirically using the lens of attachment theory.
Theory that looks at the relationship between attachment and leadership also exists
(Keller, 2003; Keller & Cacioppe, 2002; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Popper, 2004,
2005). One of the conclusions in the Judge et al. (2004) meta-analysis is that there is still
no agreed-upon framework for why individuals lean toward initiating structure or
showing consideration to their followers consistently. Attachment theory may be able to
explain some of the underpinning internal working models that different individuals use
as they rely on one or the other form of leadership, thus potentially answering some of
the call for further research in this area (Judge et al., 2004).
Attachment Theory and Leadership
Research on leadership utilizing attachment theory outside of the transformational and
transactional model of leadership has been fruitful, though it is still in its infancy. One
study (Doverspike, Hollis, Justice, & Polomsky, 1997) examined a contextual model of
leadership that applied attachment concepts, though this is a lone effort to match up
contextual leadership theories with attachment theory. Several studies (Mikulincer &
Florian, 1995; Popper et al., 2004) relate attachment style to generic, non-theory driven
leadership. Finally, an intriguing lone study looked at organizational design by a leader
and the leader’s attachment style (Johnston, 2000).
Johnston (2000) reported several findings that match other attachment research. One
finding is that individuals high on avoidance behavior tend to centralize all decision-
making behaviors in themselves and are unwilling to delegate decision-making power to

50
others. Another finding is that secure individuals tend to be comfortable delegating, and
have positive interactions with their employees. At the same time, anxious individuals,
despite being unhappy about delegating decisions to others, continue to do so. This
pattern of behavior matches the attachment issues that anxious individuals have:
Although uncertain, and at times unhappy about others’ dependability, they continue to
engage in relationships with them. The final finding of interest is that both insecure
attachment styles reported more conflict with their employees when compared to securely
attached leaders.
Significance of the Study
This study attempts to take disparate organizational behavior constructs at multiple
levels and integrate them into a framework using attachment theory to underpin this
framework. While many of the predicted hypotheses and relationships are based on
previous research, several novel findings emerged out of this study.
First, attachment theory could help explain phenomena that occur within groups. It
could give a developmental framework for understanding interpersonal differences in
groups. Also, the ease of measurement and power of explanation that attachment theory
could give to group dynamics would make research in this area smoother and easier to
execute.
Second, post-conflict relationship repair appears to be inadequately studied, both in the
business and in the broader attachment literature. Negotiation and conflict resolution are
well-researched, but the act of putting together the relationship after the conflict is not as
well explored. Also, the act of relationship repair and adult attachment has not been as
deeply explored as it could be. In particular, researchers have not explored issues where

51
there is no right or wrong answer, such as where to take a job or which home to purchase.
These decisions could cause conflict, but the final decision does not mean one party is
correct and the other needs to apologize. Studying how people with different attachment
types deal with the tear and repair process could be fruitful for better understanding how
adults reattach after separations.
Third, the field has moved in several different directions with respect to leadership, and
re-introducing initiating structure and showing consideration could re-invigorate these
forgotten constructs. As well, to study the potential link between affective trust and type
of leadership could be interesting because of the link between performance and affective
trust. Moreover, if leadership attachment style is linked to performance in any way, then
a number of interesting implications for business are suggested.
Summary of the Hypotheses
The hypotheses that follow were tested on 49 case analysis teams and a total of 226
participants. The students participated in the case analysis as part of a course
requirement for Business Administration 304, Leading Organizations at the Marshall
School of Business at the University of Southern California. The case analysis project
was worth 25% of the student’s overall grade, motivating them to engage in the project
actively.
Hypothesis One: Group Conflict and Attachment Style
Hypothesis One: Attachment style differences will affect level of group conflict in the
following ways:
(a) Groups with higher average levels of anxious attachment style will perceive the highest
levels of conflict within the group relative to groups with other attachment styles.

52
(b) The groups with higher average levels of avoidant attachment style will perceive lower
levels of conflict than groups with other attachment styles.
(c) Groups with higher average levels of secure attachment will perceive the lowest level
of conflict relative to groups with other attachment styles.
First, I predicted that the higher the average level of anxiety in the group, the higher the
levels of conflict within the group. This is because of anxiously attached individual’s
inability to stay focused on the task itself once in conflict. Instead, these individuals begin
to activate attachment-related behaviors that reduce their ability to resolve the conflict
effectively. Moreover, they tend to bring up non-conflict related issues, which
perpetuates conflict and increases felt relationship conflicts within the group. Also,
individuals with anxious attachment styles will not be able to experience task or process
conflict without attributing the conflict to some sort of interpersonal/relationship-based
problem. It has been shown that extensive task-related conflict can eventually increase
relationship-related conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000).
Conversely, a secure attachment style should reduce an individual’s perception of conflict.
Also, secure individuals, who remain focused on conflict resolution during conflicts,
should perceive lower levels of process or relationship-based conflict than insecurely
attached individuals. This should happen because if a conflict is solved in a positive way,
then the conflict is resolved, and should not be considered a conflict in retrospect. Also,
securely attached individuals’ inherently positive outlook should enable them to reduce
the importance of the conflict and direct them towards more positive issues within the
group. This also is hypothesized at the group average level of secure attachment

53
functioning: the higher the level of secure functioning within a group (low anxiety, low
avoidance), the lower the level of perceived conflict within the group.
Finally, I hypothesized that individuals with an avoidant attachment style would not
attend to conflict, or would avoid it when it does occur. This does not solve the conflict,
but it also does not exacerbate it. This “elephant in the room” may be disturbing to other
members of the group, but will not be upsetting for the avoidant individual. Therefore,
they will perceive less conflict than the anxiously attached individual, though more than
the secure individual, as they do not engage in conflict resolution, so there is still some
conflict within the group.
Hypothesis Two: Post-Conflict Relationship Repair and Attachment Style
Hypothesis Two: Attachment style will affect how an individual engaged in post-
conflict relationship repair in the following ways:
(a) Relative to the other attachment styles, groups with higher average levels of secure
attachment style will report the highest levels of post-conflict relationship repair within
the group.
(b) Groups with higher average levels of anxious attachment style will report lower levels
of post-conflict relationship repair than secure groups.
(c) Groups with higher average levels of avoidant attachment will report the lowest level
of post-conflict relationship repair relative to the other attachment styles.
A prerequisite for relationship repair is that issues be discussed in an open manner
(Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; Lewicki & Wiethoff, 2000; Safran & Muran, 2000a; Safran et
al., 2001) and that individuals attempt to move on from the conflict with “no hard
feelings.” In this study, appropriate post-conflict relationship strategies were assessed

54
using a measure designed to look at how groups attempted to repair relationships after a
conflict had occurred. This was a measure based on Lewicki and Wiethoff's (2000)
approach to conflict resolution and Safran et al’s (2001) work around this issue as well.
Groups that engage in poor post-conflict relationship repair (i.e., continuing to argue
about the topic without addressing their interpersonal issues or emotions; ignoring that
the conflict occurred) will have higher levels of relationship conflict between group
members. This is because when negative emotions between group members are not
addressed, the relationship conflict can continue.
I also predicted that attachment style of individuals would affect post-conflict
relationship repair. Groups that have higher average secure attachment styles will be
more likely to engage in positive post-conflict relationship repair, whereas groups that
have a high insecure attachment style average will be more likely to engage in poor post-
conflict relationship repair.
Finally, I predicted that groups with different averages of insecure attachment styles
would engage in differential levels of post-conflict relationship repair. Groups with
higher levels of anxious attachment would attempt to engage in actively repairing the
relationship, even if it is not effective, whereas groups with higher levels of avoidant
attachment would distance themselves from other group members, and ignore that the
conflict had happened.
Hypothesis Three: Group Conflict, Relationship Repair and Trust
Hypothesis Three: A linear relationship will be found between conflict, post-conflict
relationship repair and group trust. Specifically, high levels of post-conflict relationship

55
repair will predict higher levels of trust, and level of trust will predict lower levels of
within-group conflict.
I predicted that group conflict would affect level of relationship repair, and in turn the
level of trust between group members. I also predicted that within-group affective trust
would have the same moderating effect on conflict as Simons and Peterson (2001)
demonstrated when measuring trust at the group level, but that cognitive trust would not.
Affective trust is more oriented towards the relationship between two individuals, and
is a part of the interpersonal bond that allows relationship conflict to not be seen as
personal. Cognitive trust appears to be more oriented towards the dependability of
another person, not the bond that two people have built together through interpersonal
affective conversations and socializing behaviors.
Therefore, the level of affective trust within a group will affect relationship conflicts,
and the level of cognitive trust will not. In other words, while cognitive trust is a
necessary condition for reduced levels of conflict, it is not sufficient in and of itself.
Affective trust is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a reduction in relational
conflict within work teams. Thus I predict that higher levels of affective trust will cause
lower levels of within-group conflict, but higher levels of cognitive trust will not have the
same effect.
Not only was affective trust predicted to affect the levels of conflict within the group,
but post-conflict relationship repair was predicted to show influence on affective trust as
well. If groups are having conflicts, and then these conflicts are resolved appropriately
and the relationships “tear and repair.” This process will increase trust as it does in the
relationship between counselor and client. This higher level of trust will lead to

56
individuals having more comfort with other group members, and a willingness to
“disagree without being disagreeable.” This pattern will be a cycle of conflict, “tear and
repair” and an increase of affective and cognitive trust in the group. This increase in the
level of affective and cognitive trust could, in turn, reduce the level of conflicts within the
group because of the cohesion and intra-group support for each other from the group
members (Mullen & Copper, 1994). This cycle will mirror Zand’s (1972) spiral of trust.
Hypothesis Four: Group Trust and Attachment Style
Hypothesis Four: I predicted that Attachment style would affect the level of group
trust in the following ways:
(a) Groups with higher average levels of secure attachment style will report the highest
levels of affective and cognitive trust within the group.
(b) Groups with the highest average level of anxious attachment style will report lower
levels of affective trust than secure groups.
(c) Groups with higher average levels of avoidant attachment will report the lowest level
of both cognitive and affective trust.
Securely attached individuals trust others at higher levels than insecurely attached
individuals (Mikulincer, 1998). Securely attached individuals trust others at higher levels
regardless of the context of the relationship, and this trust is maintained over time
(Keelan, et al, 1994). Thus, I predicted that they would have the highest level of
interpersonal trust relative to the other attachment styles, and that previous findings
would also be true at the group level.
Anxiously attached individuals have fluctuating level of trust in others (Shaver et al,
2002), and thus would have lower levels of overall trust in others relative to securely

57
attached individuals. I predicted lower levels of trust in anxiously attached individuals,
as they tend to have trust degrade over time (Keelan, et al, 1994). I predict that these
findings would also be true at the group level.
Finally, I predicted that avoidantly attached individuals would have the lowest level of
trust in others. Avoidantly attached individuals show the lowest level of trust in others
(Mikulincer, 1998), and I predicted that this would also be true at the group level.
Hypothesis Five: Leadership and Attachment Style
Hypothesis Five: I predict that attachment style will predict the leadership style of
those individuals the groups post hoc identified as their leader in the following ways:
(a) Group leaders high on secure attachment behaviors will show relatively higher levels
of both initiating structure and showing consideration relative to those avoidant or
anxiously attached leaders.
(b) Group leaders high on attachment anxiety will show levels of showing consideration
that are similar to securely attached leaders, but higher than those of avoidantly attached
leaders.
(c) Group leaders high on attachment avoidance will show levels of initiating structure
similar to securely attached leaders, but higher than those of anxiously attached leaders.

In looking at what we know about attachment theory in conjunction with this research,
several partial hypotheses were proposed regarding the relationship between attachment
style and the two components of leadership. First, secure individuals will be more able to
display initiating structure and showing consideration behaviors effectively. Basic
attachment theory indicates that secure individuals provide both a secure base and a safe

58
haven at the same time (Bowlby, 1988; Feeney & Collins, 2004). This ability to help
plan a direction for behaviors, which could be construed as initiating structure (a secure
base behavior) and show consideration (a safe-haven behavior) will enable them to
display these behaviors as leaders.
Individuals who are high in anxious attachment styles will show a different pattern of
leadership. Although anxiously attached individuals desire to be closer to others, they do
not function as well as secure individuals once they are around others (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991; Feeney & Collins, 2004). I therefore hypothesized that leaders high on
attachment anxiety will be high in showing consideration, as they desire close
relationships, and will be seen as engaging others in a way to be close to the followers.
At the same time, they are not very efficient in their ability to plan out behaviors, at times
focusing on the relationship instead of what is needed in the relationship (Campbell et al.,
2005). This type of behavior will lead to lower levels of initiating structure behavior in
anxiously attached leaders.
The third part of this hypothesis, which is that anxiously attached individuals will show
higher levels of showing consideration, leads to a discussion of avoidant attachment style.
Avoidantly attached individuals tend to have a positive version of the self (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991), and do not attend to emotional cues from other individuals relative to
the other attachment styles (Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Individuals with avoidant
attachment style also tend to be seen as cold and controlling in some relationships
(O'Connell & Mallinckrodt, 2000), especially in conflicts, and provide less social support
as well (Collins & Feeney, 2000). Anxiously attached individuals are also high on
controlling behaviors (Fraley et al., 1998), and dislike for delegating (Johnston, 2000),

59
which indicates they could be higher in initiating a rigid structure for others to follow.

60

Chapter III
Methods
This chapter will review participant demographics, composition of groups,
instruments used and procedures for the dissertation. It will discuss the process for
evaluating the case analysis groups, and discuss how inter-rater reliability was
established.
Participants
The 226 participants (114 women; 112 men), ranged in age from 18 to 37 (M=20.49;
SD=2.21). Their racial and ethnic backgrounds were mainly Caucasian (N=127, 56.2%),
and the next largest groups were Asian (N=79, 35%), Latino (N=11. 4.9%), African-
American (N=4, 1.8%) and Multi-ethnic/Other (N=4, 1.8%).
All were undergraduates taking an introductory to organizational behavior course.
Most were business administration majors (114, 50.4%), with the next biggest group
being accounting/finance (43, 19%) followed by students minoring in business (23,
10.2%), and several other, non-categorized majors (44, 19%). The average GPA for the
students was 3.31 out of 4.00, with a range from 2.0 to 3.99.
Groups
Participants were members of 49 groups that ranged in size from four to seven
members each (M=5.13 members). Group size was variable due to student attrition, as
several students dropped the course. Demographic differences were distributed evenly
throughout the groups. Groups were assigned by numbering them off during a class
exercise, ensuring that students did not pick their group members themselves. Groups

61
were given the grading template during this assignment class (see Appendix One for the
template), and the requirements were reviewed with the group during this time. The case
was a Harvard Business Review case about leadership/strategy issues in Konigsbrau-
Hellas, a multi-national alcohol distribution company.
Instruments
This section will review the instruments used in the study. Instruments used included
measures of attachment style, a measure of trust, a newly constructed measure of post-
conflict relationship repair, and a measure of leadership style. All Cronbach alphas will
be given, as well as a brief review of each instrument. The measures were ordered in
three different ways, and no significant differences were found between the orderings.
Demographic data such as age, gender, ethnicity, major in school, average GPA while at
USC and previous work experience were collected.
Attachment Style Measures
Adult Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; Simpson et al., 1996).
The AAQ is a 17-item measure that asks individuals to indicate how they relate to
romantic partners in general. The scale measures two dimensions, and uses a 7-point
Likert scale, where 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree. The first dimension
(avoidance) reflects the extent to which individuals exhibit avoidance, or the degree to
which they have negative views of others and tend to avoid or withdraw from closeness
and intimacy in relationships. The Cronbach’s alpha was .77 for the current study.
The second dimension (anxiety) taps individual’s level of ambivalence, which reflects
the degree to which individuals possess negative self-views in regard to their

62
relationships, and are excessively preoccupied with issues of abandonment, loss and
partners’ level of commitment. The Cronbach alpha was .71 for the current study.
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
Whereas the AAQ served as the primary measure for attachment style, the
Relationship Questionnaire also was used. The RQ consists of four paragraphs, each of
which describes one of four attachment prototypes in Bartholomew and Horowitz’s two-
dimensional model of attachment: secure, anxious-ambivalent (pre-occupied), fearful-
avoidant, and dismissive-avoidant. Each paragraph is also rated on a single seven-point
Likert scale (1=This is nothing like me; 7=This is exactly like me).
The RQ also was used to assess the leader’s attachment style. The Popper et al (2000)
version of the questionnaire was used in that portion of this study. In that version the
student chose which of the paragraphs best describes the leader of the group’s attachment
style. Thus, the RQ was used twice in this study: once for the student to fill out their
own attachment style, and once about their leader.
Cognitive and Affective Trust Measure (McAllister, 1995)
This measure has two scales of five items each. The first measures affective trust,
which is an emotional connection between members of the group. A sample item is “we
have a sharing relationship; we can share our ideas, feelings and hopes”. The second
scale measures cognitive-based trust. A sample item is “this person approaches his or her
job with professionalism and dedication”.
This measure was somewhat modified for the current research. The questionnaire was
given once for the leader of the group, and then again to assess the level of group-based
interpersonal trust. When the focus was on the leader, the instruction was “when

63
answering the following questions, please think about the person that you named the
leader of your group”. The group-based questions were modified so that they would
address the respondents’ current task group as a whole. For example, ‘This person
approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication,’ was reworded as ‘We
approached this case with professionalism and dedication’ so that it could capture the
entire group and not just focus on one individual within that group.
There were four different Cronbach alphas found for trust; two for affective trust and
two for cognitive trust. The Cronbach alpha for the affective trust was .86 for leader-
related trust and .67 for group-related trust. The Cronbach alpha for cognitive trust was
.74 for leader-related trust and .71 for group-related trust.
Intragroup Conflict Scale (Jehn & Mannix, 2001)
The 9-item Intragroup Conflict Scale measures the level of conflict that is experienced
within a group, and has three factors. Factor one describes task conflict (‘how much
conflict of ideas is there in your work group?’ and ‘how frequently do you have
disagreements within your work group about the tasks of the project that you are working
on?’), and contains three items. Factor two contains items related to relationship conflict
(‘how much relationship tension is there in your work group?’ and ‘how often do people
get angry while working in your work group?’), and contains three items. Factor three
reflects process conflict (‘how often are there disagreements about who should do what in
your work group?’), and contains three items. The Cronbach alphas for relationship, task
and process conflict were previous reported as .94, .94 and .93, respectively. The current
study shows that the Cronbach alphas as .76, .73 and .77, respectively.

64
Post Conflict Relationship Repair
The Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale (PCRRS) consists of eight items
developed for this study. Its development is described in Appendix II.
The PCRRS contains two dimensions: active resolution of the conflict and passive
resolution of the conflict. The first dimension concerns group members actively dealing
with each other after a conflict has occurred. Two representative items are “after the
conflict, we made an effort to make certain that things were ‘smoothed over’,” and “after
the conflict, the group discussed the matter without getting upset.”
The second dimension concerns group members’ passive resolution of the conflict,
including avoidance of the topic or avoidance of the group as a whole. Two sample items
are “after the conflict, people in the group seemed to ‘hold a grudge’,” and “after the
conflict, other people avoided being around the group.”
The items used a 7-point Likert format where 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly
agree. For this study, alphas for the two scales were .80 and .79, respectively.
Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire – Form XII (LBDQ; Stogdill, 1963)
Two individual scales were used from the LBDQ, the initiating structure and showing
consideration scales. When filling out the questionnaire, the participant is asked to think
about how often the leader of the group exercises a behavior, and then circles a letter.
These letters and what they represent are as follows: A=Always, B=Often,
C=Occasionally, D=Seldom, E=Never (for scoring, this was treated as a five point scale
where A=1 and E=5). The initiating structure scale concerns the leader’s ability to define
tasks and help the group set goals. Two sample items from the 10-item scale are “lets the

65
group members know what is expected of them” and “decides what shall be done and
how it shall be done.” The Cronbach alpha for this measure was .78 for this study.
The showing consideration scale concerns a leader’s ability to show empathy with the
follower and listen to the follower’s needs and concerns. Two sample items from this 10-
item scale are “looks out for the personal welfare of group members” and “does little
things to make it pleasant to be a member of the group.” The Cronbach alpha score was
.83 in the current study.
As the foregoing indicated, these several measures were to assess one or two of three
targets: the individual respondent, the group, or the leader. For clarity, these are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Measures Used and Target for each Measure
Target of the Measure
Measure Self Group Leader
Adult Attachment
Questionnaire

Avoidance X
Anxiety X
Relationship Questionnaire
1

Secure X X
Anxious-
ambivalent
(pre-occupied)
X X
Fearful-
avoidant
X X
Dismissive-
avoidant
X X

66

Table 1: Continued
Measures Used and Target for each Measure
Target of the Measure
Measure Self Group Leader
Cognitive and Affective
Trust Measure
1

Affective trust X X
Cognitive-
based trust
X X
Intragroup Conflict Scale
Task conflict X
Relationship
conflict
X
Process
conflict
X
Post Conflict Relationship
Repair

Active
resolution
of the
conflict
X
Leadership Behavior
Description
Questionnaire

Initiating
structure
X
Showing
considerati
on
X
1
These measures

were administered twice – once for each target

Procedure
Groups were formed and each given the same case via email during the third week of
class in Business Administration 304, Leading Organizations. They were given nine
weeks to work on the assignment. Class time was set aside to answer general questions

67
three times during the semester. All of the groups submitted their final case analysis
paper on the same day.
Two teaching assistants who were well-versed in the case being analyzed graded the
case analysis projects independently. These teaching assistants were trained on a specific
template used for grading the case analysis projects as part of their training as teaching
assistants (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the grading template). The inter-rater reliability
for this process was r=.98. The teaching assistants were blind to the responses
participants gave on the questionnaire, as the grading was completed before the
questionnaires were distributed.
Prior to receiving their grades on the case analysis project, students were asked to fill
out the questionnaire packet that contained the previously discussed measures. Students
were reminded that the information they were supplying was confidential, and that their
grade for the course in no way depended on them filling out the questionnaire. Also, the
students were given the name and telephone number of the researcher, the head
researcher on the IRB approval form and the USC Counseling Center if they wished to
discuss their thoughts and feelings after they finished the questionnaire. The students
then were asked to fill out the questionnaire, or allowed to leave class at that time. Data
were input into SPSS after students’ final grade was assigned, as was stated in the IRB
protocol. Any identifying information that related the student to their questionnaire
packet was also removed at that time.
The study solicited roughly 270 students, with 229 returning completed packets, for an
average return rate of 83.7%. Students who only partially filled out the forms were
included in the final analysis, unless omissions exceeded more than two of the portions of

68
the questionnaires. Three students failed to fill out at least two sections, and these
students were dropped from the analysis.
Leaders were selected by the group members during data collection. Individuals were
asked to think about ‘a person who took the lead during meetings or attempted to fulfill
the role of leader in the group. Once you have thought of this person, please fill in their
initials or name; if think you were this person, please indicate so here as well.’ They
were then instructed to answer all questions regarding leadership with this person in
mind.

69

CHAPTER IV
Results
This chapter first reports the overall descriptive characteristics of the participants,
including an overview of individual and group level attachment differences. The
remainder of the chapter reports the tests of the five hypotheses.
Preliminary Analyses
Participant Attachment Style
Scores on the Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) measure indicated that 47.4 percent
(N=101) of the students report that they are securely attached; 19.5 ( N=44) report that
they are fearfully attached; 8.9 percent (N=26) report an anxious-preoccupied attachment
style; and 24.3 percent (N=55) report an avoidant attachment style. When looking at the
continuous measures of attachment (Simpson et al., 1996), the average avoidance level
was 28.55 (SD = 7.61), and the average anxiety level was 27.91 (SD= 7.92).
The individual leaders of the groups also had differing attachment styles using the
Experiences in Close Relationships measure. Slightly more than half (51%; N = 25) were
secure; 18% (N = 9) were avoidant, 20% (N = 10) wer anxious-preoccupied; and, 10%
(N = 5) were fearfully attached. When looking at the continuous measures of attachment
(Simpson et al, 1996), the average avoidance level was 31.23 (SD = 7.77), and the
average anxiety level was 25.84 (SD = 7.48). Thus, leaders showed higher than average
levels of avoidance, and lower than average levels of anxiety when using the continuous
measure, though neither of these averages was outside of half a standard deviation.

70
Group Level Aggregation
Averaging individual contributions to group performance was done for this research.
Each individual’s score in the different variables was aggregated to the group level for
analysis purposes. As research has also shown that individual differences can affect
group function on a number of factors (Chatman et al, 1998; Jehn et al, 1999), group
level analysis is warranted. Second, previous research has shown that attachment style
affects individual’s instrumental performance on group tasks for anxiously attached
individuals (Mikulincer and Rom, 2003). Finally, past research has focused on the group
level trust and conflict constructs. In keeping with past research, this study will also
measure group conflict and trust using the lens attachment style. While attachment is an
individual-level construct, analyzing how an group of individual’s attachment style can
affect group functioning could lead to new insights on group formation and performance.
Several methods for aggregating data from the individual level to the group level
exist. Most concern averaging the individual responses to find a group average, and then
utilize this group average as accurate, if it conforms to several different requirements.
Aggregation at the group level is done in order to confirm whether group averages affect
overall group factors. Aggregation is performed by averaging all of the individual-level
responses into an overall group average. This is a standard procedure when looking at
group performance (Florin, Giamartino Kenny & Wandersman; Jehn, 1995). This
procedure allows the researcher to find group differences based upon group-related
contributions from each of the individual group members.
There are several requirements when confirming that group averages do capture group
differences. One of these requirements is the Interclass Correlation, or ICC (Bliese &

71
Halverson, 1998). ICC has been found useful when attempting to have individuals rate a
specific occurrence, and to then see if there is agreement on this occurrence. The ICC
creates a rating of group consensus, and significance indicates that consensus around the
average exists (Dixon & Cunningham, 2006). Group size has been a known confound to
the eta-squared statistic (Bliese & Halverson, 1998), an accepted way of measuring group
conformity (Florin et al, 1990; Jehn, 1995), and will therefore not be used in the present
study. The present study will use the more conservative ICC sampling to avoid this
confound, as the groups are smaller than recommended by Bliese and Halverson (1998)
for use with the eta-squared statistic.
In reviewing the aggregated data, there are two main tests for appropriateness of
aggregation. One of these tests is an F test when the data are run using a one way random
ANOVA; a significant F statistic where the p value is below .05 indicates that the
individual can be seen as a adequate representative of the group average (Dixon &
Cunningham, 2006). The second test is to examine the ICC itself, and make certain that
the ICC exceeds .70 (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). When looking at the ICC of the
individual measures, .50 to .70 are considered somewhat acceptable, and above .7 is
accepted as support for the aggregation of the data (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The
current set of variables all produced a significant p value at the .01 level, and the range
for the ICC of the individual measures was from a .66 to .82, all within the acceptable
range of scores for appropriate aggregation of factors to the group level.

72
The assigned attachment style for each group is listed in the table below.
Table 2
Group Attachment Style and Number of Each Type of Group
Group Attachment Style
Leader
Attachment
Style
Secure Anxious Avoidant Fearful TOTAL
Secure 11 9 2 3 25
Anxious 1 6 3 0 10
Avoidant 3 0 5 1 9
Fearful 0 1 2 2 5
TOTAL 15 16 12 6 49

Correlations and Preliminary Findings
Because analysis of the data shows that aggregation of the individual responses to a
group level is acceptable, the following analyses will be done on aggregated data. The
first level of analysis will be correlations between the study’s major variables (please see
Table Four for a summary of all correlations). All of the data were analyzed using SPSS
14, and a two-tailed correlation coefficient is reported in all of the correlations. The
leader was left in when looking at group attachment levels, conflict levels, group trust
levels and group post-conflict relationship repair. As a group member, the
individual/leader should still contribute to these group dynamics. In selecting a leader,
the leader, by chance, had no greater chance that 30%, at best, at being elected leader,
depending on group size. To remove him or her as a source of variance is to remove a
group member and reduce power of the groups.

73
The one area where this is a concern is in the attachment style differentiation between
the group leader and the group itself. When comparing group attachment averages to the
leader’s attachment style, the leader is both a member of the group and the compared
individual. This could inflate the correlation between attachment style of the group and
of the leader, as the leader appears as both. Yet, removing the leader removes a group
member who is also making a selection, and I believe that leaving the leader in allows for
a clearer picture of how attachment styles of all group members influence the selection of
the leader of the group. The group leader was excluded in any rating of the leader, so the
LBDQ-XII and cognitive and affective trust in the leader are both calculated without the
leader being included in the group totals.
Correlations at the Group Level
The first series of correlations to be reported is the correlations between the different
types of conflict. Relationship conflict and task conflict correlated at .341 (p=.017),
which is below the average correlation that is reported by De Dreu and Weingart (2003),
who report a correlation of .51 (all correlations are found in table three). Relationship
conflict and process conflict correlated at .69 (p=.000), which shows that the discriminate
validity between these two constructs is not as strong as between task and relationship
conflict. Finally, task and process conflict correlate at .49 (p=.000), which again does not
show much discrimination between these two types of conflict.
In exploring correlations with other variables, relationship conflict shows several
significant correlations. Relationship conflict is seen as negatively correlating with both
affective group level trust (-.41, p=.004) and cognitive group level trust (-.37. p=.009).
As seen by Simons and Peterson (2000), relationship conflict negatively correlates with

74
group member interpersonal trust. Relationship conflict also negatively correlates with
positive forms of post-conflict relationship repair (-.31, p=.032) and positively correlates
with negative post-conflict relationship repair (.39, p=.006). This indicates that lower
levels of relationship conflict correlates with positive relationship repair, and that a
higher level of relationship conflict correlates with higher levels of negative forms of
relationship repair. Finally, groups that have higher levels of avoidant attachment style
also show higher levels of relationship conflict (.47, p=.001).
Task conflict also has several significant correlations associated with it. Task conflict
positively correlates with the number of individuals in the group (.29, p=.046), which
indicates that more people in a group correlates with higher levels of task conflict. Also,
task conflict correlates with group performance positively (.25, p=.08), though not
significantly enough to be statistically supported. Task conflict correlates negatively with
cognitive group trust (-.34, p=.016), though no correlation was found with affective group
trust.
The affective and cognitive group level of trust had several significant correlations.
When looking at the correlation between affective and cognitive group trust, the
correlation was significant at .60 (p=.000), which makes these factors related, which is
expected. As affective trust is hypothesized to build out of cognitive trust, the correlation
is expected, though the found correlation is high. Affective group trust was correlated
negatively with negative forms of post-conflict relationship repair (-.33, p=.019), as was
cognitive group trust (-.46, p=.001). Several other correlations were found with
leadership style, and these correlations will be discussed in the leadership section.

75
Both the positive and negative forms of post-conflict relationship repair had several
significant correlations. In terms of group performance, when the group grades were
broken into thirds, negative forms of post-conflict relationship repair were seen as
negatively correlating with groups who earned grades in the top third (-.29, p=.046).
Also, several correlations with leadership dimensions were found, and these correlations
will be discussed in the following section on leadership.
The attachment style average of the group had several correlations as well. The first
correlation, while borderline significant, is that group level of anxiety correlates
negatively (-.25, p=.088) with group performance. This shows that there is a trend that
the higher the level of collective anxiety in the group, the lower the performance of the
group. There are also several correlations with the self-reported leadership dimensions,
and will be discussed in the following section.
Leadership Level Correlations
This section is broken into two subsections: leadership correlations as reported by the
group and leadership correlations as self-reported by the emergent leader.
When comparing dimensions of leadership as reported by the group about the specific
leader and group related variables, I will begin with group average scores regarding
leadership skills as measured by the LBDQ-XII. The initiating structure and showing
consideration correlation at the group level was .47 (p=.001). Showing consideration
from the leader correlated negatively with relationship conflict (-.51, p=.000), task
conflict (-.44, p=.002) and process conflict (-.48, p=.000). It also positively correlated in
trust towards the leader at both the cognitive and affective level (.60, p=.000 and .54,
p=.000 respectively). Showing consideration also positively correlated with the level of

76
anxiety within the group, (.35, p=.013) and negatively with groups high in avoidance (-
.30, p=.035). This is interesting in that anxious individuals feel that their leader showed
them higher levels of consideration, which goes against their fear of abandonment and
not being cared about by another person. It also shows their underlying positive
viewpoint of the other. The high avoidance group is also interesting, in that they feel that
the leader did not show them enough consideration, which confirms their working model
of a negative other.
When asked to predict leadership attachment style, showing consideration correlated
with a secure attachment style of the leader (.36, p=.01) and negatively with an insecure
attachment style for a leader (-.30, p=.037).
Several significant correlations were found between the leader’s self-reported
characteristics and group performance measures. When the performance of the group is
correlated to the fearful attachment style of the leader, a significant negative relationship
is found (-.34, p=.000). Also, in a finding that approached significance, level of insecure
attachment style of the leader correlated with performance of the group at -.28 (p=.061).
The final leadership related finding is that initiating structure and showing consideration
both correlate with self-reported secure individuals (.35, p=.015 and .50, p=.000,
respectively).

77

Table 3
Correlations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Grade
1
2. Top
0.77 1
3. Middle
-0.17 -0.65 1
4. Lowest
-0.64 -0.27 -0.54 1
5. Relationship
0 -0.16 0.17 -0.04 1
6. Task
0.25 0.25 -0.12 -0.11 0.34* 1
7. Process
0.13 0.03 0.04 -0.1 0.68*** 0.48*** 1
8. Intiating
Structure
-0.05 -0.04 -0.04 0.11 -0.21 -0.41** -0.45** 1
9. Showing
Consideration
-0.11 -0.04 -0.04 0.1 -0.50*** -0.43** -0.47*** 0.46*** 1
10. Avoidance
0.04 -0.02 0.05 -0.03 0.09 -0.08 0.15 0.08 0.03 1
11. Anxiety
-0.24 -0.23 0.06 0.17 -0.14 0.07 -0.07 0.12 0.35** -0.01 1
12. High
Avoid
0.17 0.11 0.01 -0.14 0.47*** 0.02 0.38** -0.02 -0.3 0.58*** -0.37** 1
13. High
anxious
-0.22 -0.19 0.07 0.11 -0.19 -0.03 -0.14 0.1 0.13 -
0.46***
0.45** -0.39** 1
14. High
highgroup
-0.15 -0.06 -0.05 0.14 -0.2 0 -0.18 0.1 0.35* 0.39** 0.40** -0.21 -0.26 1
15. Secure
Group
0.17 0.13 -0.05 -0.08 -0.1 0.02 -0.08 -0.15 -0.11 -0.35* -0.40** -0.37** -0.46*** -0.24 1
16. Affective
Trust
-0.04 0.11 -0.23 0.17 -0.40** -0.08 -0.55*** 0.42** 0.41** -0.07 0.21 -0.23 0.21 0.07 -0.04 1
17. Cognitive
Trust
0.01 0.19 -0.26 0.11 -0.36** -0.34* -0.44** 0.41** 0.48*** -0.04 0.09 -0.17 0.04 0.12 0.03 0.59*** 1
18. Negative
PCRR
-0.11 -0.28* 0.25 0 0.39** 0.13 0.33* -0.22 -0.35* -0.12 0 0.17 0.18 -0.22 -0.18 -0.33* -
0.45***
1
19. Positive
PCRR
-0.03 0.04 -0.18 0.18 -0.31* -0.24 -0.27 0.19 0.34* 0.19 0.05 0.03 -0.12 0.24 -0.07 0.08 0.21 0.02 1
1=Overall Grade, 2=top Third Group Grade, 3=Middle Third Group Grade, 4=Lowest Third Group Grade, 5=Relationship Conflict, 6=Task Conflict, 7=Process Conflict, 8=Initiaitng Structure, 9=Showing Consideration, 10=Group Average
Avoidance, 11=Group Average Anxiety, 12=High Avoid Group, 13=High Anxious Group, 14=High Avoid High Anxious Group, 15=Secure Group, 16=Group Affective Trust, 17=Group Cognitive Trust, 18=Negative Post-Conflict Relationship Repair,
19=Positive Post-Conflict Relationship Repair
***=Significant at .001

**=Significant at .01
*=Significant at .05

78
Hypothesis Testing
In the subsections that follow, I will present first the hypothesis that was tested, the
methodology, then the results. I will provide tables, and review the significant findings
of each hypothesis briefly in this section, and then further in the discussion section. I will
be using multiple indicators of significance when analyzing the data. I will do this
because this research is exploratory and intend to maximize significance for future
research.
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis one states the following. Groups with higher average levels of anxious
attachment styles will perceive the highest levels of conflict within the group relative to
the other attachment styles, the average level of avoidant attachment style will perceive
lower levels, and groups with higher average levels of secure attachment will see the
lowest level of conflict. To test this hypothesis, a single MANOVA will be run to look at
the relationships between attachment style average of the group and group level conflict.
To run this MANOVA, the continuous attachment measure was broken into discreet
groups, and these groups were used as the independent factor in the MANOVA. The
groups’ avoidant and anxious scores were turned into Z scores, and then groups whose
average score are .5 higher or lower than the average score were assigned into a high or
low rating category, with low/low being assigned a secure category, and high/high being
assigned a fearful category. Anxious and Avoidant categorization was based upon a .5 Z
score difference as well. After this was done, the MANOVA was run, and several post-
hoc analyses were performed.

79
Results of the three (conflict style) by one (group attachment) MANOVA were
significant (Roy’s Largest Root=.39; F=5.91, p=.002). Follow up univariate revealed
significance for both relationship conflict (F (3, 45)=4.59, p=.007) and process conflict (F
(3, 45)=2.92, p=.044) differences. Post hoc tests that used multiple comparisons (Tukey
HSD) showed that groups that are high in avoidance showed significantly more
relationship conflict relative to the other attachment styles. In looking at significant mean
differences between avoidant groups and the other attachment-related groups, the secure
groups average is lower (p=.04), the anxious groups average is lower (p=.014) and the
fearful group average is also lower (p=.02). No other group differences were found
between groups when looking at relationship conflict. When significant Least Squared
Difference was used to look at process conflict and group level attachment style, a similar
pattern was found. In looking at mean differences, secure groups were lower (p=.033),
anxious groups were lower (p=.018) and fearful groups were also lower (p=.019) in
average level of relationship conflict than avoidant groups. Thus, the hypothesis was
found to be incorrect, though differences were found between the different average
attachment styles for the group. Avoidant attachment at the group average appears to
have the highest level of conflict within the group, with no differences found between the
other attachment styles. Please see Table Four and Table Five for a summary of these
statistics.

80
Table 4
Group Average Attachment MANOVA for Relationship and Process Conflict

Source

Roy’s
Root
F Df p Significant Post Hoc
Test
Group
Average
Attachment
0.394 5.91 3 .002*

Relationship
Conflict
4.59 3 .007* Avoidant Groups>All Other
Attachment Groups

Process
Conflict
2.92 3 .004* Avoidant Groups>All Other
Attachment Groups
*=significant at .01

Table 5
Group Attachment and Conflict Type
Conflict Type
Process Relationship Task
Group
Attachment
Style
N M SD M SD M SD
Secure 15 6.59 1.04 5.9 1.26 8.11 1.44
Anxious 16 6.44 1.55 5.67 1.48 7.98 1.33
Avoidant 12 8.07 2.55 7.74 2.56 8.13 1.76
Fearful 6 5.95 1.44 5.17 0.89 8.02 2.63

Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis two states the following. Groups with higher average levels of secure
attachment will report the highest levels of post conflict relationship repair within the
group. In terms of anxious attachment, I predict that the average level of post conflict
relationship repair will be between the secure and avoidant groups, and groups with
higher average levels of avoidant attachment will report the lowest level of post-conflict

81
relationship repair. This hypothesis will be examined using a MANOVA, and coding
will be similar to the previous use of MANOVA and group level average attachment
style.
Results of the two (post-conflict relationship repair) by one (group attachment
average) are insignificant (Roy’s Largest Root=.17, F=2.59; p=.065). Univariate analysis
and post hoc tests also show that no significant differences appear between the different
groups based on their attachment average. Thus, hypothesis two is unsupported by the
data. Please see Table Six for a summary of the group averages.
Table 6
Group Attachment Style and Relationship Repair
Relationship Repair
Active Passive
Group
Attachment Style
N M SD M SD
Secure 15 23.35 2.48 8.03 2.37
Anxious 16 23.11 3.28 9.62 3.77
Avoidant 12 24.02 5.09 9.75 2.53
Fearful 6 26.31 5.04 7.09 1.36

Hypothesis Three
For review, hypothesis three states the following. A linear relationship will be shown
between conflict, post conflict relationship repair and group trust. Specifically, high
levels of post conflict relationship repair will predict higher levels of trust which will
predict lower levels of conflict within the group. To test this hypothesis, I will run a
series of hierarchical regressions to explore the validity of this hypothesis. The results
are found in the following table for this regression (see Table Six). The first hierarchical

82
regression results reveal that relationship conflict is significantly predicted by both
positive conflict relationship repair and affective level of trust F (2, 48) =8.61, p=.001.
Affective group trust was significant and negative (beta=-.38, p=.002) as was post
conflict relationship repair (beta=-.27, p=.024). This regression shows that there is a
negative affect on relationship conflict by both affective group level trust and positive
post-conflict relationship repair.
The second hierarchical regression run looks at relationship conflict, negative post-
conflict relationship repair and affective trust. Here, the regression results show that
relationship conflict is significantly predicted by both negative post-conflict relationship
repair and affective trust F (2, 48)=7.154, p=.002. Affective group trust was again
negative (beta=-.31, p=.029), but negative post conflict relationship repair was positive
(beta=.29, p=.041). Here, relationship conflict is predicted negatively by affective group
trust, but positively with negative post-conflict relationship repair.
These regressions show that the predicted hypothesis is correct, and that additionally,
the hypothesis can be taken further than originally conceptualized. Please see Table
Seven for a summary of these regressions. These results will be conceptualized further in
the discussion section.
Table 7
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Hypothesis Three
Variables R
2
F B SE Beta p
Relationship Conflict 0.238 4.87** 0.002

Positive Post-Conflict
Relationship Repair
-0.133 0.063 -0.274 0.039

Affective Trust -0.241 0.082 -0.381 0.005

83

Table 7: Continued
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Hypothesis Three
Variables R
2
F B SE Beta p
Relationship Conflict 0.237 0.002

Negative Post-
Conflict Relationship
Repair
0.184 0.087 0.287 0.041

Affective Trust -0.195 0.086 -0.309
0.029
Note ** p<.01

Hypothesis Four
Hypothesis Four states the following. Groups with higher average levels of secure
attachment styles will report the highest levels of affective and cognitive trust within the
group, groups with the highest average level of anxious attachment style in a group will
report lower levels of affective trust than secure groups, and groups with higher average
levels of avoidant attachment will see the lowest level of both cognitive and affective
trust. MANOVA will again be used to analyze the differences between the group level
attachment style and the level of affective trust within the group.
The results of the two (group level trust) by one (group attachment average)
MANOVA are insignificant (Roy’s Largest Root=.085, F=1.275; p=.294). Univariate
analysis and post hoc tests also show that no significant differences appear between the
different groups based on their attachment average. Please see Tables Eight and Nine for
summary.

84

Table 8
Group Average Attachment MANOVA for Individual Level Affective Trust and
Cognitive Trust
Source

Roy’s
Root
F Df p Significant Post Hoc
Test
Group
Average
Attachment
0.068 4.705 3 0.003

Affective
Group Trust
4.03 3 0.008 Secure Individual > Avoidant,
Fearful Anxious Individual >
Avoidant, Fearful

Cognitive
Trust
0.261 3 0.853 No Significant Differences

Table 9
Group Attachment Style and Level of Trust
Affective Trust Cognitive Trust
Group
Attachment Style
N M SD M SD
Secure 15 20.64 2.68 29.83 3.22
Anxious 16 21.75 3.37 29.87 2.79
Avoidant 12 19.62 3.15 28.7 3.64
Fearful 6 21.44 1.74 30.7 2.62

Hypothesis Five
Hypothesis Five is as follows. Emergent leaders that are high on secure attachment
behaviors will show relatively higher levels of both initiating structure and showing
consideration relative to leaders higher in anxious and avoidant attachment, while
individuals that are high on attachment anxiety will show levels of showing consideration

85
that are similar to secure individuals, but that are higher than that of avoidantly attached
individuals. Finally, avoidantly attached leaders will show levels of initiating structure
that are similar to secure individuals, but that are higher than that of anxiously attached
individuals. Again, a MANOVA will be used to look at the differences between
attachment style and leadership style, though this time the analysis will be done at the
leadership level, not at the group level.
The results of the two (leadership behaviors) by one (leader attachment style) are
significant (Roy’s Largest Root=.322, F=3.465; p=.015). In looking at the LSD post hoc
tests, no findings are significant (f=2.403, p=.08). Please see Tables Ten and Eleven for
a summary of the statistical findings.

Table 10
Leader’s Attachment MANOVA for Initiating Structure and Showing Consideration
Source

Roy’s
Root
F Df p Significant Post Hoc Test
Leader’s
Attachment
Style
0.322 3.47 4 0.015

Initiating
Structure
0.19 3 0.9 No Significant Differences

Showing
Consideration
2.403 3 0.08 Secure Leader>Anxious Leader
Fearful Leader>Anxious
Leader

86

Table 11
Leader Attachment Style and Leadership Behavior

Leadership Behavior
Initiating Strucure* Showing
Consideration*
Leader
Attachment Style
N M SD M SD
Secure 25 24.8 3.25 20.51 3.38
Anxious 10 24.33 5.18 23.26 2.09
Avoidant 9 23.78 3.44 21.96 2.91
Fearful 5 23.77 6.41 19.63 4.02
*both measures are reversed scored

87

CHAPTER VI
Discussion
This chapter will discuss results of the analysis and the implications of these findings.
It will also look at limitations of the participant pool, the research design and some of the
methodological issues. It will end looking at future directions for this line of research.
Original Findings
This study had several findings that have not been seen in the literature. One of the
first unique findings was that fearfully attached leaders are correlated with poor
performance of the entire group. While the affect that poor leadership can have on a
group has been explored elsewhere (Popper, 2005), this is the first study that has looked
at attachment style and performance of the group through an empirical lens. While
secure attachment did not have an overall significant affect on the group performance,
other forms of attachment were found to.
There are two other findings that are unique to this research. The first is that when
there is a high level of avoidance within a group, there is a high level of conflict within
that group. While others have looked at personality differences and conflict in the past
(Bono et al., 2002; Chatman et al., 1998), this is the first study to look at attachment
differences at the group level as a source of conflict. This unique insight into the group
dynamics of individuals with a specific attachment type will be explored further when
reviewing the hypotheses.
The third unique finding is that post-conflict relationship repair is linked to both level
of conflict within a group and the level of trust within that group. While the link between

88
trust and level of conflict is not new (Porter & Lilly, 1996; Simons & Peterson, 2000), the
mechanism that associates these two group variables is a new finding. These findings
indicate that relationship repair can affect level of trust within a group and the level of
conflict within the group.
These findings show that not only are trust and conflict related, but that there is more
to this matter than choosing to ignore a conflict (De Dreu & Vianen, 2001) or actively
engaging in open discussions about conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997), the more
prominent ways of looking at conflict at this time. While both of these methods for
exploring conflict are valuable and useful for conceptualizing conflict, the current
research adds additional information about what happens after these sorts of behavior
have been expressed in the group. This extension of the research hopefully creates a
fuller picture when looking at group conflict, and extends the dynamics of how conflict is
dealt with by a group to points in time after a conflict has ended that have not been
previously explored.
Hypotheses Findings
Hypothesis One
This hypothesis was only partially supported and not in the way that was predicted.
While there were differences in the group average attachment style and conflict level
within the group, it was not as expected. Groups that were high in avoidance were
groups that perceived and reported significantly more relationship conflict, which goes
against the prediction that they would be the group that experienced the least amount of
conflict. There was also no significant difference between the average level of conflict

89
that a secure and anxious group experienced. Thus, the avoidant groups experienced
significantly more relationship conflict than any of the other attachment-based groupings.
This is a unique finding at the group level, and adds to the growing picture of what an
avoidantly attached individual’s internal working models look like after a conflict. It also
shows that when in groups, avoidantly attached individual’s process information
similarly to when they are in dyadic relationships. While we have a picture of what an
avoidantly attached individual’s models are like during a conflict (Creasey et al., 1999;
Pietromonaco & Feldman-Barrett, 1997; Simpson et al., 1996), the current study expands
this picture to show that avoidantly attached individuals do not forget slights at the group
level as well, even if they do not report the intensity of emotions that the other attachment
styles tend to report. As discussed in the literature (Mikulincer et al., 2003b), the current
research extends the premise that attachment style is powerful enough to bias processing
of events that are outside of significant emotional interpersonal events, bringing this
premise to interpersonal dynamics in the workplace.
The other attachment types are also interesting in that they do not experience conflict
at the group level as significantly high as the avoidant attachment type. While anxiously
attached individuals were expected to have the highest level of conflict within their
groups, they do not show a significant difference from secure or fearful groups. This
finding could be because of the positive experience of being part of a group without fear
of being abandoned grants them a sense of security. Unlike an intimate relationship, one
cannot get ‘kicked out’ of a school-related work group. This sense of security could
grant them the ability to relax and feel supported by other group members, something that

90
enables them to de-activate their usually hyper-active attachment mechanisms and not
fight for attachment-related issues.
To the anxious individual, their need for security is met by both the semi-permanence
(as it cannot abandon them) and at the same time known end of the group. This known
and fixed entity cannot abandon them, and perhaps they therefore do not engage in
conflict at the higher levels because they do not need to fight for the survival of the
group. Therefore, if a conflict were to occur, it would not be escalated at the group level
as it would be at the interpersonal level (Campbell et al, 2005), as there is no need to fight
for security at the predictable group level as there is at the dyad, somewhat unpredictable
level.
A second hypothesis about the motivation for lower conflict while in groups could
also be true. It has been shown that anxiously attached individuals will at times sacrifice
their own wants and needs when they feel that they may be rejected if they express their
desires (Mikulincer, 1998a), which could lead to them being less willing to engage in
conflict. If this hypothesis is true, the group is something that could potentially be a
source of rejection, and will therefore be actively engaged with positively so that the
individual can maintain good standing within the group. Here, the fear of rejection by the
group will force anxiously attached members to go with the group process and not create
waves, thereby decreasing the group level of conflict.
Finally, secure individuals engage and in and experience conflict at the levels that they
were predicted to do so. Secure groups correlated negatively with relationship conflict,
and did not correlate negatively with task conflict. This indicates that secure groups do
not have the emotional negativity that avoidant individuals have when interacting with

91
others. Also, the data shows that secure individuals actually engage in task conflict at
levels that are similar to avoidant individuals, but that there was not a significant
difference in the analysis, just suggestive findings in the data. Secure individuals seem to
view relationship conflict as something that is negative for the group, and actively do not
recall it when asked about it at a later time (Mikulincer & Orbach, 1995; Pereg &
Mikulincer, 2004). This could be an artifact of recall, or it could be that secure
individuals engage in lower levels of relationship conflict; deciding between these two
hypotheses goes beyond the scope of the data that was collected.
Hypothesis Two
Again, the results were not as expected, but the findings do lend some preliminary
support for the hypothesis that secure groups would show more positive forms of
relationship repair than either anxious or avoidant groups. The findings show that there
are no significant differences between the average attachment style of the group and the
forms of post-conflict relationship repair. In looking at the marginal means for these
groups, secure groups did engage in the highest level of positive post-conflict relationship
repair relative to anxious and avoidant groups, and the lowest level of negative post-
conflict relationship repair relative to anxious and avoidant groups. Yet, fearful groups
had the highest positive level and lowest negative level of post-conflict relationship
repair.
This finding, while not significant, is not what would be predicted. Fearful groups and
individuals are not well studied, though the research regarding this attachment type
(Tsong, 2004; Vasquez et al., 2002) usually paints individuals with fearful attachment
type as having difficulties functioning effectively in interpersonal relationships. The

92
current findings as the most effective group when it comes to coping could be caused by
level of interaction within the group, which was not measured in this study. If group
members are somewhat fearful of interacting, then the relative level of closeness and
investment in the group would go down. At the same time, without any sort of
interpersonal closeness within the group the group, the group may never have a level of
investment necessary for a disagreement amongst its members. Without a disagreement,
no relationship repair would occur, and thus these reported high levels of positive
relationship repair are more artifacts of no conflict occurring than an actual effort to
engage in positive or negative relationship repair. Again, interpreting these findings as
anything other than non-significant is unwarranted, but there could be several reasons for
the non-significant findings.
While there are attachment-related differences, the motivation for each of the different
attachment styles to engage in processing affective content in the group context differs.
Secure individuals tend to want intimacy within relationships (Mikulincer, 1998c), and
their individual drives towards intimacy could be being met outside of the context of the
group. While secure individuals would put in the effort to repair a relationship, they may
be close enough to people outside of the group that they do not need to engage in
relationship repair within the context of the current group. A secure individual in a
group for a class may see it as a peripheral relationship relative to other, stronger daily
ones, and may not see a need to engage in repair. Also, positive findings were shown for
level of repair and secure attachment, just not significantly. Perhaps the low number of
groups (n=15 secure groups) prevented a significant finding.

93
Avoidant individuals did act as predicted, as they did show lower levels of positive
relationship repair and higher levels of negative relationship repair, just not significantly
so. Again, the avoidant motivation in relationships is to find control and maintain
autonomy (Mikulincer, 1998c). These findings indicate that these behaviors were
occurring, just not to the point where there is an extreme difference between the
attachment styles. So, while avoidant individuals did not find ways to repair a
relationship, they did enough relationship repair to maintain group harmony.
Finally, anxious individuals again could have been contained by the group setting and
not felt the need to engage in relationship repair for their primary motivation, which is
safety (Mikulincer, 1998c). If an individual knows that a relationship has a contained
beginning, middle and end, then they do not need to fight for the issues of maintaining
proximity. In fact, if an anxious individual is wary of a potential loss, then they may not
invest in a relationship that is in by its very nature terminal and time-limited. This lack
of investment may lead to indifference towards the relationship, and a lower need to
repair ruptures as they occur.
Hypothesis Three
Hypothesis three looked at the relationship between relationship conflict, post-conflict
relationship repair and group level trust. It was found that the higher the level of
relationship conflict, the lower the level of post-conflict relationship repair and the lower
the level of group affective trust. This finding is matched by the result that relationship
conflict is negatively predicted by affective trust but positively predicted by negative
forms of relationship repair. Here, ignoring a conflict or stifling dissent can lead to
higher levels of relationship conflict.

94
Again, the finding that relationship conflict and trust are related is not unique
(Peterson & Behfar, 2003; Porter & Lilly, 1996; Simons & Peterson, 2000), it is the third
factor of post-conflict relationship repair that adds to the overall explanation of why trust
and conflict are linked that brings new understanding of this phenomenon. As noted
earlier, therapeutic alliance is a key factor for progress within the counseling dyad
(Bordin, 1979), and this dissertation hypothesizes that a similar process of ‘tear and
repair’ (Safran et al., 2001) creates a better working dynamic for groups focused on a
task. The continued maintenance of a working relationship amongst group members
outside of the realm of transgressions and ruptures of trust is an important, and relatively
unexplored, way to look at high functioning groups at the process level. The current
study looks at these maintenance processes, and shows that positive forms of relationship
repair, within the context of a functioning work group, helps reduce relationship conflict
and increase trust. The current study also shows that failure to engage in relationship
maintenance processes leads to higher levels of relationship conflict and lower levels of
trust within the group.
This finding extends previous research in this area by adding a post-conflict reparative
aspect to conflict resolution. While previous research (Amason, 1996; De Dreu &
Vianen, 2001) has looked at different ways to resolve a conflict with some aspects
addressing the relationship after the conflict, the current study looks at actual post-
conflict attempts to repair the relationship outside of drastic, repeated interpersonal
confrontations (Jehn, 1997) and ignoring the problem all together (De Dreu & Vianen,
2001). While interpersonal differences can cause conflicts to be difficult and intractable
(Jehn et al., 1997), to give up on repairing hurt feelings or bridging gaps in relationships

95
seems to be calling a difficult issue too difficult to find meaningful intervention. The
current research does not call for a whole scale intervention when people disagree, but
instead address the disagreement, acknowledge the level of difference between
individuals and find ways to continue to productively work together without residual
negative affect slowing down the group process.
Hypothesis Four
Again, the results were not significant at the group level, but the data did perform
somewhat in the predicted ways. When looking at the mean level of trust within the
different attachment-based groups, it was shown that anxious groups showed the highest
level of trust, then secure groups and finally avoidant groups.
Overall, there are several reasons for this finding. First, a low number of groups could
have been an issue with the results. The direction of the hypothesis is supported, but not
enough statistical power could have limited significance. Second, groups are becoming
more and more common within school environments, especially short term groups.
There may be internal processes that allow different attachment styles to engage in group
activities without investing enough time and effort to warrant activation of trust
mechanisms. Third, trust takes time to develop amongst individuals. These groups may
not have had enough time to bond to where trust differences were seen. Finally, the
group project itself may not have required enough time due to low valiance to engage
trust demands from the participants.
Hypothesis Five
In reviewing the differences between the leadership styles, there were only directional
findings. The results point towards secure leaders showing significantly more showing

96
consideration relative to anxiously attached leaders from the perspective of the followers.
This finding indicates that when asked by followers, secure leaders were seen as showing
consideration to followers significantly more than anxious leaders did. While the
hypothesis did discuss leadership differences based upon leadership attachment style, the
hypothesis is incorrect outside of this basic premise.
While this is unexpected relative to the hypothesis, it is not unexplainable when
looking at support from the literature. First, anxious individuals are seen as being less
supportive than secure individuals when faced with a difficult task (Collins & Feeney,
2004; Feeney & Collins, 2001). This could be also displayed when faced with leading a
group of people who may be challenging the leader in ways that an anxious individual
would experience as overwhelming. Also, the anxiously attached leader may be spending
more time focusing on the behavior of others that is seen as supportive as opposed to
being supportive towards others. Anxious individuals do not see care giving as a two-
way street, but instead are looking to be cared for as opposed to caring for another. This
seeking out support without offering it could be the reason that the anxiously attached
leader’s low level of consideration as rated by others.
Avoidant individuals have shown that when in groups, they see higher levels of
conflict, lower levels of trust and display a dislike for closeness with others. Their
inability to distinguish themselves as strong or weak in initiating structure and showing
consideration is somewhat of a surprise, as it would seem that they would be at least low
on showing consideration for others. In looking at the literature it has been found that
avoidant individuals provide ineffective support in many different conditions (Collins &

97
Feeney, 2000; Feeney, 2004a; Fraley & Shaver, 1998). Thus, being seen as no worse nor
better is somewhat surprising in the current study.
A tentative hypothesis for this result is that an avoidant leader could focus much more
on the mundane tasks of a group than the actual process. An avoidant leader is not
interested in getting close to the group or offering his or her help when needed by the
group. Therefore, an avoidant individual who is in a leadership position could be seen as
narcissistic (Popper, 2002), a pattern of behaviors that do not lend themselves well to
being either socially or structurally supportive to the group. Also, a very small
proportion of avoidant leaders emerged in the current study (n=5). With such a small
number, finding statistical significance can be difficult.
Finally, secure individuals performed as expected with regards to showing
consideration. Their willingness to be supportive of others and engage in mutually
satisfying relationships could be a reason why others find them supportive during group
activities. At the same time, a secure individual does not have the predispositional
attributes towards initiating structure as he or she does towards showing consideration,
which could be why the individual leaders did not stand out in terms of initiating
structure for the group. As found in other research (Popper et al., 2000), secure
individuals are able to show more leadership behaviors than the other attachment types.
The current study replicates these findings, and broadens the argument for inclusion of
attachment theory when looking at individual differences in leaders.
Summary of Individual Hypotheses
The goal of this study was to find individual differences based upon the individual and
group level attachment style differences. This overall goal was met for two out of the

98
four hypotheses that looked at this issue. While attachment theory has taken hold in
many different fields, it continues to be overlooked in the field of business, especially
within the area of leadership. This study, the first of its kind that looks at performance-
based measures and attachment, shows that attachment theory can explain some of the
variance in constructs that are of interest to the business community. From conflict to
trust, leadership and relationship repair, attachment theory was able to explain part of the
variance differences on how these issues affect and are affected by group dynamics.
Limitations
This section will discuss limitations of the current study, and explores the impact that
these limitations may have on the generalizability of the results.
Participant Pool
One of the first limitations of this study is the participant pool that the participants
were drawn from. The participants are all students at the University of Southern
California, and while a diverse group, are different than some of the comparative groups
that research on groups is performed with. The average age for the participants was
around 20 years old, making this group significantly younger than most of the studies
cited throughout this dissertation. This group was also quite diverse, which could make
generalizing the findings to other studies somewhat difficult. The age and diversity
limitations create barriers to generalizing the study to functioning work groups that are
already established within an organization. The students are also somewhat better
educated than some functioning work groups in industrial settings this study could be
generalized to, another difficulty.

99
The participants were mostly business major and minors, potentially skew the data in
unknown directions relative to a larger pool of participants. The participant pool was not
an accurate cross section of majors that exist within a university setting, and could create
problems when attempting to generalize findings into a diverse pool of individuals.
While this is true, the Marshall School of Business is ranked in the top ten of
undergraduate business schools, and attracts quite competitive students. This skew
towards intelligent, competitive students may create a participant pool that is smarter and
more competitive than normal students, which could create tensions that are not present
in students with other majors. At the same time, these students also are focused on
workplace behaviors and are interested in the business process, which makes them
somewhat representative of work teams that are found in organizations.
Task
The task was a case analysis project, which is a story about a company with a number
of problems that the students are asked to fix. Some of these students have never been
fully employed or engaged in a large organization, which makes addressing the problems
a somewhat academic challenge, and not something that they can bring practical
experiences to. This limits their ability to be creative and find innovative solutions
outside of their education, which could create another confound. It also could potentially
cause problems for cross-group comparisons. If one or two group members has actually
had some form of work experience, then he or she could lend his or her group a
competitive advantage that could have been found within their overall group grades.
There are two other factors that can influence the overall results based on the task.
First, the paper is weighted about a third of the student’s overall grade. While this is a

100
significant weight, it could be one that is not enough to fully engage all of the group
members, which would skew the results in unintended ways. With many classes to attend
to and other factors outside of school, the paper that the teams were required to complete
may not have had enough attention of the group members to make it an engaging task.
The second issue is with regards to the grading template. The grading template that was
used by the two raters is narrow and rigid as to what is being looked for in terms of good
and poor performance. These limitations created strong inter-rater reliability, but could
also constrain the grades that the students received. This, compounded with the
intelligence of the student population at Marshall, could create a participant pool with a
restricted range, to the point where a second pool of students may or may not receive
similar scores because of this restriction.
Single Data Point Collection
One of the first sources of error is common method bias, especially with respect to the
intra-group dynamics. While the research did pull data that allowed for triangulation
(grading the paper, rating of the group leader, multiple sources to create the averages for
each group), the primary findings were still self-report for a majority of the study. This
could limit the results to ones that are socially desirable or the questionnaires could have
been filled out in an effort to make the participant look better than he or she actually is.
Also, without a behavioral, third person assessor who could have observed the conflicts,
there is no actual external measure of conflict or trust within the group. This could be
especially confounding when it comes to the avoidant-group conflict link. This could be
a perception issue about conflict as opposed to the actual level of conflict that was

101
occurring within the group. This interpretation of events cannot be ruled out, and should
therefore be used as a cautionary stipulation when observing the results of this study.
Motivation of the Participant
Finally, the motivation of the participant is something that should be questioned. For
approximately 75% of the sample a known teaching assistant who would be evaluating
their performance requested that the students fill out a questionnaire. The assistant
assured them of confidentiality, but students could potentially feel that it is necessary to
fill out the questionnaire in order to ensure maximal credit for the course. This
motivation to just finish the questionnaire could have led to inaccurate responses and a
lack of interest, which could have lead to random responding.
Also, the students were not given any incentive to finish the survey, and approximately
three percent of all questionnaires had at least some portion of them not filled out
completely. The demand characteristics of filling out the questionnaire in front of fellow
students could have led students to partially fill it out when they did not want to fill it out
at all, which could again lead to random and or intentionally misleading responses to the
questionnaire overall. Students who did volunteer to fill it out could be different than
students that chose not to fill out the packet, which could also be a confound that could
not be measured, leading to a selection bias on the part of the participants themselves that
was not measured by this study.
Unit of Analysis
The final confound could be the unit of analysis that this study looks at. While
averaging personality types has been done in the past, attachment averages have not been
looked at empirically at the group level. While couple dyads have been studied as a

102
dyad, group level averages has not been observed for the attachment style. This first pass
at this material could be shown to later be an inaccurate or inauthentic representation of
how attachment affects group performance.
Also, looking at the group level forced the analysis to be run on a pool of 49 groups,
as opposed to a pool of over 220 individuals with completed packets. This statistical
confound could create a lack of power in the results of the data analysis that was done at
the group level. If there had been a larger pool of groups and the power of the analysis
had been higher, there are directional indicators that the findings that were shown in this
research could have been significant, or more significant if they already were found to
have been significant.
Future Directions
This section will look at future research that could be done in order to obtain a more
complete picture of the phenomenon that is being studied within this research.
Expansion of Measures
One of the first adjustments that could be made that could help broaden this study is
to utilize more of the conflict resolution measures that other studies have used when
looking at interpersonal negotiation and conflict resolution. This utilization of other
measures of conflict could help explain more variance than this study alone, and could
look to see if there were or are causal mechanisms or directional influences between
different conflict resolution strategies and the current post-conflict relationship repair
measures. Also, some of these conflict resolution strategies do overlap with the
relationship repair strategies, especially the negative negotiation and conflict resolution
passive interactions with other group members. Thus, utilizing some of these measures

103
when looking at group level conflict and relationship repair could lead to an expanding
picture of how these inter-related variables affect each other. Finally, a comparison of
variance explained when using attachment theory, the Big Five and an Emotional
Intelligence questionnaire to frame a behavior of interest in organizations would be
completed, so that the previous findings of attachment theory being a more powerful
predictor (Noftle & Shaver, 2006; Shaver & Brennan, 1992) could be replicated within
the field of organizational behavior.
Time Stagger
A second adjustment could be to take repeated measures of the group so that conflict,
trust and relationship repair could all be measured at a more accurate and micro level
over time. The current research utilizes statistical techniques to ascertain the
directionality of the variable affects on each other. Staggering measures and taking
several snapshots of group climate and levels of trust over the course of the project could
help create an accurate, causal picture of what is going on within each of the groups.
This repeated measures design would allow for far more accuracy and power when
making inferences about the directionality of variables, and could also add power to
statistical findings that the current study was lacking.
Participant Pool
While the participants were all engaged in a business-based project, collecting data
from fully functioning work teams engaged in an actual project could lead to different
and potentially more insightful conclusions. The level of experience, the learning curve
for the task at hand and the interpersonal dynamics of a functioning team working on a
project that has been together for several tasks or for an extended period of time could be

104
a fruitful group to study. At the same time, the post-conflict relationship repair norms
would be far more established in a long-term team, and this could lead insight into
different ways that long-standing colleagues are able and willing to address conflict and
tear and repair processes. Also, working adults could have a different set of attachment
demands outside of this project (wives, husbands, families, etc), creating different
demands for interpersonal interactions within the workplace. These differential
interactions could lead to increased attachment-based interaction patterns when the level
of attachment is measured at the group average.
Research Directions
There are two long-term projects that will stem out of this early endeavor. The first of
these two will require that I get trained in the Adult Attachment Interview, which is the
standard protocol for interpersonal questioning around one’s attachment-relevant history.
Then I would like to interview the CEO from Fortune 100 Companies to see what his or
her basic attachment style is. Using qualitative software, I would like to analyze these
interviews for his or her basic attachment style, and then compare these findings with
performance of the company in both easy and difficult conditions based upon the industry
average performance during these periods. The second project looks again at Fortune
100 Companies, but this time requires the questionnaire packet that was administered in
the current study to be administered to top management teams within the company. This
way, a broader and more widely accepted version of this study could be pursued.
There are two theory papers that could come directly from this stream of research.
The first one is a basic overview of attachment theory, and would address the
fundamental overview of ‘Attachment Theory as an Organizing Principle for

105
Interpersonal Behaviors in Organizations’. This paper would address issues of trust,
leadership, conflict, management style and micro-behaviors that occur in organizations,
and the predictive quality that attachment style could lend to enhance the field’s
understanding of personality differences in the workplace. The second paper would look
at the Big Five, Emotional Intelligence and Attachment Theory, and would discuss how
attachment theory can under gird and give more explanatory power to these two
theoryless models.
Conclusion
This research attempted to include one of the more powerful and prevalent theories
from psychology into existing frameworks of organizational behavior. While not all of
the predicted attachment-related behaviors were seen as significant, enough findings
displayed statistical support. This support leads one to believe that attachment theory
does have a place in the quantitative side of organizational behavior. While the field of
business at times struggles with its identity and direction, attachment theory could help
create a context for further exploration using strong statistical measures that have a broad
and empirically validated theoretical base for their foundation. This foundation could
lend credibility to the personality based theories and studies that are being published in
top management journals.
The current study also looked at broader issues of group dynamics, trust and
relationship repair. In this area, again, psychology could bring meaning and insight into
different ways to help teams and groups function at a continuously higher level. Current
conflict management and dispute resolution do not focus on the aftermath of these
sometimes emotionally charged and contentious occurrences. Continuing to study

106
relationship repair after a conflict could continue to build the theory behind tear and
repair processes, and extend this highly useful tool outside of the counseling session into
the workplace.
Finally, it appears as though interdisciplinary thought is not as strongly used or
supported as often as it is called for. The dearth of publications since the original
attachment theory based studies were published in business journals is both surprising
and puzzling. Psychology in many of its disciplines has literally created cottage
industries and journals around attachment theory; the business literature has about one
theory paper on attachment every two years. There are also only about seven quantitative
papers that address the topic of organizational behavior and attachment theory. This is a
strange state of affairs, especially in light of the two most powerful personality measures
that receive empirical and institutional support in the business literature: the Big Five
and Emotional Intelligence. Attachment theory is stronger, more accurate, more
predictive and better studied than either of these constructs in my opinion, and should be
pushed to the forefront of personality research when looking at organizational behaviors.

107
References
Ainsworth, M. D. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical
review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Development, 40(4), 969-1025.

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and
performance in organizational teams Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625-642.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict
on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams.
Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123.

Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and
interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management,
23(4), 495.

Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995).
Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35.

Anders, S. L., & Tucker, J. S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal
communication competence, and social support. Personal Relationships, 7(4),
379-389.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-
building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33.

Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic
configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273-
282.

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(3), 216.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment style among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.

Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,
research and managerial applications.: Collier Macmillan.

108
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and
performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989-1004.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the
relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of chinese
employees Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.

Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader:The leadership classic-updated and expanded.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group.

Benoit, D., & Parker, K. C. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three
generations. Child Development 65(5), 1444-1456.

Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). Attachment style and mental health: A
1-year follow-up study of mothers of infants with congenital heart disease. Pers
Soc Psychol Bull, 27(8), 956-968.

Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games
and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142.

Berson, Y., Dan, O., & Yammarino, F. J. (2006). Attachment style and individual
differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 146(2), 165-183.

Bippus, A., M. , & Rollin, E. (2003). Attachment style differences in relational
maintenance and conflict behaviors: Friends' perceptions. Communication
Reports, 16(2), 113.

Birnbaum, G. E., Orr, I., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1997). When marriage breaks
up-does attachment style contribute to coping and mental health? Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 643-654.

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level
properties: An examination of eta-squared and icc values. Journal of
Management, 24(2), 157-172.

Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in
task and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70(3), 311-344.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working
alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252-260.

109
Bordin, E. S. (1981). A psychodynamic view of counseling psychology. The Counseling
Psychologist, 9(1), 62-71.

Bordin, E. S. (1983). Supervision in counseling: Ii. Contemporary models of supervision:
A working alliance based model of supervision. Counseling Psychologist, 11(1),
35-42.

Boulding, K. (1963). Conflict and defense: A general theory. New York: Harper &
Brothers.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. . New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York: Basic
Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London Tavistock
Publications.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic
Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships. (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford
Press.

Brown, A. D. (1997). Narcissism, identity, and legitimacy. Academy of Management. The
Academy of Management Review, 22(3), 643.

Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A
psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 25(1), 102.

Burge, D., Hammen, C., Davila, J., Daley, S. E., Paley, B., Herzberg, D., et al. (1997).
Attachment cognitions and college and work functioning two years later in late
adolescent women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(3), 285 - 301.

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict
and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 510-531.

110
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press.

Chappell, K. D., & Davis, K. E. (1998). Attachment, partner choice, and perception of
romantic partners: An experimental test of the attachment-security hypothesis.
Personal Relationships, 5(3), 327-342.

Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet
feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational
culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4),
749.

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation,
emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. , 71(4),
810-832.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective
on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1053-1073.

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions
of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(3), 363-383.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4),
644-663.

Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and
clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Creasey, G. (2002). Associations between working models of attachment and conflict
management behavior in romantic couples. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
49(3), 365-375.

Creasey, G., Kershaw, K., & Boston, A. (1999). Conflict management with friends and
romantic partners: The role of attachment and negative mood regulation
expectancies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(5), 523-543.

Crittenden, P. M. (1985). The relationship between maternal risk status and maternal
sensitivity. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 54(2), 250-262.

111
Dalton, D. R., Daily, C. M., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic
reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 269-290.

Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 826-838.

Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment change processes in the
early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5),
783-802.

Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional, and behavioral
reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and
attachment style. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 29(7), 871-884.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Vianen, A. E. M. V. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and
the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22(3), 309-328.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4), 741.

de Vries, M. F. R. K., & Miller, D. (1985). Narcissism and leadership: An object relations
perspective. Human Relations, 38(6), 583-601.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings.
Organization Science, 12(4), 450-467.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and
implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-
628.

Dixon, M. A., & Cunningham, G. B. (2006). Data aggregation in multilevel analysis: A
review of conceptual and statistical issues. Measurement in Physical Education
and Exercise Science, 10(2), 85-107.

Doney, P. M., Cannon, J. P., & Mullen, M. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of
national culture on the development of trust. The Academy of Management
Review, 23(3), 601-620.

112
Doverspike, D., Hollis, L. A., Justice, A., & Polomsky, M. (1997). Correlations between
leadership styles as measured by the least preferred co-worker scale and adults'
attachment styles. Psychological Reports, 81(3, Pt 2), 1148-1150.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing
women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity
perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46(2), 229.

Erdem, F., & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing
team performance Team Performance Management, 9(5), 131-135.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating
the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological
Methods, 4, 272-299.

Feeney, B. C. (2004a). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and
exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. , 87(5), 631-648.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(6), 972-994.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). Interpersonal safe haven and secure base
caregiving processes in adulthood. New York: The Guilford Press.

Feeney, B. C., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (1999). Attachment and close relationships. In C.
Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.

Feeney, J. A. (1995). Adult attachment and emotional control. Personal Relationships,
2(2), 143-159.

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction.
Personal Relationships, 6(2), 169-185.

Feeney, J. A. (2004b). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Towards integrative models
of the negative effects of hurtful events. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 21(4), 487-508.

113
Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of
attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12(2),
253-271.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fishtein, J., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). The contribution of
attachment style and relationship conflict to the complexity of relationship
knowledge. . Social Cognition, 17, 228-244.

Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances
and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 825.

Fleishman, E. A., & Harris, E. F. (1962). Patterns of leadership behavior related to
employee grievances and turnover. Personnel Psychology, 15(1), 43-56.

Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental
health during a stressful real-life situation?: The roles of appraisal and coping.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 687-695.

Florin, P., Giamartino, G. A., Kenny, D. A., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Levels of
analysis and effects: Clarifying group influence and climate by separating
individual and group effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(11), 881-
900.

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the
defensive organization of emotion, cognition and behavior. In J. A. Simpson; &
W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 249-279).
New York: Guliford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Garner, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (2000a). Adult attachment and the defensive
regulation of attention and memory: Examining the role of preemptive and
postemptive defensive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(5), 816-826.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted
thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 73(5), 1080-1091.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult
attachment dynamics in seperating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75, 1198-1212.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of
General Psychology, 4(2), 132-154.

114
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000b). An item response theory analysis
of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(2), 350-365.

Gaines, S. O., Reis, H. T., Summers, S., Rusbult, C. E., Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., et al.
(1997). Impact of attachment style on reactions to accommodative dilemmas in
close relationships. Personal Relationships, 4(2), 93-113.

Gardner, J. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power
of emotional intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Hardy, G. E., & Barkham, M. (1994). The relationship between interpersonal attachment
styles and work difficulties. Human Relations, 47(3), 263-281.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment theoretical
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270-280.

Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and
outcome in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38 (2), 139-149.

Hu, L., & Bender, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The
effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on
workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E., A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 44(2), 238.

115
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G., B. , & Neale, M., A. (1999). Why differences make a
difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741.

Jehn, K. A., & Shah, P. P. (1997). Interpersonal relationships and task performance: An
examination of mediation processes in friendship and acquaintance groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 775-790.

Johnston, M. A. (2000). Delegation and organizational structure in small businesses:
Influences of manager's attachment patterns. Group & Organization
Management, 25(1), 4.

Joplin, J. R., Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1999). Attachment behavior and health:
Relationships at work and home. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(6), 783-
796.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:
A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-
780.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology. ,
89(5), 755-768.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones?: The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied
Psychology. , 89(1), 36-51.

Kachadourian, L. K., Fincham, F., & Davila, J. (2004). The tendency to forgive in dating
and married couples: The role of attachment and relationship satisfaction.
Personal Relationships, 11(3), 373-393.

Kahn, W. A., & Kram, K. E. (1994). Authority at work: Internal models and their
organizational consequences. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 19(1), 17.

Kaitz, M., Bar-Haim, Y., Lehrer, M., & Grossman, E. (2004). Adult attachment style and
interpersonal distance. Attachment & Human Development. , 6(3), 285-304.

Karen, R. (1994). Becoming attached: First relationships and how they shape our
capacity to love. New York: Oxford University Press.

Keelan, J. P. R., Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1994). Attachment style and heterosexual
relationships among young adults: A short-term panel study. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 11(2), 201-214.

116

Kell, B. L., & Mueller, W. J. (1966). Impact and change: A study of counseling
relationships. Dallas: Mildreds Books.

Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 202-210.

Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment
perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141-
160.

Keller, T., & Cacioppe, R. (2002). Leader-follower attachments: Understanding parental
images at work. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 70-75.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). A longitudinal study of changes in religious belief and
behavior as a function of individual differences in adult attachment style. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(2), 207-217.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Davis, K. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender and relationship
stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66(3), 502-512.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in
conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research
Methods, 3(3), 211-236.

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is
attractive--self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment
security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709-722.

Kobak, R. (1994). Adult attachment: A personality or relationship construct?
Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 42-44.

Kobak, R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and
accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
60(6), 861-869.

Kobak, R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect
regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development 59(135-
146).

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives,
enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569.

117
Krausz, M., Bizman, A., & Braslavsky, D. (2001). Effects of attachment style on
preferences for and satisfaction with different employment contracts: An
exploratory study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 299-316.

Lansford, E. (1986). Weakenings and repairs of the working alliance in short-term
psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(4), 364-366.

Latty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice:
Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(1), 5-
23.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.

Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in working
relationships. . In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lewicki, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2000). Trust, trust development, and trust repair. In M.
Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and
practice. (pp. 86-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967-
985.

Lewis, J. M. (2000). Repairing the bond in important relationships: A dynamic for
personality maturation. Am J Psychiatry, 157(9), 1375-1378.

Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dyanmic processes underlying adult attachment
organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and
effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 283-300.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq
literature. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S., & Turgeon, C. (1997). Coping strategies as moderators of the
relationship between attachment and marital adjustment. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 14(6), 777-791.

Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. Leadership
Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.

118
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

Mayer, R. C., & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performace: Who minds
the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal,
48(5), 874-888.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for
interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
24-59.

McKnight, D. H., Larry, L. C., & Norman, L. C. (1998). Initial trust formation in new
organizational relationships. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 473.

Mikulincer, M. (1998a). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations
in self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 420-435.

Mikulincer, M. (1998b). Adult attachment style and individual differences in functional
versus dysfunctional experiences of anger. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74(2), 513-524.

Mikulincer, M. (1998c). Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An
exploration of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(5), 1209-1224.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1995). Appraisal of and coping with a real-life stressful
situation: The contribution of attachment styles. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 406-414.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies,
and posttraumatic psychological distress: The impact of the gulf war in israel.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 817-826.

Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system
in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental
representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83(4), 881-895.

Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-
disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321-331.

119
Mikulincer, M., & Orbach, I. (1995). Attachment styles and repressive defensiveness:
The accessibility and architecture of affective memories. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68(5), 917-925.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Mental representations of attachment security:
Theoretical foundation for a positive social psychology. Baldwin, Mark W. (Ed).
(2005). Interpersonal cognition. (pp. 233-266). New York, NY, US: Guilford
Press. xviii, 462 pp.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003a). Attachment theory and affect
regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of
attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77-102.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Zanna, M. P. (2003b). The attachment behavioral
system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. Volume 35, pp. 53-152):
Academic Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Sheffi, E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to
positive affect: A test of mental categorization and creative problem solving.
Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 149-174.

Miller, P. J. E., & Rempel, J. K. (2004). Trust and partner-enhancing attributions in close
relationships. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 30(6), 695-705.

Mitroff, I. I., & Linstone, H. A. (1993). The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of
traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.

Morrow, J. L. J., Hansen, M. H., & Pearson, A. W. (2004). The cognitive and affective
antecedents of general trust within cooperative organizations. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 16(1), 48.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227.

Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in
organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior,
12, 543-554.

Noftle, E. E., & Shaver, P. R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the big five personality
traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40(2), 179-208.

120
O'Connell, K. C., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective
taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD,
78(4), 473.

Ognibene, T. C., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social
support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
15(3), 323-345.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An
analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-26.

Pereg, D., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Attachment style and the regulation of negative
affect: Exploring individual differences in mood congruency effects on memory
and judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(1), 67-80.

Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic relationiship between performance
feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1/2), 102.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman-Barrett, L. (1997). Working models of attachment and
daily social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6),
1409-1423.

Pietromonaco, P. R., Greenwood, D., & Barrett, L. F. (2004). Conflict in adult close
relationships: An attachment perspective. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.),
. Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications. (pp. 267-299).
New York: Guilford Publications.

Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic relationships: Style of conflict
resolution and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6(4), 505-510.

Pistole, M. C. (1993). Attachment relationships: Self-disclosure and trust. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 15(1), 94-106.

Pistole, M. C., & Frank, A. (2003). Understanding attachments: Beliefs about conflict.
Journal of Counseling and Development : JCD, 81(3), 318-334.

Popper, M. (2002). Narcissism and attachment patterns of personalized and socialized
charismatic leaders. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 797-
811.

Popper, M. (2004). Leadership as relationship. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour, 34(2), 107-125.

121
Popper, M. (2005). Leaders who transform society: What drives them and why we are
attracted. Westport, CT, US: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Popper, M., Amit, K., Gal, R., Mishkal-Sinai, M., & Lisak, A. (2004). The capacity to
lead: Major psychological differences between leaders and nonleaders. Military
Psychology, 16(4), 245-263.

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to
transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 41-64.

Popper, M., Mayseless, O., & Castelnovo, O. (2000). Transformational leadership and
attachment. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 267-289.

Porter, T. W., & Lilly, B. S. (1996). The effects of conflict, trust, and task commitment
on project team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management,
7(4), 361.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112.

Robertson, J., & Bowlby, J. (1952). Responses of young children to separation from their
mothers. . In Courier of the international children’s centre (Vol. 2, pp. 131-140).
Paris.

Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The
association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals,
memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6),
1220-1235.

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American
Psychologist, 26(5), 443-452.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after
all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 393-398.

Rowatt, W., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Two dimensions of attachment to god and their
relation to affect, religiosity, and personality constructs. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 41(4), 637-651.

Safran, J. D. (1993a). Breaches in the therapeutic alliance: An arena for negotiating
authentic relatedness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,
30(1), 11-24.

122
Safran, J. D. (1993b). The therapeutic alliance rupture as a transtheoretical phenomenon:
Definitional and conceptual issues. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 3(1),
33-49.

Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (1996). The resolution of ruptures in the therapeutic
alliance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 447-458.

Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000a). Negotiating the therapeutic alliance: A relational
treatment guide. New York: Guilford Press.

Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2000b). Resolving therapeutic alliance ruptures: Diversity
and integration. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 233-243.

Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., Samstag, L. W., & Stevens, C. (2001). Repairing alliance
ruptures. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(4), 406-412.

Sanderson, C. A., & Karetsky, K. H. (2002). Intimacy goals and strategies of conflict
resolution in dating relationships: A mediational analysis. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 19(3), 317-337.

Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The
interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation,
2(2), 149-165.

Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the "Big five" Personality
traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545.

Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive
reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 343-359.

Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in
romantic relationships. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 143-157.

Siegal, D. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to
shape who we are. . New York: The Guilford Press.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(1), 102-127.

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971-980.

123
Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary perspective. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and
clinical applications. New York: The Guilford Press.

Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the
experience and expression of emotions in romantic relationships: A
developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2),
355-367.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of
attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 598-608.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: An
attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(5),
899-914.

Smith, E. R., Murphy, J., & Coats, S. (1999). Attachment to groups: Theory and
management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. , 77(1), 94-110.

Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48(4), 1184-1199.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and
favorable outcomes at the workplace Organization Science, 5(1), 51-71.

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A systems model of leadership: Wics. American Psychologist,
62(1), 34-42.

Stewart, J. (2005). Disneywar: The battle for the magic kingdom: Simon & Schuster.

Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological
Bulletin, 47, 1-14.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Leader behavior description questionnaire-form xii: An
experimental revision (pp. 1-14): Ohio State.

Sumer, H. C., & Knight, P. A. (2001). How do people with different attachment styles
balance work and family? A personality perspective on work-family linkages.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 653-663.

Tidwell, M.-C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment, attractiveness, and
social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.,
71(4), 729-745.

124
Tjosvold, D. (1988). Cooperative and competitive dynamics within and between
organizational units. Human Relations, 41(6), 425-436.

Towler, A. (2005). Charismatic leadership development: Role of parental attachment
style and parental psychological control. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 11(4), 15-21.

Travis, L. A., Bliwise, N. G., Binder, J. L., & Horne-Moyer, H. L. (2001). Changes in
clients' attachment styles over the course of time-limited dynamic psychotherapy.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(2), 149-159.

Tsong, Y. V. (2004). The roles of supervisee attachment styles and perception of
supervisors' general and multicultural competence in supervisory working
alliance, supervisee omissions in supervision, and supervision outcome. DAI,
65(09A), 197.

Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2002). Family and work: Implications of adult
attachment styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 874-886.

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (2007). The role of the situation in leadership. American
Psychologist, 62(1), 17-24.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership
matter? Ceo leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived
environmental uncertainty. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 134-
143.

Waters, H. S., Rodrigues, L. M., & Ridgeway, D. (1998). Cognitive underpinnings of
narrative attachment assessment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 71,
211-234.

Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. M., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment,
depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(3), 368-377.

Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an effective context for
trust development. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management
Review, 26(3), 377-401.

Zaccaro, S. J. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist,
62(1), 6-16.

Zaleznik, A. (1995). The case for not interpreting unconscious mental life in consulting to
organizations. Psychiatry, 58(4), 357.

125
Zaleznik, A. (2004). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business
Review, 82(1), 74-87.

Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.

126
Appendix A
Template for Grading the Case Analysis

I. Developed complete mastery of the facts in the case
√ Relevant / critical facts
√ Discarding irrelevant facts
√ Clear picture of the situation
√ Reasonable assumptions
10 points _______

II. Clarify the problem and diagnose its causes
√ Determining the key problems (overall issues rather than details)
(e.g. leadership, individual differences, communication, organization design, etc.)
√ Appropriate supporting logic
√ Applying OB theories to understand the causes
√ Details and examples (i.e. if communication is determined to be a problem, outline specifically where
things went wrong in the communication process – e.g. encoding)
25 points _____

III. Identify alternative courses of action and assess them
√ Acknowledge several possible solutions (2-3 options)
√ Identifying pros and cons for each option
√ Application of OB theories and terminology (not just stated)
√ Each option helps to solve the problem/problems that are identified
√ Logical consistency
√ Solutions are grounded in reality and the context
25 points _____

IV. Decide on a course of action
√ The solution is supported/defended as to why it was selected
√ Discussion of chosen option and steps in greater detail
√ Potential issues associated with implementation
√ Logical Consistency
√ Final solution addressed the main problem and its causes, which are identified prior
√ Verifying the decision from several angles
25 points _____

V. Overall Presentation
√ Grammar, spelling
√ Clarity of writing and ideas
√ Flow of paper
15 points ______

TOTAL 100 points _______

127

Appendix B
Post Conflict Relationship Repair Scale

Positive Post-Conflict Relationship Repair items

After the conflict, the group was able to continue on with ‘no hard feelings’.

After the conflict, we made an effort to make certain that things were ‘smoothed over’.

After the conflict, the group discussed the matter without getting upset.

After the conflict, the group ‘pulled together’ to solve the problem effectively.

Negative Post-Conflict Relationship Repair items

After the conflict, we did not speak about it, even though some of us were still upset.

After the conflict I avoided interacting with the group.

After the conflict, people in the group seemed to ‘hold a grudge’.

After the conflict, other people avoided being around the group.

Three Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale (PCRRS) was developed in three steps.
The first step, the narrowing of the pool of questions, was completed as part of an intern
presentation while I was at the UC Riverside Counseling Center. The clinical staff
members at the counseling center, whom are all licensed psychotherapists (five Ph. D
degrees, three MFT degrees and one Psy. D degree) and two psychological interns (both
completing their Psy. D. degree) were asked to help refine the instrument.
These staff members were asked to select 20 out of the 40 questions I had developed
that they thought best captured the construct of post-conflict relationship repair. They
were asked to select 10 items that captured positive forms of relationship repair, and 10
that captured negative forms of relationship repair. After the group completed this, they

128
were asked to help correct any wording, spelling or grammatical errors that would
interfere with the ability to answer the question accurately. It was calculated which items
received the most votes (e.g., were selected by the highest number of therapists.
This led to a final pool of 16 questions, eight for each factor. A final review of the
questions was completed by a clinical supervisor. An outside business professor also was
asked to review the items for missed grammatical errors, misspellings, etc.
The second step was to examine the factor structure and, using SPSS 14 to perform an
exploratory factor analysis. The participant data used for this analysis were from the
current study. Items first were run through an exploratory factor analysis, using the
principal axis with oblique rotation without specifying a specific factor solution. This
step was taken so that common factors or latent constructs could be identified (Fabrigar,
Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). The constructs also are thought to be
negatively correlated with each other (groups that ignore each other are not likely to
engage in positive relationship repair), so an oblique rotation with a simple structure was
assumed (Comrey, 1988).
Several preconditions were established regarding whether an item would be retained
(Comrey, 1988; Comrey & Lee, 1992). Three basic recommendations are that an item
(1) has a factor loading of .5 or higher on a factor, (2) loaded at least .15 higher on a
specific factor than on a different factor, and (3) the items that make up a factor are
conceptually similar to each factor. These all assume that the factors themselves make
sense relative to the questions that the measure or scale is trying to ask.
Three factors were obtained before the eignvalues became less than three percent of
variance explained different from each other, a precondition for a separate factor to be

129
established. One factor had two items that loaded onto it (“after the conflict, we
pretended that it did not happen” and “after the conflict, we treated each other the same”).
This factor and associated items were eliminated because it had only two items that
loaded over .5 on it, which violated one of the decision rules.
After these items were eliminated, exploratory factor analysis was again conducted.
This time, two factors were obtained. Two additional items were eliminated at this step,
as one did not load over .5 on either of the factors or loaded highly on both factors. Also,
four other items were eliminated because they had more to do with the residual affect of
the group after a conflict instead of post-conflict relationship repair strategies (e.g. “after
the conflict we liked each other better”). The remaining pool of eight items, were used in
an exploratory factor analysis for the final time.
These eight items clustered into two different factors. These factors accounted for
63.72% of the variance, with the first factor accounting for 49.78% of the variance and
the second factor accounting for 13.93% of the variance explained. Table One displays
the items and their factor loadings for each of the two relationship repair scales.
Table 12
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale, Initial Communalities Estimates
and Factor Loadings
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale (PCRRS) ICE 1 2
Positive Post-Conflict Relationship Repair items

0.67 -0.19 0.7 1. After the conflict, the group was able to continue on
with ‘no hard feelings’.

130
Table 12: Continued
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale, Initial Communalities Estimates
and Factor Loadings
Post-Conflict Relationship Repair Scale (PCRRS) ICE 1 2

0.69 0.1 0.88 2. After the conflict, we made an effort to make certain
that things were ‘smoothed over’.

3. After the conflict, the group discussed the matter
without getting upset.
0.63 -0.04 0.77

4. After the conflict, the group ‘pulled together’ to solve
the problem effectively.
0.56 0 0.75

Negative Post-Conflict Relationship Repair items

5. After the conflict, we did not speak about it, even
though some of us were still upset.
0.57 0.79 0.07

6. After the conflict I avoided interacting with the group. 0.68 0.84 0.026

0.59 0.7 -0.11 7. After the conflict, people in the group seemed to ‘hold
a grudge’.

8. After the conflict, other people avoided being around
the group.
0.71 0.8 -0.06
ICE= Initial Communalities Extraction

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) then was run to examine the factor
structures and the construct validity of the measure. Hu and Bender (1999) and Kline
(1998) both recommend ensuring that the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) for the CFA

131
model be above .95 and the Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) is
close to or less than .06.
Kline (1998) recommended two additional measures for goodness of fit between the
data and the theorized structure. The first recommendation is the Chi-Squared/Degrees
of Freedom ratio, which is the ratio of the chi-squared statistic over the degrees of
freedom, be below 3 for a good fit between the hypothesized factor structure and the data
set analyzed. The second is the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index (NFI), which when
above .9, a good fit is assumed. Although there is some debate in the level for acceptable
goodness of fit and of the reliability of each of these individual measures (Hu & Bender,
1999), when a CFA solution meets all of these criteria, goodness of fit can be assumed.
When looking at the current data set, the following results were found. The CFI for
the current data is a .96, the RMSEA=.073 (high .10 and low .04), the Chi-
Squared/Degree of Freedom ratio was 2.21 and the NFI is .94. All of these exceed the
minimum recommended constraints. This indicates that the data collected supports the
hypothesized structure for the scales that were created for this study. The latent
constructs correlate at -.41 at the individual level, which should be considered when
looking at the overall structure of the scales.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focused on attachment theory and its relationship to trust, conflict, relationship repair and leadership style. Participants were 226 undergraduate students that completed a case analysis project in teams as part of a class. Data was collected from the individual participants regarding level of team conflict, level of trust between the group members and attempts at relationship repair after a conflict. Data was also collected at the individual level regarding that individual's attachment style, their trust in the group leader and their perception of the group leader's leadership style. Individual responses were aggregated to the group level, and data was analyzed at the group level. Two of the five hypotheses proposed were supported, at least partially, by the data. Groups that were higher in avoidance were shown to experience the most amount of conflict relative to the other attachment styles. Also, there was a relationship shown between level of conflict, post-conflict relationship repair and affective trust. These results are discussed in relationship to research on attachment theory, and future directions for research are also discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sex-role orientation, gender role attitudes, and acculturation as predictors of psychological well-being

PDF

Relationship of gender role conflict and acculturation to willingness to seek psychological help among Asian American and European American men

PDF

The effects of mortality salience and perceived terrorism threat on attitudes toward Muslim and Muslim Americans

PDF

The impact of conflict and resilience on leadership: a mixed methods study of female elementary principals leading change

PDF

Medical students' reflections on professional behavior: cognitive style as a predictor of content and level of integrative complexity

PDF

Correspondence between level of racial identity of African-American therapists and of a vignette-depicted African-American client and assessed client problem severity

PDF

The relationship between learning style and student satisfaction in the Problem Based Learning Dental Program at the University of Southern California

PDF

The role of acculturation in Asian Americans' attitudes towards domestic violence and of male privilege as a mediator in placing blame

PDF

Conflict and resilience in women leaders of educational change

PDF

The relationship between parenting styles, career decision self-efficacy, and career maturity of Asian American college students

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

Civic associations, local governance and conflict prevention in Indonesia

PDF

Proactive detection of higher-order software design conflicts

PDF

The bi-directional impact of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on entrepreneurs, executives and organizations in high stress careers

PDF

Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period

PDF

Exploring the relationship between academic achievement and classroom behavior of Asian American elementary school students

PDF

Strategies for relationship and trust building by successful superintendents: a case study

PDF

Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity

PDF

Identity salience and political violence: centering social identity in the study of intrastate conflict

PDF

Senior-level student affairs' administrators' self-reported leadership practices, behaviors, and strategies

Asset Metadata

Creator Bresnahan, Christopher G. (author)

Core Title Attachment style as a predictor of group conflict, post-conflict relationship repair, trust and leadership style

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education (Counseling Psychology)

Publication Date 08/02/2008

Defense Date 05/27/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag attachment theory,conflict,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,relationship repair,Trust

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Goodyear, Rodney K. (committee chair), Mitroff, Ian I. (committee member), Stone, Gerald (committee member)

Creator Email cbresna504@aol.com,cbresnah@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1523

Unique identifier UC1291507

Identifier etd-bresnahan-2193 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-92619 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1523 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-bresnahan-2193.pdf

Dmrecord 92619

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bresnahan, Christopher G.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu