Discussion week 2

University of Central Florida University of Central Florida

STARS STARS

Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations

2022

Attachment, Identity Processing Style, and Emotion Regulation Attachment, Identity Processing Style, and Emotion Regulation

Among Emerging Adults Among Emerging Adults

Kaitlyn M. Daleandro University of Central Florida

Part of the Psychology Commons

Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses

University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu

This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has

been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more

information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Daleandro, Kaitlyn M., "Attachment, Identity Processing Style, and Emotion Regulation Among Emerging Adults" (2022). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 1279. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/1279

ATTACHMENT, IDENTITY PROCESSING STYLE, AND EMOTION

REGULATION AMONG EMERGING ADULTS

by

KAITLYN DALEANDRO

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Honors in the Major Program in Psychology

in the College of Sciences

and in The Burnett Honors College

at the University of Central Florida

Orlando, Florida

Fall Term, 2022

Thesis Chair: Dr. Steven L. Berman, Ph.D.

i

ABSTRACT

This study explores the relationships among parent, peer, and romantic attachment,

identity processing style, and emotion regulation. Previous studies have revealed potential

associations among each of the aforementioned factors (e.g., between identity and attachment as

well as between attachment and emotion regulation), but this is the first study to examine the

three factors together, putting emphasis on romantic attachment. It was predicted that attachment

will vary depending on the interaction between identity processing style and emotion regulation.

College students (N= 390) in psychology courses participated in an anonymous online survey for

course credit. Parent attachment was significantly predicted by age, gender, cognitive

reappraisal, the diffuse-avoidant identity style, and the normative identity style; peer attachment

was significantly predicted by expressive suppression, the diffuse-avoidant identity style, and the

informational identity style. Regarding romantic attachment, attachment-anxiety was

significantly predicted by the diffuse-avoidant identity style and attachment-avoidance was

significantly predicted by age and expressive suppression. Additional analyses and their

theoretical implications are further discussed.

ii

DEDICATIONS

For my parents, who have given me so much support and for always helping me when I

was stressed and overwhelmed. Thank you for always being as understanding as possible.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Berman for offering me the opportunity to

explore my research interests. Thank you for providing me with your wisdom and support that

has guided me through this process. Your patience as I learned to navigate the world of research

has been so appreciated and I will carry the knowledge you have given me throughout every

research and academic endeavor I embark on. I am endlessly grateful for all I have learned

through this experience.

I would also like to thank my committee member, Dr. Zaman. Your kind words and

encouragement through every revision was greatly valued, and I thank you for your providing

me with your knowledge on attachment theory.

Lastly, I must thank Reilly Branch, my graduate mentor, for being with me every step of

the way. You have provided me with endless knowledge on everything from literature reviews to

statistics and discussions. I could always count on you for answering every question I asked

without judgement, and with so much kindness. Your support and insight have been invaluable,

and I thank you for showing me what it means to be a good researcher.

iv

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Attachment Theory ................................................................................................................................ 1

Identity Processing Style ....................................................................................................................... 7

Impact of Attachment on Identity Processing Styles ........................................................................... 11

Emotion Regulation............................................................................................................................. 16

Identity & Emotion Regulation ........................................................................................................... 18

Attachment & Emotion Regulation ..................................................................................................... 20

Rationale ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 24

METHODS ................................................................................................................................................. 25

Participants ......................................................................................................................................... 25

Measures ............................................................................................................................................. 25

Procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 28

RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 29

Preliminary and Descriptive Analyses ................................................................................................ 29

Main Analyses ..................................................................................................................................... 29

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................. 34

Limitations and Future Research ........................................................................................................ 39

APPENDNIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER ........................................................................................ 40

APPENDNIX B: TABLE 1- DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ................................................................. 42

APPENDIX C: TABLE 2- CORRELATION MATRIX ........................................................................ 44

APPENDIX D: TABLE 3- REGRESSION ANALYSES PREDICTING ATTACHMENT-

RELATED VARIABLES .......................................................................................................................... 47

APPENDIX E: FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... 49

APPENDIX G: SURVEY BATTERY ..................................................................................................... 52

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 65

1

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have examined links among attachment style (parent, peer, and romantic

partner) and identity style (Berzonsky et al., 2007; Doumen et al., 2012; Ratner 2014), identity

style and emotion regulation strategies (Berzonsky & Kinney, 2019; Jankowski, 2013; Seaton &

Beaumont, 2011), and attachment styles and emotion regulation strategies (Doumen et al., 2012;

Ehrman, 2004; Pascuzzo et al., 2013). These factors have always been examined two at a time,

but never all at the same time. This study will examine identity processing style, attachment

style, and emotion regulation simultaneously to determine the relative contribution of identity

processing style and emotion regulation in predicting parent, peer, and romantic attachment

styles.

This thesis examines whether attachment varies depending on the interaction between

identity processing style and emotion regulation, based on associations previously found between

each of the three aforementioned factors. The results of this thesis may fill gaps in existing

research that seeks to find predictors of development of attachment styles, placing special

emphasis on romantic attachment styles, as research in this area is severely lacking. Researchers

in the areas of developmental psychology, identity, attachment, and emotion regulation may

benefit from the testing of this theory, by providing a potential theoretical basis for associations

between factors.

Attachment Theory

Harry Harlow’s series of experiments with monkeys between 1957 and 1963 showed

attachment theorists that comfort is valued by an infant; that is, in his experiment, when the baby

2

monkey had the option to go to a cloth surrogate monkey with no food or a wire surrogate

monkey with food, the monkey chose to spend most of its time with the cloth surrogate, only

going to the wire surrogate when it was hungry (Harlow & Zimmerman, 1959). John Bowlby’s

(1969) ethological theory of attachment built on the work of Harlow, and defined attachment as a

mutually enjoyable relationship between caregiver and infant, where social, physical, and

emotional needs are met by a constantly responding caregiver, allowing for a healthy attachment.

Bowlby hypothesized that attachment is innate, and infants will show attachment behaviors when

they are in situations where they are separated from the primary caregiver or in a state of fear. He

theorized that we are all born with social releasers (i.e., behaviors such as crying and crawling),

arguing that it is a survival instinct for an infant to need to be in proximity of their attachment

figure (Bowlby, 1969, 1988). As the primary attachment figure meets the infant’s needs in its

first five years, the child develops a cognitive framework for future relationships (Bretherton,

1992).

Mary Ainsworth’s (1970) Strange Situation procedure built upon the experiments of

Harlow and Bowlby and further established the tenets of attachment theory. The Strange

Situation was designed to provide the infant with cues that could provoke separation anxiety

and/or stranger anxiety. In the Strange Situation, an infant is placed in a number of different

scenarios involving the caretaker leaving and returning, as well as a stranger entering the room.

Based upon the behaviors infants display during separation and reunion with the caregiver, as

well as reactions to a stranger, attachment was then classified into three categories: secure,

insecure avoidant, and insecure resistant.

3

An infant with secure attachment displays separation anxiety and protest when the

caregiver leaves the room and welcomes her return. The securely attached infant also displays

stranger anxiety. An infant with insecure avoidant attachment appears not to care when their

caregiver leaves or returns to the room, and an insecure resistant (now termed

anxious/ambivalent) infant does not explore the room, instead clinging to the caregiver, and

cannot be calmed down or comforted during the reunion with the parent, even reacting with

anger when the parent returns. Later research identified a fourth category of attachment as

disorganized/disoriented (Main & Solomon 1986). Infants with this type of attachment behaved

fearfully in the presence of the caregiver, and displayed jerking movements, freezing and/or

disassociating during the reunion with the caregiver (Duschinsky, 2015). Ainsworth’s research

demonstrated that attachment is not all or nothing, and that attachment to a caregiver, whether

healthy or unhealthy, has implications for the rest of one’s life (Ainsworth, 1989, 1991). As more

research was conducted, it became apparent that around the ages of three and four, attachment

shifts, brought on by developmental changes that allow children to have more goal directed

thinking as well as freedom in their abilities to walk, run, and connect with others (Ainsworth,

1989). Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) describes the ability for a preschooler to go to school,

knowing and trusting that their caregiver will return for them, as the internal working model of

attachment of a securely attached child. He claimed that open emotional communication is key

for a child to be able to relate to their caregiver, and continuous relating to a caregiver builds a

bond of trust, based on these past interactions.

In adolescence and emerging adulthood, the attachment one has to their caregiver still has

great impact on one’s emotions and cognitions that influence the social behaviors one engages

4

in. At the start of adolescence, an individual begins to endure a period of rapid developmental

changes. The amount and complexity of change is still a highly researched topic, though a

consensus has been reached that, while changing hormones are a large feature of this time

period, it is a transformation in neurological structures that gives rise to some of the classic

“risky” and “irritable” behaviors observed in adolescence (Spear, 2000). Other changes include

cognitive transformations and growing cognitive capacity, as well as changing social contexts;

this is a time when an individual begins to spend more time with peers than with parents.

Through emerging adulthood, the time spent with parents diminishes even more as they go to

college, trade schools, get full time jobs, and live on their own. This presents a new challenge for

the individual - to maintain relationships with the caregiver while being able to branch out and

create bonds with peers and romantic partners. The caregiver is then tasked with ensuring that

the individual feels autonomous. This is essential to keeping a healthy attachment, as the parent

is still needed as a secure base, as it allows for exploration and supports the development of

cognitive, social, and emotional competencies (Allen et al., 2003).

Through early and middle childhood, a child’s experience of attachment begins to

consolidate into an internal working model of the relationship they have with their caregiver

(Bowlby, 1973). The attachment relationship one has in infancy has great influence over later

development, though, attachment statuses may change, either as a way of possible improvements

on the parent-child relationship, or deterioration of and strain on the relationship (Waters et al.,

2000; Weinfield et al., 2004). As one goes through the later teen years, they still need their

parents’ or caregiver’s emotional support and sensitivity. Caregivers are tasked with

understanding the need for autonomy, as being in close proximity is no longer necessary for the

5

adolescent or emerging adult. If conflicts arise, in order to maintain the relationship at this stage,

the individual must feel understood and sense that they can trust their caregiver still, continuing

into adulthood.

It is a biological need to have peers, as demonstrated in other studies (Ainsworth, 1991;

Bretherton, 1992). From childhood on, people begin interacting with peers, forming attachment

bonds with them. While the parental bond is still present and has implications on different

aspects of functioning depending on the stage of development, peer attachment is important to

examine when looking at attachment theory. Attachment bonds with peers and parents have been

shown to influence factors such as adjustment to change (e.g., transition from high school to

college). Holt and colleagues (2018) examined college students’ stability and implication of

parent and peer attachment through college. They found that students who had a secure

attachment to parents and peers in their first year of college had higher academic and socio-

emotional functioning when compared to students with a stable insecure attachment to parents

and peers. Students with a stable insecure attachment to peers experienced a decline in emotional

functioning. This study confirms the idea that attachment with parents is relatively stable in the

college years. Students who already had a high attachment to their mothers reported an increase

in attachment to them, and these individuals showed better academic and emotional adjustment

in college. Cutrona and colleagues (1994) suggested that the attachment to the parent is one of

the most influencing variables in a student’s academic achievement, while peer attachment is

more influential in the sphere of social functioning.

Ainsworth (1991) notes that once a sexual/romantic bond, and therefore a new “principal

attachment figure”, is formed, there is still an evident parental attachment. Romantic love is

6

another process of becoming attached (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Psychologists studying romantic

relationships see attachment-related anxiety and avoidance scores as a tool for predicting the

quality of one’s romantic relationships. The initial study conducted to support the idea that one’s

infant attachment style is similar to their adult romantic attachment style, built upon Bowlby and

Ainsworth’s ideas, was conducted by Hazan and Shaver (1987). They found that more than half

of all adults reported being securely attached to their partner, a similar statistic to the estimate

that more than half of all infants are securely attached to their primary caregivers. The terms

secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent were found to be better descriptions of the romantic

relationships people have (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). In questionnaires on avoidant attachment and

anxious/ambivalent attachment in romantic relationships, those scoring high on anxiety worry

about getting rejected and feel inadequate, unworthy, or unappreciated, while those scoring low

on anxiety feel more secure and feel worthy of love from their partner. Those scoring high on

avoidance may have difficulties relying on someone to be there for them and may be weary of

being too close to someone. Those low in avoidance find comfort in closeness and find safety in

being someone's secure base as well as having them as a secure base. Bleske-Rechek and

colleagues (2021) tried to explain the issue Hazan and Shaver (1989) posed: the accounting for

the continuity and change in attachment style. They focused on making connections, and they

observed that those who recall high levels of attachment anxiety/avoidance to caregivers early in

life typically carry the same level in their romantic relationships. When looking at romantic

attachment of siblings and twins raised in shared and non-shared settings, the environment that

was not shared, such as differing school classrooms, teachers, extracurriculars and peers, had

more influence on their romantic attachment style compared to their shared home environment

(Bleske-Rechek et al., 2021).

7

Bartholomew (1990, 1991) theorized a model of adult attachment style that consists of

four combinations of positive or negative abstract images of the self and the other. Having a

positive image of self and others is associated with more secure attachment and low attachment-

anxiety and attachment-avoidance. If one has a low image of self but high image of others, this

indicates high attachment anxiety and low attachment avoidance, creating a preoccupied (clingy,

jealous, dependent) attachment style. If this is flipped, and one has a high image of self but low

image of others, meaning one is low in attachment anxiety and high in attachment avoidance,

then they have a dismissive attachment style (a lack of interest in relationships). Lastly, having

both a low image of self and others indicates high attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance,

creating a fearful attachment style. This is someone who, despite desiring relationships, avoids

them as they fear rejection and do not see themselves as loveable. The dismissing and fearful

styles both reflect the avoidance of intimacy and are referred to as dismissive-avoidant and

fearful-avoidant. Both preoccupied and fearful-avoidant individuals depend on others to maintain

a positive self-image, with preoccupied individuals reaching out and forming relationships based

on this need, while fearful-avoidant individuals avoid closeness to save themselves from

disappointment (Bartholomew, 1990; 1991). These attachment styles are pertinent to this thesis,

as Bartholomew’s work contributed to the Experience in Close Relationships Survey which is

used to measure adult romantic attachment styles.

Identity Processing Style

Erikson (1968) theorized about the crises people face at each stage in their lives. For

adolescents until early adulthood, he suggested that young people face an identity crisis. Erikson

theorized that everyone has an ego, a mental process responsible for bringing together

8

information from within the self along with information from the social world and balancing the

two. Erikson’s (1968) theory of life span development suggests eight stages of development,

each one building on the previous stage. Specific to the time period of adolescence and emerging

adulthood, young people are typically found in stages five and six. Stage five is a crisis of

Identity versus Role Confusion; Stage six is one of Intimacy versus Isolation. In Stage five, it is

hypothesized that one attempts to identify what is unique about themselves and what roles they

fit (and therefore experience a more positive outcome). If they struggle with role confusion and

have a more negative outcome, they might not identify with a role and may be left with difficulty

forming long-lasting relationships. In Stage six, a positive outcome would be if one establishes

close relationships with friends and a loving relationship with a romantic partner. A negative

outcome would be seen if one appears to fear and/or avoids relationships, as evidenced by one’s

isolation and loneliness (Erikson, 1968).

During adolescence, individuals begin to weigh their wants and desires to form an

identity. Marcia (1980) defines identity as a self-structure, a dynamic organization of an

individual’s beliefs, ambitions, and capabilities. The more one’s structure is developed, the more

well off they are to explore their potential paths. Conversely, the less developed one’s structure

is, the less capable they are, they are confused and do not know what sets them aside from

others, making their path less clear (Marcia, 1980). Anxiety often occurs at this time, due to the

potential challenges created in this crisis of development. During late adolescence, Erikson

(1968, 1980) theorized that people must perceive their future selves, looking into possible

careers, in a process that strengthens the ego, internally and externally, as one reconstructs the

childhood version of themselves. Kroger and Marcia (2011) built on Erikson’s work to try to

9

operationalize ego identity, stating that the ego and one’s identity are not tangible things, but can

be seen through variables like finding an occupation and forming a personally significant

ideology.

The identity statuses proposed by Marcia (1964) have key underlying dimensions that

define them all: exploration and commitment in the areas of occupation and ideology.

Exploration involves examining multiple possibilities in the areas of occupation and ideology,

while commitment involves the degree to which one selects, invests, and binds oneself to

specific choices for each domain (Marcia, 1980). The statuses are as follows: identity diffusion,

identity foreclosure, identity moratorium, and identity achievement. Those in identity diffusion

have made little effort to explore, are easily swayed, and have no objective direction of where

they could possibly end up, no exploration and no commitment (Marcia, 1980). Individuals in

identity foreclosure commit to their identity without much exploration, typically based off the

influences of significant figures in their lives (parents, siblings, authority figures like a priest or

teacher), uncritically accepting an identity prescribed for them, rather than constructing it

themselves, exhibiting little to no exploration. Those in identity moratorium are in the midst of a

crisis of exploration; they are actively evaluating possibilities before making firm commitments.

Finally, those in identity achievement have gone through the explorative decision-making period,

they tried on different roles and explored different ideological goals and have now decided to

fully invest and commit themselves to an occupation and have chosen their own ideological

goals (Marcia, 1964, 1996, 1980; Kroger & Marcia, 2011).

Berzonsky (1997) theorized identity processing styles to be the cognitive ways one

creates and maintains their sense of identity. Individuals may internalize the goals, standards, and

10

values of those who are meaningful to them. There is an introjection of values where one

behaves out of anxiousness, feeling the need for approval for their actions, and guilt if they do

not meet standards set by others, inhibiting their abilities to explore their identity freely. On the

other hand, one may align values within their deep-down sense of self so that these values and

standards become true to them, and their behaviors are then self-determined, known as

integration (Berzonsky, 1997).

The cognitive identity style one has determines how the individual approaches the need

of supervising and revising their self-constructs, and one’s style can be determined based upon

how they behave in a multitude of scenarios. Individuals with the informational style of self-

theorizing enthusiastically look for ways to describe themselves, try out their self-constructions,

and adapt their views of themselves when coming into feedback that differs from theirs. These

individuals are most likely to integrate values within their deep down sense of self, giving an

authentic experience for an individual who tends to seek out cognition and keeps an openness to

novel ideas. Those with a normative style emphasize the expectations of other people, they keep

change-resistant self-views, and they dislike and defend against encountering information that

could jeopardize the values and beliefs they keep. These individuals will likely introject,

incorporating the values endorsed by those who are meaningful in their life, and such values tend

to be permanent and enduring. Individuals with a diffuse-avoidant style tend not to deal with

conflicts, with eventual context-determined consequences resulting in short-term changes, and

unstable revisions to their self-theory. These individuals tend to comply with the demands of the

situation, and when there is no consistent set of deep-down values, their first goal is to come up

with a behavior that would be acceptable in that situation (Berzonsky, 1997, 2008).

11

Berzonsky (1989) found linkages between the styles and the statuses. The diffuse-

avoidant style fosters identity diffusion. Both are characterized by a nonexistence of identity-

related, occupational, and ideological goal commitments. The informational style encourages the

path through moratorium to identity achievement. All involve a practice of exploration while

also making and committing to decisions related to identity. The normative style elicits the

foreclosed status, commitment without exploration or consideration of the alternative

(Berzonsky, 1989; Schwartz et al., 2000).

Impact of Attachment on Identity Processing Styles

There is a range of research that examines the relationship between attachment and

identity. A study by Doumen and colleagues (2012), for example, hypothesized the possibility of

identity styles being connected to attachment anxiety and avoidance, seeking to find whether or

not these attachment-related dimensions mediate the connection between identity styles and

perceived quality of relationships with peers. Their ideas were based on a theory that one’s

identity and the quality of one’s relationship with peers are related, and the formation of identity,

along with the reformation of one’s social network, is of great significance during the period of

emerging adulthood. The attachment-related dimensions, anxiety, and avoidance served as a

potential mediating variable between one’s identity style and one’s perceived quality of

relationships with peers. The study confirmed that informational style was correlated positively

to friendship quality and negatively to loneliness, with attachment avoidance as a partial

mediator, and a negative relation with attachment avoidance indicating a secure attachment to

friends. It was theorized that securely attached individuals more clearly express themselves in

social relations because they feel more comfortable, allowing for evaluation of the quality of

12

their relationships, ultimately leading to their ability to form trustworthy connections with their

friends and a positive friendship quality. Their hypotheses for the diffuse- avoidant style were

also confirmed, as insecure attachments led to feelings of loneliness, and to a perception of poor

quality of friendship with peers (Doumen et al., 2012).

A study conducted by Ratner (2014) found that the relationship between a separate factor

(parenting style) and identity style is not mediated by attachment, that parenting style acts

directly upon identity style, not through attachment, yet the study also showed that parental

responsiveness predicted attachment. This outcome was theorized to be caused by the high

correlation of both the attachment and responsiveness variables, suggesting that the measures

might actually be measuring the same construct. Aside from this issue, there was a finding that

the normative and informational identity styles only depended on maternal and not paternal

parenting style, with the normative style being significantly predicted by maternal attachment

and responsiveness (Ratner, 2014). Goldberg and Easterbrooks (1984) found that mothers are the

traditional figure in providing the emotional components of child rearing, and Ratner (2014)

theorizes that this may account for the aforementioned results.

Berzonsky and colleagues (2007) studied young adolescents’ identity processing styles

and parent-peer relations. As seems to be a pattern across identity style findings, those with a

diffuse-avoidant identity style had a negative perceived parent relationship, as well as a negative

link to two psychosocial variables: identity commitments and self-regulation. The study found

that in this young adolescent state, individuals with a normative style (not an informational style,

as researchers typically see as more adaptive in later years) tended to have more trusting and

open interactions with their parents. Informational style young adolescents tended to have

13

parents who were intrusive; these individuals had a negative connection to successful self-

regulation. The authors theorized that the way young adolescents interact with their parents, and

vice versa, provides for the differences seen in identity styles, and could potentially explain why

young adolescents who trust their parents tend to be more open to them about their doings, and

this coincides with a normative identity style - the adolescent has a sense of emotional closeness

as well as a sense of understanding of expectations.

Erlanger (1996) conducted a study on the parental attachment style of undergraduates,

finding that those with ambivalent attachments to their parents reported more empathetic distress

than those who had a secure or detached attachment style. The study also found that those in

identity achievement or moratorium statuses tended to report higher levels of empathetic concern

than those in diffusion or foreclosure. Overall, the study suggests that there are separate

multidimensional ways of responding empathetically for each attachment style, finding that

ambivalently attached undergraduates had high amounts of both empathetic concern and

empathetic distress, while securely attached individuals had empathetic concern and distress, but

moderately. For identity statuses, the results of the study suggest a connection between affective

empathetic responses and identity status. It was posited that it may be possible that those in

identity foreclosure, and therefore not exploring, could have fixed affective empathetic

responses, creating a gradually stiff perspective over time. Erlanger (1996) built his hypotheses

based on the models and theories constructed by Marcia and Rowe’s (1980) research on the

relationship between identity status and ego development, as well as Marcia’s (1966) work on

the experience of crisis. Erlanger (1996) theorized that the perspective taking component of

14

empathy would be positively related to experiencing crisis specifically, an idea supported by

Enright and Deist’s (1979) study.

Kaniušonytė and Žukauskienė (2018) conducted two studies to examine the connection

between adolescent connections with their parents, identity styles, and positive youth

development (contribution to themselves and the family) as they became emerging adults. The

results showed that the informational identity style positively arbitrated the connection of

autonomy-supportive mothering and positive youth development, providing evidence that

informational style adolescents are more encouraged to explore their identity in an environment

of nonintrusive parenting. The informational style was positively associated with positive youth

development while the normative style was not. Based on these results, the authors theorize that

adolescents who communicate well with their mothers are usually more inclined to give back to

their families and communities. The informational style was the only significant and positive

mediator between autonomy-supportive mothering and positive youth development. The authors

theorize that supportive and empowering parenting allows the youth to be more conscious and

able to find information that assists in the making of important decisions, causing them to be

more motivated to invest themselves in the wellbeing of their family and community (Anionite &

Žukauskienė, 2018).

It is notable that the aforementioned studies on identity and attachment focus largely on

parent and peer attachment. While this thesis intends to explore parent and peer attachment, it

also aims to place a large emphasis on examining romantic attachment specifically. Beyers and

Seiffge-Krenke’s (2010) longitudinal study on development of identity and intimacy found that

intimacy in emerging adulthood was strongly predicted by ego development that is constantly

15

evolving with age. Erikson’s (1968) theory of life span development was the basis of the study.

The authors also note Erikson’s (1982) argument that one must have an established identity in

order to have the capacity for intimacy with another person. His ideas of identity preceding

intimacy were supported in Beyers and Seiffge-Krenke’s (2010) study.

Intimacy is an important factor when examining romantic attachment style and identity

style. Dyk and Adams (1987) proposed five major functions of intimacy during development. Of

these functions, one suggests that as individuals engage in intimate relationships, it helps build

one’s collection of social skills and helps one socialize better. They also proposed that intimacy

assists and strengthens awareness of one’s sexual and reproductive potential as well as identity

development. These two specific functions provide this thesis with potential theoretical basis for

the hypotheses on identity and attachment. Another proposed function of intimacy according to

Dyk and Adams is that it provides guidelines toward target-based emotionality that allows one to

develop and resolve dependencies, and this provides some basis for the hypothesized relationship

among attachment, identity, and emotion regulation.

There have been studies that have discovered a link between secure attachment and

achieved identity status. In their meta-analysis of studies that have researched the relationship

between attachment styles and Marcia's (1980) identity statuses, Arseth and colleagues (2009)

found a positive correlation between secure attachment and identity foreclosure. They

hypothesize that the meaning of exploration is altered when researchers try to make a connection

between identity and attachment. Exploring in attachment is possibly different than exploring in

identity, and this may explain why secure attachment was positively correlated with identity

foreclosure and negatively correlated with identity moratorium (Arseth et al., 2009). While

16

identity statuses will not be examined in this thesis, this study explains the factor of exploration,

and how important it is to consider when investigating identity and attachment.

When looking at identity style, romantic attachment, and identity commitment

specifically, Kerpelman and colleagues (2012) found a strong association between the normative

style and identity commitment and found that identity processing is indeed occurring while

adolescents form their sense of attachment in romantic relationships, finding out what makes

them comfortable with a partner. High levels of the diffuse-avoidant identity style (and low

levels of the normative style) were reported by individuals with attachment anxiety and

attachment avoidance in romantic relationships. It was theorized that individuals within identity

foreclosure (and therefore high in the normative style) may avoid the stress associated with

exploration even while they accept an identity to please others, and adolescents with an anxious

romantic attachment style may be less capable of dealing with stress levels by adopting a more

normative style (Kerpelman et al., 2012). These findings also support the proposed hypotheses in

this thesis.

Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation has been a highly researched topic for many years, with several

models and theories attempting to explain the extent to which humans are able to control their

emotions, along with how and why this is done. Emotions involve tendencies to behave and not

to behave in certain ways, in addition to emotions being variations in subjective experience

(Barrett, et al., 2007; LeDoux, 2012). The modal model is a way of showing how emotions

unfold overtime, depicted as a cycle that is triggered by an internal or external psychological

17

situation. These situations are then attended to and appraised in context, and a response is then

incurred which characterizes the emotion (Barrett et al., 2007; Gross, 1998b). It is also widely

accepted that emotions can be considered helpful or harmful. For example, emotions could

potentially help one with the task of making friends, unless one is faced with an episode of

anxiety that pushes friends away. In such a case, anxiety would be a harmful emotion. Emotions

that are consistently unhelpful are theorized to bring about an individual’s need to regulate these

emotions, in order to succeed in many aspects of life (Gross, 2015). This is where the idea of

emotion regulation enters.

Emotion regulation is used when one is presented with certain emotionally arousing

stimuli. It is the process of rerouting one’s emotions, a large amount of the research conducted

on emotion regulation focuses on how one regulates their own emotions (Sander, 2008). Some

situations that result in the need for emotion regulation can range from high stake contexts of

dealing with devastating news (e.g., death or sickness of a loved one), to lower stake contexts

(e.g., making a tough decision, dealing with an issue at one’s job, or confronting a coworker or

friend). Two main types of emotion regulation strategies are cognitive reappraisal (which has

been further split into positive reappraisal and detached reappraisal; Gurera, 2019), and

expressive suppression (Gross, 1998, 2008). Cognitive reappraisal involves the modification of

the emotion as the situation happens. Cognitive reappraisal allows one to reinterpret emotional

events in their early stages, essentially thinking with more flexibility, so that one can quickly

look at a situation in a less negative way. This reinterpretation paves the way for one to

experience a different and more positive emotion by deciding to view a potentially negative

situation as a good thing, for example, getting the wrong order from a restaurant but thinking of

18

it as a way to try something new. Gross (1998, 2007) found that individuals who use this strategy

habitually tend to have a better overall well-being and less symptoms of depression compared to

those who use expressive suppression. Positive reappraisal is the process of keeping oneself

engaged with the stimuli while trying to positively reinterpret the situation, while detached

reappraisal involves taking oneself away from the stimuli and then reevaluating it (Gurera,

2019). An example of positive reappraisal may be, “my boss yelled at me, now I know what to

do differently in the future,” while an example of detached reappraisal may be one viewing a

photo of a dying grandfather and instead of being sad, one views it as a normal part of life.

Expressive suppression on the other hand requires a great deal of self-monitoring which can be

cognitively exhausting, as it modifies the outcome of a situation after the emotion has already

happened. For example, a police officer may keep a straight face while informing a family of a

death, regardless of their emotions. It is a response-focused strategy, as an individual will

constantly keep in mind that they need to suppress, correlating with more symptoms of

depression and experiencing more negative emotions than positive ones (Gross, 1998, 2007,

2008).

Identity & Emotion Regulation

A great deal of research has been conducted on the connection between identity

processing styles and emotion regulation strategies (Berzonsky & Kinney 2019; Jankowski

2013), as well as studies looking at potential mediators between the two. For example, Seaton

and Beaumont (2011) looked at relationships among identity processing styles, defense styles,

and life distress in emerging adults. They found a strong positive connection among the

informational identity style and the mature defense style, while the normative and diffuse-

19

avoidant identity styles had no relationship with a mature defense style. This result is consistent

with previous studies where individuals with an informational style use positive coping and

decision strategies (Beaumont & Seaton, 2008; Berzonsky, 1990, 1993; Soenens et al., 2005).

Findings of this study are also consistent with research that shows an informational style

positively predicts one’s emotional intelligence (Seaton & Beaumont, 2008). It was theorized

that using a mature defense style likely allows emerging adults who use the informational style

to deal with the stressful events and the demands of their environment in a more adaptive way

(Beaumont & Seaton, 2011).

Jankowski (2013) conducted a study using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale

and the Dimensions of Identity Development Scale, hypothesizing that those in identity

achievement have a higher level of emotional awareness while those in diffusion and foreclosure

have the lowest levels of emotion awareness, and this was supported with the obtained results,

showing the role of emotion regulation on the identity formation process. Those who found it

least difficult to regulate their emotions were individuals in identity foreclosure, while

individuals in identity moratorium experienced the most extensive issues in controlling impulses

and in seeing goal-oriented behaviors. It has been posited that the reason for the association

between identity foreclosure and having emotion regulation difficulty is caused by the

suppressing of both positive and negative emotions (Helson & Srivastava, 2001). Dealing with

emotions less often is why individuals in identity foreclosure say that they do not find many

difficulties when it comes to thinking about regulation of their emotions, though more studies

need to be done to confirm this potential reason for seeing the association between identity

foreclosure and less difficulties in emotion regulation.

20

Berzonsky and Kinney (2019) examined experiential avoidance, a strategy where

individuals purposefully avoid negative thoughts, feelings, or emotions, which is only adaptive

for the short term. They theorized that spending too much time trying to suppress cognitive

experiences with harmful evaluations can cause the reverse effect, whereby intentionally

suppressing thoughts of negative matters actually increases the frequency of these cognitions and

subsequent depressive symptoms. Self-regulation, characterized by self-control, thinking of the

future, and dealing well with frustration and emotional impulses, was associated negatively with

diffuse-avoidant, and positively with normative and informational styles. The ability to self-

regulate involves focusing on long-term outcomes so one can resist immediate temptations and

deal with the impulsive emotions that ensue. Self-regulation was linked to lower levels of

depression, and an indirect negative link with the informational style and depression through

self-regulation was found, supporting the idea that the self-regulatory strategies play a role in

adapting to situations where one needs to make decisions and solve conflicts. The authors also

found a negative correlation between diffuse-avoidant style and self-regulation, theorized to

contribute to the tendency for these individuals to depend on poor coping strategies and defense

mechanisms that weaken their ability to achieve goals and causing them to feel that their efforts

are inadequate.

Attachment & Emotion Regulation

Studies in attachment and emotional regulation (e.g., Doumen et al., 2012; Pascuzzo et

al., 2013; Partridge et al., 2022), have shown that being able to regulate one’s emotions (and

affects in some studies; Ehrman, 2004) can predict high quality attachments to peers and

romantic partners; and the ability, or inability, to regulate one’s emotions in the first place has

21

been related to parental attachment. In a longitudinal study conducted by Pascuzzo and

colleagues (2013), fifty-six fourteen-year-olds completed the Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment, and eight years later completed the Experiences in Close Relationships and the

Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations, testing how one’s adolescent attachment to parents

and peers may predict later adult romantic attachment styles as well as the use of emotion

regulation strategies. These results show that one’s relationship to parents influence the romantic

relationships one has in adulthood, therefore supporting the idea of continuity in attachment

theory. The researchers concluded that greater insecure attachment to parent and peers in

adolescence predicted anxious romantic styles in emerging adulthood. They reasoned that

adolescents begin to “de-idolize” their parents and identify parental limitations in their position

as attachment figures, a phenomenon connected to their redistribution of attachment needs to

other figures, like peers, who adolescents tend to turn to when they have disagreements with

parents. The authors found emotion regulation strategies, in connection with insecure parent

attachment in adolescence, and anxious romantic attachment in adulthood to be only a partial

mediator, however when looking at insecure attachment to peers, it was found that emotion

regulation strategy was a complete mediator of the connection to an anxious romantic attachment

style in emerging adulthood. The authors reasoned that anxiously attached individuals may be

overwhelmed by distress and therefore may be unable to engage in problem-solving strategies,

such as reconceptualizing the problem in a gentler manner.

When looking at the role of affect regulation in parent and peer attachment, attachment to

one’s mother and to one’s father (independently of each other), Ehrman (2004) found that

attachment can predict neuroticism, emotional sharing, and positive affect, all aspects of affect

22

regulation. There was a moderate relationship between maternal and paternal attachment to peer

attachment, as well as a link between affect regulation variables and attachment to peers, a

similar result to previous research which suggests that affect regulation brings about social

success in children. Ehrman posited that affect may be conceptualized as a “glue” that binds

parent and peer attachment together, and it was theorized that experiencing positive affect, such

as happiness may not be a required factor in linking mother and peers while intimate attachment

relationships are more involved in regulating and coping with negative affect, such as feeling

distressed and/or crying. The author found that emotional sharing did not correlate with father

attachment, though it did to mother attachment, therefore Ehrman speculated that since mothers

are traditionally sought by the child to help regulate and cope with emotions, sharing emotions

with the father would be less essential to the father-child relationship. This reasoning is nearly

identical to that of Ratner (2014) in the abovementioned study.

Additionally, Partridge and colleagues (2022) conducted a study that yielded results

suggesting that emotion dysregulation mediated the relationship between insecure attachment

styles and paranoia, using the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Gratz & Roemer 2004).

These results supported the theoretical idea that attachment style affects emotion dysregulation

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2012), and builds on work like that of Owens and colleagues (2013) that

showed that attachment impacts emotion regulation. Partridge and colleagues (2022) suggested

emotion regulation may be a viable option for targeting paranoia through cognitive behavioral

therapy. While paranoia is not a factor in this thesis, the results that show a relationship between

attachment styles and emotion regulation and dysregulation provide rationale for the hypotheses

stated below.

23

Rationale

The purpose of this study is to examine whether emotion regulation and identity

processing style influence parent, peer, and romantic attachment styles. The research discussed

above indicates that links between two of each of the factors mentioned has been explored, but

research exploring a connection between all three factors has not been conducted. Looking at

these three factors will aid in the understanding of attachment development in each area, as

looking at emotion regulation and identity in relation to attachment styles, will fill gaps that past

research did not investigate. Research by Pascuzzo and colleagues (2013) found that the

connection between adolescents who had an insecure attachment to peers, and later displayed

anxious attachment to romantic partners in emerging adulthood, was mediated by non-use of

emotion regulation strategies. In this thesis, it is argued that this was seen because these

individuals also use a diffuse-avoidant identity style. The research by Berzonsky and Kinney

(2019) suggests that one’s ability to self-regulate is negatively associated with the diffuse-

avoidant style of identity processing, while individuals with the normative and/ or informational

style of identity processing were positively associated with being able to self-regulate. In this

thesis, it is then suggested that individuals who tend to rely on poor coping strategies and defense

mechanisms may share an attachment style, and thus the attachment style may be influenced by

the emotion regulation strategies of the individual combined with their identity processing style.

It appeared from the literature that several characteristics of using either expressive suppression

or cognitive reappraisal were similar to the characteristics of certain identity styles and

attachment styles. For example, there appeared to be similarities with the tendency to use

expressive suppression and being in the diffuse-avoidant identity style. Additionally, when

24

looking at the impact of emotion regulation on attachment, (Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984), it

is proposed in this thesis that attachment will be affected by emotion regulation and identity

style.

This question of romantic attachment being influenced by emotion regulation and identity

processing style has yet to be explored and doing so may be useful for practitioners, researchers,

and theorists, specifically in developmental, attachment, and identity fields of research to further

understand why and how romantic attachment styles develop. Taking the prior research into

consideration, the following hypotheses were proposed.

Hypotheses

H1: Individuals with a diffuse-avoidant identity processing style will have higher expressive

suppression scores than those in the other two identity styles (normative and informational).

H2: Those with a secure romantic attachment style will be higher in the informational identity

style and have higher cognitive reappraisal scores than those with the other three styles

(preoccupied, avoidant, fearful).

H3: those with a secure romantic attachment style will be lower in the diffuse-avoidant style and

have lower expressive suppression scores than those in the other three styles (preoccupied,

avoidant, fearful).

H4: Emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) together

25

with identity processing styles (informational, normative, and diffuse-avoidant) will predict

parent and peer attachment as well as romantic attachment-anxiety and romantic attachment-

avoidance scores, better than either of the two alone.

METHODS

Participants

Students enrolled in certain psychology classes were recruited to participate in this study

for course credit (N = 390). Ages ranged from 18 to 43 years with a mean age of 20.5 years and a

standard deviation of 4.3 years. The sample was a majority female (67.7%), with 29.5 % male,

1.3% nonbinary, and 0.8 % transgender. The racial/ethnic breakdown included 48.7 % White,

30.5 % Hispanic or Latino, 9.2 % Asian, 7.2 % Black or African American, and 3.3% Other. The

grade breakdown was 41.3% freshmen, 27.9 % juniors, 14.6 % sophomores, 14.6 % seniors, and

1.3 % other.

Measures

Demographic Questionnaire. Students were asked to report their gender, age, ethnicity,

and year in school.

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003). This 10-item measure

assesses the habitual use of which an individual tends to regulate and manage their emotions in

two ways: cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression. An example of an item from the

cognitive reappraisal subscale is, “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the

situation I’m in”. An example of an expressive suppression subscale item is, “I control my

emotions by not expressing them”. Participants rate their feelings on a 7-point Likert scale

26

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas averaged .79 for the

cognitive reappraisal subscale, and .73 for the expressive suppression subscale (Gross & John,

2003). In this study, the alphas were .83 for the cognitive reappraisal subscale and .71 for the

expressive suppression subscale.

Identity Style Inventory-5 (ISI-5; Berzonsky, 2013). This 36-item measure assesses the

three social-cognitive styles related to identity; the informational style, the normative style, and

the diffuse-avoidant style; as well as strength of commitment. Participants rate their feelings on

statements about how they resolve personal issues and use decision-making strategies on a 5-

point Likert scale from 1 (uncharacteristic of oneself) to 5 (characteristic of oneself). An

example of an informational-style statement is, “talking to others helps me explore my personal

beliefs”. An example of a normative-style statement is, “I think it is better to adopt a firm set of

beliefs than to be open-minded.” Lastly, an example of a diffusive-avoidant style statement is, “I

am not really thinking about my future now, it is still a long way off”. Strength of commitment is

measured using the same Likert scale, an example of this statement is, “I have clear and definite

life goals”. The highest of the three continuous subscale scores is used to define their

predominant style for categorical analyses. Cronbach’s alphas were found to be .86 for

informational, .82 for normative, .87 for diffuse avoidant, and .85 for commitment (Berzonsky,

2013). In this study, the alphas were .82 for informational, .78 for normative, .83 for diffuse

avoidant, and .84 for commitment.

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). This 75-

item measure assesses the different qualities of an individual’s relationship with their mothers,

fathers, and peers. Three subscales are used for each type of attachment (maternal, paternal, and

27

peer). These subscales are as follows: trust (10 items for each type of attachment, 30 total),

communication (9 items for each type of attachment, 27 total), alienation (6 items for items for

each type of attachment, 18 total). A total score is formed by adding the trust and communication

score together, and then subtracting the alienation score. An example of an item from the trust

subscale is, “I tell my mother about my problems and troubles”. An example of a communication

subscale item is, “when we discuss things, my father cares about my point of view”. An example

of an item from the alienation subscale is, “I feel alone or apart when I am with my friends”.

Participants rate their feelings on a 5-point Likert scale (1= almost never or never true, 2= not

very true, 3= sometimes true, 4=often true, 5=almost always or always true). The Cronbach’s

alphas were . 87 for mother attachment, .89 for father attachment, and .92 for peer attachment.

For this study, the alphas were .87 for parent attachment and .85 for peer attachment.

Experience in Close Relationships Scale – Revised, Short Form (ECR-RSF;

Wongpakaran & Wongpakaran, 2012). A shortened, 18-item version of the ECR-Revised

(Farley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000), which was a revision of the original ECR (Brennan, Clark, &

Shaver, 1998), was used to measure adult romantic attachment style. There are two sub-scales

with 9 items each: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance. An example of

an anxiety-related item would be, “I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.”

An example of an avoidance-related item would be, “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in

times of need.”. Participants rate their feelings on a 7- point Likert scale from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Scores categorize adult romantic attachment into four different

styles based on how one thinks of themselves (anxiety dimension) and the thoughts one has

about others (avoidance dimension). They are as follows: secure (a low average score on both

28

dimensions), fearful (a high average score on both dimensions), preoccupied (high anxiety and

low avoidance), and dismissing (low anxiety and high avoidance). Wongpakaran and

Wongpakaran (2012) reported Cronbach Alpha’s of .85 for anxiety and.81 for avoidance. In this

study the alphas were .90 for anxiety and .76 for avoidance.

Procedure

First, the project was sent to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of

Central Florida to be approved. Once approved, it was submitted to the UCF Psychology

Participant Recruitment System (SONA) for review and approval. Participants were recruited

through SONA. Individuals enrolled in courses that require them to participate in research

received credit upon completion of the surveys. Students chose from a list of available studies

the one(s) in which they want to participate. At the beginning of the survey, participants were

provided with an Explanation of Research. The online Qualtrics survey was completely

anonymous with no identifiable information collected. Students who did not wish to complete

the study were directed to the end of the survey, where no data was collected, and no credit was

given. Alternate assignments which require similar effort and time commitment were given to

students who did not wish to participate in research but still wished to receive credit towards

their course.

29

RESULTS

Preliminary and Descriptive Analyses

The means, standard deviation, possible range, and actual range for each measure is

reported in Table 1 (See Appendix B), and a correlation matrix with all study variables is

presented in Table 2 (See Appendix C). With regard to romantic attachment style, 33.8% were

categorized as preoccupied, 28.7% fearful, 26.9% secure, and 10.5% dismissive. For identity

style, 80.5% were categorized as informational, 9.7% diffuse-avoidant, and 8.7% as normative.

All variables were tested for demographic differences (gender, ethnicity, and year in school).

Independent samples t-tests were conducted for each variable to test for gender differences.

Results indicate that there was a significant difference between males and females on expressive

suppression scores and parent attachment scores. Males (M = 3.20, SD = .77) were found to have

significantly higher scores on expressive suppression, compared to females (M = 2.98, SD = .87;

t (377) = 2.42, p = .016). Additionally, males (M = 5.48, SD = 2.03) were found to have

significantly higher parent attachment scores than females (M = 4.19, SD = 2.50; t (377) = 4.88, p

< .001). Multiple one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)s were conducted to determine if

scores on all variables differed by ethnicity and year in school. Results indicated that there was

no significant difference in scores across ethnicities. There was a significant difference between

year in school for romantic attachment anxiety scores (F (4, 384) = 2.48, p = .044). LSD post- hoc

tests indicate that juniors had significantly lower romantic attachment anxiety scores than both

freshmen and sophomores.

Main Analyses

30

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 (Individuals with a diffuse-avoidant identity processing style will have

higher expressive suppression scores than those in the other two identity styles (normative and

informational)) was tested with a one-way ANOVA with identity style group as the independent

factor and expressive suppression scores as the dependent measure. There was a significant

difference between groups (F (2,383) = 6.35, p = .002). An LSD post hoc analysis revealed that

those with the diffuse-avoidant style scored higher than those in the informational style in

expressive suppression scores (p < .05). There was no significant difference in expressive

suppression scores found between the diffuse avoidant style and the normative style. Therefore,

this hypothesis was partially supported.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 (Those with a secure romantic attachment style will be higher in the

informational identity style and have higher cognitive reappraisal scores than those with the

other three styles (preoccupied, avoidant, fearful)) was tested with a one-way ANOVA with

romantic attachment style as the independent factor and informational identity style and

cognitive reappraisal scores as the dependent measures. There was no significant difference

between groups for informational identity style, nor cognitive reappraisal scores. Thus, this

hypothesis was not supported.

Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 3 (those with a secure romantic attachment style will be lower in the diffuse-

avoidant style and have lower expressive suppression scores than those in the other three styles)

31

was tested with a one-way ANOVA with romantic attachment style as the independent factor and

diffuse-avoidant style and expressive suppression scores as the dependent measures. There was a

significant difference between groups for diffuse avoidant style (F (3,386) = 12.05, p < .001) and

for expressive suppression scores (F (7, 370) = 6.52, p < .001). LSD post-hoc tests found significant

differences in the diffuse-avoidant style (see Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix E). Participants with a

secure attachment had significantly lower scores in the diffuse-avoidant style than those with

fearful or preoccupied attachment (p < .05). No significant relationship was found between

secure and dismissive attachment. Participants with a secure attachment were significantly lower

in expressive suppression scores than those with fearful attachment (p < .05). No significant

difference was found between those with a secure attachment and those that had a preoccupied or

dismissive attachment. Thus, this hypothesis was only partially supported.

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 (Emotion regulation strategies (cognitive reappraisal and expressive

suppression) together with identity processing styles (informational, normative, and diffuse-

avoidant) will predict parent and peer attachment as well as romantic attachment-anxiety and

romantic attachment-avoidance scores, better than either of the two alone) was tested with four

multiple regression analyses. See Table 3 (see Appendix D). The first regression was conducted

with age and gender entered at step 1, emotion regulation strategies entered at step 2, identity

processing styles entered at step 3, and parent attachment as the dependent variable. The

resulting equation was significant (𝑅2 = .23, Adjusted 𝑅2 = .22, F (7, 370) = 15.97, p <.001). Age

(β = -.20, t = -4.30, p < .001), gender (β = -.24, t = -5.15, p< .001), cognitive reappraisal (β = .11,

t = 2.03, p = .043), diffuse- avoidant identity processing style (β = -.29, t = -5.42, p < .001), and

normative identity style (β = .25, t = 4.99, p < .001) significantly predicted parent attachment.

32

This regression was repeated with peer attachment as the dependent variable, and the resulting

equation was significant (𝑅2 = .12, Adjusted 𝑅2 = .10, F (7, 361) = 6.68, p <.001), with the

standardized coefficient betas reaching significance for expressive suppression (β = -.18, t = -

3.42, p < .001), diffuse-avoidant identity style (β = -.13, t = -2.22, p = .027), and informational

identity style (β = .14, t = 2.47, p = .014). The same regression was conducted with romantic

attachment-anxiety as the dependent variable, and the resulting equation was significant (𝑅2 =

.140, Adjusted 𝑅2 = .124, F (7, 370) = 8.63, p <.001), with the standardized coefficient beta

reaching significance for diffuse-avoidant identity processing style (β = .35, t = 6.29, p< .001).

Finally, the regression was repeated with romantic attachment-avoidance as the dependent

variable. The resulting equation was significant (𝑅2 = .113, Adjusted 𝑅2 = .096, F (7, 370) = 6.73,

p <.001). Age (β = .10, t = 2.02, p = .044) and expressive suppression (β = .27, t = 5.11, p< .001)

significantly predicted romantic attachment-avoidance. Thus, the hypothesis was confirmed in

that both emotion regulation factors and identity style factors predicted parent, peer and romantic

attachment better than either set of factors alone.

Overall, the only hypothesis that had no support was hypothesis 2, in that there was no

difference between the secure attachment style and the other attachment styles when looking at

the informational identity style and cognitive reappraisal scores. Hypotheses 1 and 3 had partial

support, finding that individuals in the diffuse identity style scored higher in expressive

suppression than individuals in the informational style, and that participants with a secure

attachment had significantly lower scores in the diffuse-avoidant style than those with fearful or

preoccupied attachment (yet not dismissive) and they were also significantly lower in expressive

suppression scores than those with fearful attachment (yet not preoccupied nor dismissive). The

33

overall finding from hypothesis 4 was that age, gender, identity styles, and emotion regulation

strategies together better predicted attachment than any of the factors alone.

34

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among attachment, identity

processing styles, and emotion regulation. Specifically, it explored the aforementioned factors

simultaneously to determine the relative contribution of identity processing style and emotion

regulation in predicting parent, peer, and romantic attachment. Previous research has only

examined links between two factors at a time, but never among all three at the same time.

Beginning with identity processing styles, the preliminary analyses showed that the

informational style was the group into which most of the participants were categorized. This was

followed by diffuse-avoidant, then by normative. This finding is not surprising, as the

informational style is used by those who are seeking out information to shape their sense of self,

and this is a common characteristic of college students. With regard to romantic attachment, the

most populated group was preoccupied, followed by fearful, then secure, then dismissive. When

running preliminary and descriptive analyses, it was found that juniors had significantly lower

romantic attachment anxiety scores than freshmen and sophomores. A potential explanation for

this could be that as students age in college, they experience friendships and relationships that

may lessen any attachment anxiety they had about romantic relationships prior to college or in

the early college years.

When evaluating the hypotheses, the investigation revealed a significant difference in

expressive suppression scores between diffuse-avoidant and informational styles but not between

diffuse-avoidant and normative identity styles. This may be because individuals with a normative

style are theorized to defend themselves against information that may endanger the values they

hold, while individuals with an informational identity processing style are theorized to be open-

35

minded and adjust their beliefs when they encounter contrasting information (Berzonsky, 1997,

2008). Expressive suppression involves a lot of cognitive effort to alter the outcome of a specific

situation after an emotion has already been experienced pertaining to the situation (Gross, 1998,

2007, 2008). It is possible that individuals with a normative identity style may resist this

cognitive effort. Jankowski’s (2013) study suggests the role of emotion regulation in identity

formation, and the results found in this thesis support this, indicating a possible link between

emotion regulation and identity processing style. Berzonsky and Kinney (2019) theorized that

spending too much time suppressing negative thoughts and emotions would actually increase

these cognitions, and when individuals with diffuse-avoidant identity styles feel inadequate in

their attempts to achieve goals (specifically when goals fail), it may be because they rely on poor

coping strategies that are likely influenced by their constant avoiding of negative feelings. This is

consistent with the findings in this study, as those in the diffuse-avoidant identity style scored

higher on expressive suppression than those in the informational identity style. Individuals with

an Informational identity style may encounter failure (and subsequent negative emotions), but

they do not avoid the negative feelings, rather learn from them, potentially by using cognitive

reappraisal, and this allows them to continue exploration even knowing that they may fail again.

Individuals with a secure romantic attachment did not have higher informational style

scores than individuals with fearful, preoccupied, or dismissive romantic attachment. This is

somewhat surprising, as Kerpelman and colleagues (2012) found that adolescents who reported

more romantic attachment avoidance also tended to be low in the informational style and high in

the diffuse-avoidant style, however, their study was conducted with a much larger sample (N =

2178) of middle adolescents. The mean age of their participants was much lower (M = 16.2

years), and being that romantic attachment varies across the lifespan, this may also account for

36

the differences between the findings. Participants in the present study who had a secure

attachment were significantly lower in expressive suppression scores than those with fearful

attachment, but there was no difference in cognitive reappraisal scores between attachment

styles. Arseth and colleagues (2009) theorized that exploring in attachment may be different than

exploring in identity, and this may account for the concurring results seen in this thesis when

looking at identity style and attachment. This suggests that those with a secure attachment do not

tend to regulate their emotions after they have already happened, experiencing fewer negative

emotions and less cognitive exhaustion than those who habitually use expressive suppression.

This further suggests that the way an individual regulates their emotions influences the formation

of attachment.

Securely attached individuals allow themselves to form relationships even with the

possibility of rejection, as they typically have a positive self-view (Bartholomew, 1990, 1991). It

is not surprising then, that individuals with a secure attachment style scored lower in diffuse-

avoidant and expressive suppression than individuals with a fearful attachment style. This

suggests that individuals with a secure attachment tend not to use the diffuse-avoidant style to

explore their identity, nor do they habitually use expressive suppression. Perhaps being more

open in one’s identity exploration (and using an informational style) gives one the freedom to

become more secure in their attachment to romantic partners, allowing for less relationship

anxiety and avoidance that would be characteristic of a secure attachment. Participants with a

secure attachment had lower scores than those with fearful or preoccupied attachment in the

diffuse-avoidant style, and Kerpelman and colleagues (2012) found that individuals who had

both high romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance, and therefore fearful attachment

(Bartholomew, 1990, 1991) reported high levels of the diffuse-avoidant style and lower levels of

37

the normative style. They theorized that this may be because individuals who avoid stress in one

area of exploration may do so in other areas as well. The findings of this study also support that

of Kerpelman and colleague’s (2012) study, that identity processing is likely occurring while

individuals form their sense of attachment in romantic relationships.

The results from the multiple regressions suggest multiple possibilities for predicting

attachment. When looking at parent attachment; age, gender, cognitive reappraisal, diffuse-

avoidant identity style and normative identity style together predicted one’s parent attachment

scores. It is possible that individuals who incorporate the values endorsed by their parents when

exploring their identity (i.e., those high in the normative identity style), use cognitive reappraisal

to cope with any negative feelings, and together may be why these two factors positively

influenced parental attachment. The diffuse-avoidant identity style negatively predicted parent

attachment, and because these individuals have weaker commitments to their values and behave

differently depending on who they are with, it may be difficult for them to feel consistent in their

attachment to a parent. Regarding peer attachment, expressive suppression and the diffuse-

avoidant identity style negatively predicted peer attachment, while the informational identity

style positively predicted one’s peer attachment scores. This finding was not surprising, as

Pascuzzo and colleagues (2013) found that attachment to peers in adolescence was linked to

emotion regulation strategies (and romantic attachment-anxiety/avoidance) in adulthood.

Additionally, it is reasonable that individuals who seek out relevant information about the self

(i.e., individuals high in the informational style), would feel a better sense of attachment to peers

than individuals high in the diffuse-avoidant style whose identity is contingent upon the

situation. Therefore, it may be difficult for these individuals to develop a good sense of

attachment to peers.

38

The only factor that predicted romantic attachment-anxiety was diffuse-avoidant identity

style. This is surprising, as it was hypothesized that both emotion regulation and identity style

would predict romantic attachment- anxiety. Pascuzzo and colleagues (2013) also found that the

use of task-oriented versus emotion-oriented strategies of coping with emotions was correlated

with romantic attachment-anxiety. Interestingly, expressive suppression did significantly predict

romantic attachment-anxiety (p < .001) when first entered into the regression equation at step 2.

However, once the identity styles were added to the regression equation, it lost significance (p <

.105) suggesting the shared variance between expressive suppression and the identity styles,

particularly the diffuse-avoidant style, may account for this finding. Additionally, Pascuzzo and

colleagues (2013) conducted a longitudinal study and administered their surveys in a lab,

therefore their data may be more controlled than the data collected in this thesis. Age and

expressive suppression significantly predicted romantic attachment-avoidance. However, if the

identity styles are entered first into the regression equation, before the emotion regulation

strategies, romantic attachment-avoidance is significantly predicted by the diffuse-avoidant

identity style (p < .001). Once the emotion regulation strategies are added into the equation at

step 3, the diffuse-avoidant style is no longer a significant predictor (p = .083) suggesting once

again that shared variance might account for the finding. It is quite interesting that for romantic

attachment-avoidance, there was an emotion regulation predictor but no identity style predictor,

yet for romantic attachment-anxiety, it is the opposite. This suggests that attachment-anxiety may

be better predicted by identity styles than emotion regulation strategies while attachment-

avoidance is better predicted by emotion regulation strategies than identity styles. This supports

Pascuzzo and colleagues reasoning that being anxiously attached may cause one to be distressed,

and therefore have difficulties in engaging in strategies like cognitive reappraisal. It is also

39

reasonable to suggest that perhaps emotion regulation is predicted by attachment. Additionally, it

appears that emotion regulation strategies, identity processing styles, age, and gender may be

useful predictors of attachment and romantic attachment-related anxiety/avoidance.

Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of this study should also be recognized. The survey battery was

administered online and not proctored, therefore future studies may benefit by repeating this

study in person or in an interview format to ensure greater validity of the data. Furthermore, the

responses to the surveys were self-reported, and it is possible that a participant may have lacked

the introspection to accurately reflect on and answer the questions. Additionally, this is cross-

sectional data, therefore, causal processes cannot be assumed. It may be useful to conduct this

study longitudinally to better capture casual processes. The sample consisted of primarily white

females, and all participants were college students, therefore it is not possible to be sure of the

full range of cultural impacts that may be present when looking at the factors in this study.

When conducting future studies on attachment, identity, and emotion regulation, it may

be useful to test other emotion regulation strategies (such as task versus emotion-oriented

strategies), as well as testing defense mechanisms. Additionally, it may be useful to focus on the

sense of anxiety felt when individuals use certain identity styles and emotion regulation

strategies. Future research may also benefit from testing the role of parent modeling on the

development of emotion regulation strategies and identity styles. It is possible that parent

modeling may predict identity styles and emotion regulation strategies, as the behavior of a

parent in situations of conflict may impact how one learns to navigate identity conflicts.

40

APPENDNIX A: IRB Approval Letter

41

Institutional Review Board

FWA00000351

IRB00001138, IRB00012110

Office of Research

12201 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826-3246

Page 1 of 1

EXEMPTION DETERMINATION

May 25, 2022 Dear Steven Berman:

On 5/25/2022, the IRB determined the following submission to be human subjects research that is exempt from regulation:

Type of Review: Initial Study, Initial Study

Title: Project Attachment

Investigator: Steven Berman

IRB ID: STUDY00004345

Funding: None

Grant ID: None

Documents Reviewed: • Study4345, Protocol2.docx, Category: IRB Protocol; • Study4345,Consent2.pdf, Category: Consent Form; • Survey Battery.docx, Category: Survey / Questionnaire

This determination applies only to the activities described in the IRB submission and does not apply should any changes be made. If changes are made, and there are questions about whether these changes affect the exempt status of the human research, please submit a modification request to the IRB. Guidance on submitting Modifications and Administrative Check-in are detailed in the Investigator Manual (HRP-103), which can be found by navigating to the IRB Library within the IRB system. When you have completed your research, please submit a Study Closure request so that IRB records will be accurate.

If you have any questions, please contact the UCF IRB at 407-823-2901 or [email protected]. Please include your project title and IRB number in all correspondence with this office.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Coker Designated Reviewer

42

APPENDNIX B: Table 1- Descriptive Statistics

43

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for All Study Variables

Mean SD Possible Range Actual Range

Cognitive Reappraisal 3.80 .70 5.00 - 1.00 5.00 - 1.33

Expressive Suppression 3.04 .85 5.00 - 1.00 5.00 - 1.00

Diffuse-Avoidant Identity

Processing Style

2.36 .78 5.00 - 1.00 4.33 - 1.00

Informational Identity

Processing Style

3.66 .67 5.00 - 1.00 5.00 - 1.22

Normative Identity Processing

Style

2.49 .70 5.00 - 1.00 4.71 - 1.11

Parent Attachment 4.53 2.44 -3.00 - 9.00 -2.80 - 9.00

Peer Attachment 5.70 1.96 -3.00 – 9.00 -1.76 – 9.00

Romantic Attachment

Avoidance

3.00 .96 7.00- 1.00 6.33 - 1.00

Romantic Attachment Anxiety 3.84 1.50 7.00- 1.00 6.33 - 1.00

44

APPENDIX C: Table 2- Correlation Matrix

45

Table 2

Correlation Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Age --

2. Gender .08 --

3. Cognitive

Reappraisal

.03 .00 --

4. Expressive

Suppression

-.04 -.10* .11* --

5. Diffuse-Avoidant

Identity

Processing Style

-.12* .01 -.06 .32*** --

6. Informational

Identity

Processing Style

.05 .05 .45*** -.08 .02 --

7. Normative

Identity

Processing Style

-.09 -.11* .17*** .11* .38*** .16** --

8. Parent

Attachment

-.21*** -.28*** .11* -.07 -.19*** -.02 .19*** --

9. Peer Attachment -.04 .08 -.16** -.24*** -.18*** .21*** -.02 .17*** --

10. Romantic

Attachment

Avoidance

.12* -.02 -.09 .26*** .13** -.098 -.04 -.04 .19** --

11. Romantic

Attachment

Anxiety

-.19 .09 -.04 .18*** .35*** .01 .02 -.09 .22** .37**

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

46

47

APPENDIX D: Table 3- Regression Analyses Predicting Attachment-Related

Variables

48

Table 3

Regression Analyses Predicting Attachment-Related Variables

Parent Attachment Peer Attachment Attachment-Anxiety Attachment-Avoidance

β t p β t p β t p β t p

Age -.13 -2.54 .012 .08 1.68 .094 -.01 -.19 .846 .10 2.02 .044

Sex -.17 -3.48 <.001 -.08 -1.58 .114 .07 1.47 .143 -.02 -.36 .718

Expressive Suppression -.03 -.51 .610 .30 5.83 <.001 .09 1.62 .105 .27 5.11 <.001

Cognitive Reappraisal .14 2.40 .017 -.09 -1.59 .112 -.03 -.60 .549 -.11 -1.92 .056

Diffuse-Avoidant -.17 -2.99 .003 .16 2.86 .004 .35 6.29 <.001 .08 1.33 .183

Informational .06 .98 .330 -.03 -.46 .647 .04 .64 .525 -.04 -.71 .479

Normative .12 2.10 .036 -.06 -1.05 .294 -.10 -1.82 .070 -.08 -1.49 .138

49

APPENDIX E: Figures

50

Figure 1

Means for Romantic Attachment Styles by Identity Styles

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Secure Fearful Preocccupied Dismissive

Romantic Attachement Styles

Diffuse- Avoidant Style

Informational Style

Normative Style

51

Figure 2

Means for Romantic Attachment Styles by Emotion Regulation Strategies

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

Secure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissive

Romantic Attachment Styles

Cognitive Reappraisal

Expressive Suppression

52

APPENDIX G: Survey Battery

53

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional life, in particular, how you

control (that is, regulate and manage) your emotions. The questions below involve two distinct

aspects of your emotional life. One is your emotional experience, or what you feel like inside.

The other is your emotional expression, or how you show your emotions in the way you talk,

gesture, or behave. Although some of the following questions may seem similar to one another,

they differ in important ways. For each item, please answer using the following scale:

1. ____ When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what

I’m thinking about.

2. ____ I keep my emotions to myself.

3. ____ When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m

thinking about.

4. ____When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them.

5. ____When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that

helps me stay calm.

6. ____ I control my emotions by not expressing them.

7. ____When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the

situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Slightly

Disagree

neutral Slightly

Agree

Agree Strongly

agree

54

8. ____ I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.

9. ____When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.

10. ____When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the

situation.

55

Identity Style Inventory-5 (ISI-5)

You will find a number of statements about beliefs, attitudes, and/or ways of dealing with issues.

Read each carefully and use it to describe yourself. On the answer sheet, bubble in the number

which indicates the extent to which you think the statement represents you. There are no right or

wrong answers. For instance, if the statement is very much like you, mark a 5, if it is not like you

at all, mark a 1. Use the 1-to-5-point scale to indicate the degree to which you think each

statement is uncharacteristic (1) or characteristic (5) of yourself.

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all like

me

Very much like

me

1. I know basically what I believe and don’t believe. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I automatically adopt and follow the values I was brought up with. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I’m not sure where I’m heading in my life; I guess things will work 1 2 3 4 5

themselves out.

4. Talking to others helps me explore my personal beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I know what I want to do with my future. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I strive to achieve the goals that my family and friends hold for me. 1 2 3 4 5

7. It doesn’t pay to worry about values in advance; I decide things as 1 2 3 4 5

they happen.

8. When facing a life decision, I take into account different points of view 1 2 3 4 5

56

before making a choice.

9. I am not really sure what I believe. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I have always known what I believe and don’t believe; I never really 1 2 3 4 5

have doubts about my beliefs.

11. I am not really thinking about my future now, it is still a long way off. 1 2 3 4 5

12. I spend a lot of time reading or talking to others trying to develop a 1 2 3 4 5

set of values that makes sense to me.

13. I am not sure which values I really hold. 1 2 3 4 5

14. I never question what I want to do with my life because I tend to 1 2 3 4 5

follow what important people expect me to do.

15. When I have to make an important life decision, I try to wait as long as 1 2 3 4 5

possible in order to see what will happen.

16. When facing a life decision, I try to analyze the situation in order to 1 2 3 4 5

understand it.

17. I am not sure what I want to do in the future. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I think it is better to adopt a firm set of beliefs than to be open-minded. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I try not to think about or deal with personal problems as long as I can. 1 2 3 4 5

20. When making important life decisions, I like to spend time 1 2 3 4 5

thinking about my options.

21. I have clear and definite life goals. 1 2 3 4 5

22. I think it’s better to hold on to fixed values rather than to consider 1 2 3 4 5

alternative value systems.

23. I try to avoid personal situations that require me to think a lot and deal 1 2 3 4 5

57

with them on my own.

24. When making important life decisions, I like to have as much 1 2 3 4 5

information as possible.

25. I am not sure what I want out of life. 1 2 3 4 5

26. When I make a decision about my future, I automatically follow what 1 2 3 4 5

close friends or relatives expect from me.

27. My life plans tend to change whenever I talk to different people. 1 2 3 4 5

28. I handle problems in my life by actively reflecting on them. 1 2 3 4 5

29. I have a definite set of values that I use to make personal decisions. 1 2 3 4 5

30. When others say something that challenges my personal values or 1 2 3 4 5

beliefs, I automatically disregard what they have to say.

31. Who I am changes from situation to situation. 1 2 3 4 5

32. I periodically think about and examine the logical consistency between 1 2 3 4 5

my life goals.

33. I am emotionally involved and committed to specific values and ideals. 1 2 3 4 5

34. I prefer to deal with situations in which I can rely on social norms and 1 2 3 4 5

standards.

35. When personal problems arise, I try to delay acting as long as possible. 1 2 3 4 5

36. It is important for me to obtain and evaluate information from a 1 2 3 4 5

variety of sources before I make important life decisions.

58

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)

This questionnaire asks about your relationships with your mother. Each of the following

statements asks about your feelings about your mother or the woman who has acted as your

mother (e.g., a natural mother and a stepmother). Answer the questions for the one you feel has

most influenced you. Please read each statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true

the statement is for you now.

Almost or never

true

Not very often

true

Sometimes true Often true Almost always

or always true

1 2 3 4 5

1. My mother respects my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel my mother does a good job as my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I wish I had a different mother. 1 2 3 4 5

4. My mother accepts me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I like to get my mother’s point of view on

things I’m concerned about. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I feel it’s no use letting my feelings show around

my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

7. My mother can tell when I’m upset about something. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Talking over my problems with my mother

makes me feel ashamed or foolish. 1 2 3 4 5

9. My mother expects too much from me. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I get upset easily around my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

59

11. I get upset a lot more than my mother knows about. 1 2 3 4 5

12. When we discuss things, my mother cares

about my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5

13. My mother trusts my judgment. 1 2 3 4 5

14. My mother has her own problems,

so I don’t bother her with mine. 1 2 3 4 5

15. My mother helps me understand myself better. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I tell my mother about my problems and troubles. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I feel angry with my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I don’t get much attention from my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

19. My mother helps me talk about my difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5

20. My mother understands me. 1 2 3 4 5

21. When I am angry about something,

my mother tries to be understanding. 1 2 3 4 5

22. I trust my mother. 1 2 3 4 5

23. My mother doesn’t understand what I’m going through

these days. 1 2 3 4 5

24. I can count on my mother when I need to get something

off my chest. 1 2 3 4 5

25. If my mother knows something is bothering me,

she asks me about it. 1 2 3 4 5

60

This part asks about your feeling’s about your father, or the man who has acted as your father. If

you have more than one person acting as your father (e.g. natural and step-father) answer the

question for the one you feel has most influenced you.

1. My father respects my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel my father does a good job as my father. 1 2 3 4 5

3. I wish I had a different father. 1 2 3 4 5

4. My father accepts me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5

5. I like to get my father’s point of view on

things I’m concerned about. 1 2 3 4 5

6. I feel it’s no use letting my feelings show around

my father. 1 2 3 4 5

7. My father can tell when I’m upset about something. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Talking over my problems with my father

makes me feel ashamed or foolish. 1 2 3 4 5

9. My father expects too much from me. 1 2 3 4 5

10. I get upset easily around my father. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I get upset a lot more than my father knows about. 1 2 3 4 5

12. When we discuss things, my father cares

about my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5

13. My father trusts my judgment. 1 2 3 4 5

14. My father has his own problems,

so I don’t bother him with mine. 1 2 3 4 5

15. My father helps me understand myself better. 1 2 3 4 5

61

16. I tell my father about my problems and troubles. 1 2 3 4 5

17. I feel angry with my father. 1 2 3 4 5

18. I don’t get much attention from my father. 1 2 3 4 5

19. My father helps me talk about my difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5

20. My father understands me. 1 2 3 4 5

21. When I am angry about something,

my father tries to be understanding. 1 2 3 4 5

22. I trust my father. 1 2 3 4 5

23. My father doesn’t understand what I’m going through

these days. 1 2 3 4 5

24. I can count on my father when I need to get something

off my chest. 1 2 3 4 5

25. If my father knows something is bothering me,

he asks me about it. 1 2 3 4 5

This part asks about your feelings about your relationships with your close friends. Please read

each statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true the statement is for you now.

1. I like to get my friend’s point of view on things I’m concerned about. 1 2 3 4 5.

2. My friends can tell when I’m upset about something. 1 2 3 4 5.

3. When we discuss things, my friends care about my point of view. 1 2 3 4 5.

4. Talking over my problems with friends makes me feel ashamed or foolish. 1 2 3 4 5.

5. I wish I had different friends. 1 2 3 4 5.

6. My friends understand me. 1 2 3 4 5.

7. My friends encourage me to talk about my difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5.

62

8. My friends accept me as I am. 1 2 3 4 5.

9. I feel the need to be in touch with my friends more often. 1 2 3 4 5.

10. My friends don’t understand what I’m going through these days. 1 2 3 4 5.

11. I feel alone or apart when I am with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5.

12. My friends listen to what I have to say. 1 2 3 4 5.

13. I feel my friends are good friends. 1 2 3 4 5.

14. My friends are fairly easy to talk to. 1 2 3 4 5.

15. When I am angry about something, my friends try to be understanding. 1 2 3 4 5.

16. My friends help me to understand myself better. 1 2 3 4 5.

17. My friends care about how I am feeling. 1 2 3 4 5.

18. I feel angry with my friends. 1 2 3 4 5

19. I can count on my friends

20. when I need to get something off my chest. 1 2 3 4 5

21. I trust my friends. 1 2 3 4 5

22. My friends respect my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

23. I get upset a lot more than my friends know about. 1 2 3 4 5

24. It seems as if my friends are irritated with me for no reason. 1 2 3 4 5

25. I can tell my friends about my problems and troubles. 1 2 3 4 5

26. If my friends know something is bothering me,

they ask me about it. 1 2 3 4 5

63

Experiences in Close Relationships- Revised Short Form (ECR-RSF)

The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. We are

interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is happening in a

current relationship. Respond to each statement by circling a number to indicate how much you

agree or disagree with the statement. Use the 1-to-7-point scale.

1. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.

2. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me.

3. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.

4. When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone

else.

5. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.

6. My romantic partner makes me doubt Myself.

7. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.

8. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly

disagree

Disagree Slightly

disagree

neutral Slightly

Agree

Agree Strongly

agree

64

9. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.

10. I worry a lot about my relationships.

11. I tell my partner just about everything.

12. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the same about

me.

13. It's not difficult for me to get close to my partner.

14. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason.

15. I talk things over with my partner.

16. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them.

17. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.

18. I worry that I won't measure up to other people.

65

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716

https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C.

M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle, 33–

51. Tavistock/Routledge.

Allen, J. P., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Moore, C. W., O'Beirne-Kelly, H.,

& Kilmer, S. L. (2003). A secure base in adolescence: markers of attachment security in

the mother-adolescent relationship. Child development, 74(1), 292–307.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00536

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02202939

Arseth, A. K., Kroger, J., Martinussen, M., & Marcia, J. (2009). Meta-analytic studies of identity

status and the relational issues of attachment and intimacy. Identity, 9, 1–32.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15283480802579532

Barrett, L. F., Mesquita, B., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The experience of emotion.

Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 373–403.

Barrett, L. F., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). On the automaticity of emotion. 173–217

66

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social

and Personal relationships, 7(2), 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a

four-category model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 226.

Beaumont, S. L., & Seaton, C. L. (2008). Identity processing styles predict patterns of coping:

The role of an informational identity style in positive reinterpretation and growth. Poster

session presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Identity Formation

Berman, S. L., Montgomery, M. J., & Kurtines, W. M. (2004). The development and validation

of a measure of identity distress. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and

Research, 4, 1–8.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 4, 267-281.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the lifespan: A process perspective on identity

formation. Advances in personal construct theory, 1, 155–186.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1993). Identity style, gender, and social-cognitive reasoning. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 8, 289–296.

Berzonsky, M. D. (1997). Identity development, control theory, and self-regulation: An

individual differences perspective. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(3), 347–353.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743554897123003

67

Berzonsky, M. D. (2008). Identity formation: the role of identity processing style and cognitive

processes. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(3), 645-655.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.024

Berzonsky, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Meeus, W. (2007). Identity-processing style, psychosocial

resources, and adolescents’ perceptions of parent-adolescent relations. The Journal of

Early Adolescence, 27(3), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431607302006

Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., Smits, I., Papini, D. R., & Goossens, L. (2013).

Development and validation of the revised identity style inventory (ISI-5): Factor

structure, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032642

Berzonsky, M. D., & Kinney, A. (2019). Identity processing style and depression: The

mediational role of experiential avoidance and self-regulation. Identity: An International

Journal of Theory and Research, 19(2), 83–97.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2019.1567341

Beyers, W. & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2010). Does identity precede intimacy? Testing Erikson’s

theory on romantic development in emerging adults of the 21st century. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 25, 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410361370

Bleske-Rechek, A., Nuck, G., & Gunseor, M. M. (2021). Individual differences in romantic

attachment: Shared environment does not predict shared attachment style. Journal of

Individual Differences, 42(4), 204-211 https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000347

68

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.

Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss Vol 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Volume 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. I: Loss. New York: Basic Books.

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

Basic Books.

Crabtree, T. (2021). Friendship intimacy, identity development, and romantic attachment among

emerging adults.

Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived

parental social support and academic achievement: an attachment theory perspective.

Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(2), 369.

Doumen, S., Smits, I., Luyckx, K., Duriez, B., Vanhalst, J., Verschueren, K., & Goossens, L.

(2012). Identity and perceived peer relationship quality in emerging adulthood: The

mediating role of attachment-related emotions. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1417–

1425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.01.003

Duschinsky R. (2015). The emergence of the disorganized/disoriented (D) attachment

classification, 1979-1982. History of psychology, 18(1), 32–46.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038524

69

Dyk, P. A., & Adams, G. R. (1987) The association between identity development and intimacy

during adolescence: A theoretical treatise. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 223–235.

https://doi.org/10.1177/074355488723004

Enright, R.D., & Deist, S.H. (1979). Social perspective taking as a component of identity

formation. Adolescence, 14(55), 517-522.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. Norton & Co.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. Norton & Co.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. Norton & Co.

Ehrman, S. G. (2004). The relationship between parent and peer attachment: The role of affect

regulation [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section B: The Sciences and Engineering 64(7B), 3519.

Erlanger, D. M. (1996). Empathy, attachment style, and identity development in undergraduates.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 57(5),

3430.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-

report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,

350-365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

Goldberg, W., & Easterbrooks, M. (1984). The role of marital quality in toddler development.

Developmental Psychology, 20, 504-14.

70

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and

dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in

emotion regulation scale. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment, 26(1),

41-54.

Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: divergent

consequences for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 74, 224– 237. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.224

Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of

General Psychology, 2, 271–299.

Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:

Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 348-362.

Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion Regulation: Conceptual Foundations. In J. J.

Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation. (pp. 3–24). The Guilford Press.

Gross, J. J. (ed.). (2008). Handbook of Emotion Regulation. New York, NY: Guilford.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological

inquiry, 26(1), 1-26.

71

Gurera, J. W. (2019). Emotion regulation and emotion perception in aging: A perspective on age-

related differences and similarities. Emotion and cognition. (247), 329–351.

https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.02.007

Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional response in the infant monkey:

Orphaned baby monkeys develop a strong and persistent attachment to inanimate

surrogate mothers. Science, 130(3373), 421-432.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.52.3.511

Holt, L. J., Mattanah, J. F., & Long, M. W. (2018). Change in parental and peer relationship

quality during emerging adulthood: Implications for academic, social, and emotional

functioning. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(5), 743–769.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517697856

Jankowski, P. (2013). Identity status and emotion regulation in adolescence and early adulthood.

Polish Psychological Bulletin, 44(3), 288–298. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppb-2013-0032

Kaniušonytė, G., & Žukauskienė, R. (2018). Relationships with parents, identity styles, and

positive youth development during the transition from adolescence to emerging

adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 6(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817690978

72

Kaur, M., & Tung, S. (2019). Cognitive reasoning processes and identity achievement:

Mediating role of identity processing styles. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research,

34(3), 457–476. https://doi.org/10.33824/PJPR.2019.34.3.25

Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., Saint-Eloi Cadely, H., Tuggle, F. J., Harrell-Levy, M. K., &

Adler-Baeder, F. M. (2012). Identity and intimacy during adolescence: Connections

among identity styles, romantic attachment, and identity commitment. Journal of

Adolescence, 35, 1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.03.008

LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73, 653–676.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment

pattern.

Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 5(3), 551-558.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. Handbook of adolescent psychology, 9(11), 159-

187.

Mazefsky, C. A., Conner, C. M., Breitenfeldt, K., Leezenbaum, N., Chen, Q., Blysma, L. M., &

Pilkonis, P. (2021). Evidence base update for questionnaires of emotion regulation and

reactivity for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent

Psychology, 49(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2021.1955372

73

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World

Psychiatry, 11, 11–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003

Moretti, M. M., & Peled, M. (2004). Adolescent-parent attachment: Bonds that support healthy

development. Pediatrics & child health, 9(8), 551–555.

https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/9.8.551

Owens, K. A., Haddock, G., & Berry, K. (2013). The role of the therapeutic alliance in the

regulation of emotion in psychosis: an attachment perspective. Clinical Psychology &

Psychotherapy, 20, 523–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1793

Pascuzzo, K., Cyr, C., & Moss, E. (2013). Longitudinal association between adolescent

attachment, adult romantic attachment, and emotion regulation strategies. Attachment &

Human Development, 15(1), 83–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.745713

Partridge, O., Maguire, T., & Newman-Taylor, K. (2022). Pathways from insecure attachment to

paranoia: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Behavioral and Cognitive

Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465822000029

Preece, D. A., Goldenberg, A., Becerra, R., Boyes, M., Hasking, P., & Gross, J. J. (2021).

Loneliness and emotion regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 180.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110974

Ratner, K. (2014). The role of parenting and attachment in identity style development. The

University of Central Florida Undergraduate Research Journal, 7(1), 15-26.

74

Rowe, I., & Marcia, J.E. (1980). Ego identity status, formal operations, and moral development.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9, 87-99.

Sander L. Koole. (2009). The psychology of emotion regulation: An integrative review,

Cognition and Emotion, 23(1), 4-41. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02699930802619031

Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., Waterman, A. S., & Dunham, R. M. (2000). Ego Identity Status,

Identity Style, and Personal Expressiveness: An Empirical Investigation of Three

Convergent Constructs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(4), 504–521.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558400154005

Seaton, C. L., & Beaumont, S. L. (2011). Identity processing styles and defense styles during

emerging adulthood: Implications for life distress. Identity: An International Journal of

Theory and Research, 11(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2011.540736

Soenens, B., Duriez, B., & Goossens, L. (2005). Social-psychological profiles of identity styles:

Attitudinal and social-cognitive correlates in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescence,

28, 107–125.

Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations.

Neuroscience & biobehavioral reviews, 24(4), 417-463.

Vivona, J. M. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of attachment

relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3),

316–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.3.316

75

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security

in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty‐year longitudinal study. Child development,

71(3), 684-689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00176

Weinfield, N. S., Whaley, G. J., & Egeland, B. (2004). Continuity, discontinuity, and coherence

in attachment from infancy to late adolescence: sequelae of organization and

disorganization. Attachment & human development, 6(1), 73–97.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730310001659566

Wongpakaran, T., & Wongpakaran, N. (2012). A short version of the revised 'experience of close

relationships questionnaire': investigating non-clinical and clinical samples. Clinical

practice and epidemiology in mental health, 8, 36–42.

https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017901208010036

Woodrum, J. L., & Kahn, J. H. (2021). Perfectionistic concerns and psychological distress: The

role of spontaneous emotion regulation during college students’ experience with failure.

Journal of Counseling Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000580

76