Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in Psychology 2014, 115, 2, 627-642. © Psychological Reports 2014

THREE-FACTOR STRUCTURE OF ADULT ATTACHMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: COMPARISON OF BRITISH, FRENCH, AND ITALIAN SAMPLES1 FABRIZIO SCRIMA

LILIANE RIOUX

LUCREZIA LORITO

University of Rennes 2

University of Paris Ouest, Nanterre

University of Palermo

Summary.—The goal was to compare three-factor and two-factor solutions and construct validity of the Adult Attachment in the Workplace (AAW) questionnaire. Participants were 660 volunteers from three countries (France, Italy, and Great Britain). The two-factor model of Neustadt, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham (2006) and the three-factor theoretical model of Collins and Read (1990) were compared. Construct validity was assessed by calculating correlations among the two- and threefactor AAW, the Workplace Attachment Scale, and the Organizational Commitment Scale. The three-factor structure differentiated between the three attachment styles, i.e., secure, preoccupied, and avoidant. There were moderate, significant correlations between AAW, workplace attachment, and affective commitment. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the three-factor structure fit the data better. Furthermore, the AAW, the Workplace Attachment Scale, and the Organizational Commitment Scale can be considered independent. In line with previous empirical evidence, a further distinction is noted between avoidant and preoccupied styles in the workplace.

Several studies (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Simmons, Gooty, Nelson, & Little, 2009; Little, Nelson, Wallace, & Johnson, 2011; Ronen & Mikulincer, 2012) found that employees with secure, avoidant, or preoccupied attachment styles manifest different work behavior. Hazan and Shaver (1990) argued that secure adults show a more positive attitude towards their work, a positive evaluation of relationships in the workplace, and fewer work-related fears. Conversely, preoccupied people express a significant fear of rejection due to anxiety about their potentially poor performance. Finally, avoidant adults use work to avoid social interactions, and although they show medium/high scores on job satisfaction they also seem less satisfied than their secure colleagues due to their instrumental use of work. Hazan and Shaver's (1990) study was important because it was one of the first to analyze attachment in the workplace; however, they used a typological measure, and more recent research has developed improved measures. In a recent study by Ronen and Mikulincer (2012), leaders with insecure attachment styles are shown to contribute to followers' burnAddress correspondence to F. Scrima, Department of Psychology, University of Rennes 2, 6 Avenue Gaston Berger, 35000, Rennes, France or e-mail ([email protected]). 1

DOI 10.2466/49.PR0.115c25z2

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 627

ISSN 0033-2941

17/10/14 12:56 PM

628

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

out and low job satisfaction. Davidovitz, et al., (2007) found that avoidant leaders tend to be task-oriented and show reduced efficacy in the management of relationships, and that leaders with an anxious style show lower task efficacy. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007) also suggested that attachment style could influence individual functioning at work, indicating that even if the majority of individuals in work organizations are securely attached (Simmons, et al., 2009), secure and insecure attachment styles are worthy of study because of their effects on workplace behavior. Finally, Little, et al. (2011) found that attachment styles indirectly affect important behaviors in the workplace; specifically, secure attachment relates to feeling vigorous at work, whereas counterdependence and overdependence relate negatively to vigur at work. These studies thus emphasize the importance of assessing adult attachment style in the workplace to identify personality variables underlying attitudes (e.g., commitment, engagement) affecting performance. Adult Attachment in the Workplace Scale It is within this theoretical context that Neustadt and Furnham (2006) developed the Adult Attachment in the Workplace (AAW) self-report scale, adapted from the romantic attachment scale of Collins and Read (1990), to measure attachment in the workplace (Table 1). In their initial work, Neustadt and Furnham (2006) used Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), based on the principal components method, to identify two related factors, namely Insecure Attachment at Work (IAW), explaining 36.9% of the total variance and consisting of nine items, and Secure/ Autonomous Attachment at Work (SAAW), explaining 13.2% of the total variance and also consisting of nine items (Neustadt, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2006). According to the authors, despite the inability to differentiate between two patterns of insecure attachment (preoccupied and avoidant), the results of their study are encouraging, especially if one considers that researchers using the Adult Attachment Scale by Collins and Read (1990) reported results that may be less directly aligned with the main categories of attachment from which both inventories derive (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). In a further paper, Neustadt, et al. (2006), using the same methodology, obtained similar results when eliminating two items that did not saturate in the Insecure Attachment at Work (IAW) factor. They therefore concluded that the structure of the SAAW factor is probably more stable than that of the IAW factor. The study also replicated the inability to differentiate between the two types of insecure attachment style in the original version of the scale (Collins & Read, 1990). Finally, in a recent study (Neustadt, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2011) on the differences between avoidant and anxious attachment styles, the same authors sought to enhance the representativeness of the items by extracting three factors that could differentiate between the two styles of

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 628

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

629

TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF ITEMS Collins and Read (1990)

Neustadt and Furnham (2006)

1

I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others (Av)

I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others at work (SAAW)

2

People are never there when you need them (Av)

Top management is never there when you need them (IAW)

3

I am comfortable depending on others (S)

I am comfortable depending on others at work (SAAW)

4

I know that others will be there when I need them (S)

I can count on work colleagues to support me when I need them (SAAW)

5

I find it difficult to trust others complete- I find it difficult, in the workplace, to ly (Av) trust others completely (IAW)

6

I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them (Ax)

I often feel that I am on my own in this company (IAW)

7

I do not often worry about being abandoned (S)

I do not often worry about being left in the lurch at work (SAAW)

8

I often worry that my partner does not really love me (Ax)

I often worry that work colleagues do not trust me (IAW)

9

I find others are reluctant to get as close as I would like (Ax)

I find work colleagues reluctant to be as open as I would like (IAW)

10

I often worry my partner will not want to stay with me (Ax)

I often worry that people would not want to stay in my work team (IAW)

11

I want to merge completely with another I want to be completely in tune with my person (Ax) boss (SAAW)

12

My desire to merge sometimes scares people away (Ax)

Work colleagues are sometimes put off by my desire to be on their wavelength (IAW)

I find it relatively easy to get close to others (S)

I find it relatively easy to get close to others at work (SAAW)

I do not often worry about someone getting too close to me (S)

I do not often worry about someone confiding too much in me at work (SAAW)

15

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others (Av)

I am somewhat uncomfortable confiding in others at work (SAAW)

16

I am nervous when anyone gets too close I get nervous when anyone at work (Av) confides too much (IAW)

17

I am comfortable having others depend on me (S)

I am comfortable having others depend on me at work (SAAW)

18

Often love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being (Av)

Often, work colleagues want me to be more open than I am comfortable being (IAW)

13 14

Note.—Items of the two scales are reproduced here with permission from the publishers. (S) = Secure; (Av) = Avoidant; (Ax) = Anxious; (SAAW) = Secure/autonomous attachment in the workplace; (IAW) = Insecure attachment in the workplace.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 629

17/10/14 12:56 PM

630

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

insecure attachment. To this end, they added 12 further items to the original version, which they drew from the existing literature describing the two attachment styles (preoccupied and avoidant) at work. The results suggested a two-factor solution with 23 items; the first factor, IAW, consisted of 12 items and accounted for 28.7% of the total variance, and the second factor, SAAW, consisted of 11 items and accounted for 22.8% of the total variance. Other Attachment Perspectives From Environmental and Organizational Psychology In the scientific literature, other approaches have proposed a relationship between attachment and workplace behaviors and attitudes. While the term “attachment” cannot be directly aligned with Bowlby's attachment theory, these approaches provide significant explanations of behavior in the workplace. Place attachment can be defined as an emotional bond (e.g., Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001). It is based on Shumaker and Taylor's (1983) definition of place attachment as the emotional component of the relationship between an individual and a given location. Taking this approach, place attachment is measured using a one-dimensional scale, which has been used in many studies either in its original form or in forms appropriate to the place or to a specific population (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Bonnes, 2003; Rioux & Mokounkolo, 2005; Velasco & Rioux, 2010). However, many studies have described the effects of attachment to the workplace as an antecedent variable of organizational citizenship behaviours (Le Roy & Rioux, 2013) and job satisfaction (Rioux, 2005; Rioux & Pignault, 2013), also correlated with affective commitment (Le Roy & Rioux, 2013). The results of the studies by Le Roy and Rioux (2013) and Rioux and Pavalache-Ilie (2013), showing, respectively, a correlation coefficient of .60 and .54 between attachment to the workplace and affective commitment, suggest the importance of investigating the convergent validity between affective commitment and attachment to the workplace. Organizational commitment is the concept that best describes workers' positive attachment to their organization and work (Meyer & Allen, 1997). It is defined as a psychological attachment to one's organization characterized by three components: affective, normative, and continuance (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Specifically, affective commitment is an individual's involvement and emotional attachment to his/her organization; normative commitment is a feeling of loyalty to the organization based on a perceived obligation of loyalty (Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1996); finally, continuance commitment is a tendency to maintain membership in the organization based on awareness of the potential costs associated with leaving it. More specifically, emotional attachment (or affective commitment) occurs when people feel a strong emotional connection

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 630

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

631

and a sense of identification with their organization, whereby they also feel involved in it and perceive a benefit from belonging to it. Emotionally attached employees are considered to experience a deep involvement in the organization's activities, to have a strong desire to pursue the objectives of the organization, and to intend to remain with it (Meyer & Allen, 1991). These two forms of attachment have in common an emotional bond with the organization, both as a physical and a symbolic space (commitment). The difference with adult attachment in the workplace is precisely the object of attachment. Previous research (Neustadt & Furnham, 2006) showed significant relationships between affective commitment and secure attachment style in the workplace (β = 0.25, p < .05), but no significant relationship between affective commitment and insecure attachment style. Finally, workplace attachment and organizational commitment could be used to gain a better understanding of behavior at work (Scrima & Lorito, 2011; Scrima, 2014), but the relations and factor structures of the respective measures require further study. Research goal. To compare the two-factor structure of the Adult Attachment in the Workplace (AAW) questionnaire, developed by Neustadt, et al. (2006), and the three-factor structure of Collins and Read's (1990) original model. METHOD Participants A total of 660 employees were interviewed in three countries: France, Italy, and Great Britain. Care was taken to ensure group homogeneity in terms of age and sex. Professional background was also matched (χ2 = 7.19, df = 4, p = .12). Questionnaires were administered individually in the workplace in paper form. To guarantee anonymity, employees were asked to put the completed questionnaire into a dedicated mailbox. In France, 232 employees were recruited through personal and business contacts; 5.18% refused to participate. The participants (N = 220; 110 men, 110 women; M age = 43.0 yr., SD = 9.7, range 18 to 60), worked in either the public (54%) or the private sectors (46%), and included executives (30%), office workers (35%), and blue-collar workers (35%). The Italian sample comprised 248 employees recruited through personal contacts in two large organizations and with the collaboration of a public institution. The response rate was 88.7% (N = 220; 117 men, 103 women; M age = 41.0 yr., SD = 10.2, range 18 to 60). Participants worked in either the public (53%) or the private sectors (47%), as business executives (18%), office workers (30%), and blue-collar workers (52%).

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 631

17/10/14 12:56 PM

632

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

The third sample consisted of 220 British participants (114 men, 106 women; M age = 39.0 yr., SD = 8.3, range = 18 to 60); 241 employees were contacted through personal contacts in six organizations (large and small) and a public institution, with a response rate of 91.3%. Half the participants worked in the public sector and half in the private sector. They included executives (28%), office workers (30%), and blue-collar workers (42%). Measures Attachment in the workplace.—The Attachment in the Workplace scale (AAW; Neustadt, et al., 2006) was used. This scale originally consisted of 18 items with a seven-point Likert response scale with anchors 1: Strongly disagree and 7: Strongly agree. This scale has two factors, secure/autonomous attachment style consisting of nine items (e.g., “I find it relatively easy to get close to others at work,” “I want to be completely in tune with my boss”), and the Insecure attachment style consisting of nine items (e.g., “Often I worry that work colleagues do not really trust me”). The two dimensions were negatively correlated both in a sample of workers in the publications industry (r = -.52, p < .01; Neustadt, et al., 2006) and in a sample of workers in the hospitality industry (r = -.48, p < .01; Neustadt, et al., 2011). The original 18-item version was used because, as mentioned in the Introduction, the 23-item version (Neustadt, et al., 2011) was based on the authors' attempt to discriminate between two insecure attachment styles (avoidant and preoccupied). Workplace attachment.—To assess workplace attachment, the EALT (échelle d'attachement au lieu de travail) validated by Rioux (2006) was used. This one-dimensional scale has six items (e.g., “This workplace is part of myself”), rated on a seven-point Likert-type response scale with anchors 1: Strongly disagree and 7: Strongly agree. Psychometric properties were good in all samples (α French = .87, α Italian = .84, α British = .85). Organizational commitment.—Finally, to assess organizational commitment, this study used the Allen and Meyer (1990) Organizational Commitment Scale (OCS). This consists of 18 items (e.g., “I do not feel part of the great family which is my organization”) rated on a seven-point Likert-type response scale with anchors 1: Strongly disagree and 7: Strongly agree. Psychometric properties were good in the three samples, namely: Affective commitment (α French = .78, α Italian = .74, α British = .82); Normative commitment (α French = .72, α Italian = .71, α British = .79); and Continuance commitment (α French = .68, α Italian = .65, α British = .70). The following demographic data were also collected: age, sex, professional sector, and length of service. Procedure Two items (2 and 11) in the original AAW questionnaire were modified to increase homogeneity, with all items oriented toward work colleagues (Appendix). The AAW items were then translated into French (the

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 632

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

633

original version was in English with an Italian validation by Scrima & Lorito, 2011), using a back-translation method following guidelines suggested by Hambleton, Merenda, and Spielberger (2005). Two independent psychology researchers took part in the translation process of the items; first, a native French speaker translated the items into French, and then an English-speaking researcher retranslated them back into English. This version was then compared with the original, yielding a high index of agreement (Cohen's κ = .83). The same procedure was carried out for the Italian and English versions of the EALT, obtaining indices of agreement of .84 and .82, respectively. All the participants were sent a questionnaire composed of a short socio-demographic section, the Adult attachment in the Workplace Scale, the Organizational Commitment Scale, and the Workplace Attachment Scale, together with a letter giving instructions on how to complete it. They were also informed about the purpose of the study, invited to participate voluntarily, and asked to sign an informed consent form. They were assured of the anonymity of their answers. Analysis After checking the monovariate normality of distributions using skewness and kurtosis indices, the kurtosis multivariate Mardia coefficient was used to check the multivariate normality between variables (Barbaranelli, 2006). A CFA was performed to compare the two models (two and three factors). To evaluate the fit of the theoretical models to the data, the following indices were calculated: χ2/df (Carmines & McIver, 1981), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The Carmines-McIver Index, which emerges from the relationship between χ2 and the degrees of freedom, showed a value between 1 and 2, indicating an excellent fit. For the remaining indices, Hu and Bentler (1999) proposed general criteria for assessing the adequacy of a model, suggesting acceptance threshold values greater than or equal to 0.95 for the CFI and 0.90 for the AGFI, and values less than or equal to 0.06 for the RMSEA. To compare the two models, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) proposed by Burnham and Anderson (1998) was used. The reliability of each scale was assessed with the Cronbach's α index of internal consistency. Convergent and discriminant validity was performed by calculating Pearson's linear correlation indices between the original two-factor version and the authors’ three-factor model of the AAW scale, the Workplace Attachment Scale, and the three dimensions of the Organizational Commitment Scale. Since the correlation coefficient is sensitive to sample size and may be significant even when the correlation between variables is low, Barbaranelli (2003) suggested that correlations equal to or greater

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 633

17/10/14 12:56 PM

634

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

than 0.30 should be accepted; 95% confidence intervals were also calculated. RESULTS First, descriptive statistics were calculated (Table 2). All mean scores and standard deviations ranged between 2.51 (SD = 1.41) and 5.44 (SD = 1.40). With regard to the univariate normality indices, overall indices of skewness and kurtosis were between -1 and 1, indicating an absence of asymmetry – the analysis can therefore be considered as satisfactory if the Mardia index of multivariate kurtosis is taken into consideration (342.30 < 360). To compare the factor structures of the AAW, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) via structural equation modelling was computed using the Maximum Likelihood Estimation Method. All structural indices were significant at p < .001 in both models. The three-factor models seem to differentiate between the two types of insecure attachment (i.e., preoccupied and avoidant), which were positively correlated (M φ = .32), while the two scales were negatively correlated with the latent variable of secure attachment (Secure vs Avoidant: M φ = −.27; Secure vs Preoccupied: M φ = −.19). TABLE 2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF AAW ITEMS Item

British Sample

French Sample

M

SD

Min. Max.

1

4.97

1.63

3.22

2

4.78

1.73

3

3.35

4

4.37

5

Italian Sample

M

SD

Min. Max.

M

6.72

4.94

1.63

3.12

SD

Min. Max.

6.77

4.94

1.64

3.92

5.65

4.80

1.71

2.95

3.12

6.77

6.65

4.66

1.81

2.68

6.65

1.89

2.43

4.28

3.34

1.85

1.53

3.80

4.94

4.37

1.53

2.57

4.11

3.51

1.94

2.32

4.70

2.87

5.87

4.32

1.53

2.78

3.35

1.66

2.52

4.18

3.31

5.81

1.65

1.62

4.80

3.36

1.68

1.92

6

3.91

1.66

2.96

4.87

4.81

3.93

1.62

2.59

5.28

3.97

1.66

2.11

7

4.08

1.84

2.73

5.83

5.43

4.06

1.83

2.89

5.24

4.07

1.82

2.12

8

5.44

1.40

6.03

4.12

6.77

5.43

1.38

4.06

6.80

5.35

1.47

3.98

9

3.88

6.73

1.87

2.32

5.44

3.96

1.88

2.22

5.70

3.76

1.89

1.82

5.70

10 11

4.98

1.76

3.92

6.05

4.94

1.81

3.21

6.67

4.97

1.74

3.27

6.67

2.90

1.63

1.21

4.60

2.94

1.64

1.21

4.67

2.93

1.64

1.27

4.60

12

2.85

1.73

1.18

4.52

2.81

1.67

1.20

4.42

2.82

1.65

1.21

4.43

13

2.95

1.70

1.2

4.7

2.92

1.68

1.31

4.53

2.95

1.68

1.24

4.66

14

2.82

1.71

1.31

4.34

2.82

1.67

1.32

4.33

3.01

1.76

1.70

4.33

15

2.48

1.43

1.12

3.85

2.51

1.41

1.14

3.88

2.52

1.47

1.19

3.85

16

2.87

1.75

1.41

4.33

2.88

1.73

1.46

4.31

2.98

1.79

1.49

4.47

17

3.27

2.06

2.33

4.21

3.22

2.05

2.38

4.06

3.43

2.11

2.23

4.63

18

2.95

1.31

1.54

4.36

2.96

1.30

1.59

4.33

2.92

1.37

1.59

4.25

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 634

17/10/14 12:56 PM

635

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE TABLE 3 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS: FIT INDICES AND COMPARISON OF SAMPLES Two-factor Structure χ2

df

χ2/df

AGFI

CFI

RMSEA

Low

High

British sample

250

98

2.55

0.913

0.924

0.080

0.047

0.117

402

French sample

263

98

2.68

0.901

0.899

0.073

0.032

0.101

421

Italian sample

281

98

2.87

0.872

0.878

0.087

0.066

0.107

422 AIC

Model

AIC

Three-factor Structure χ2

df

χ2/df

AGFI

CFI

RMSEA

Low

High

British sample

259

127

2.04

0.952

0.962

0.042

0.022

0.062

375

French sample

275

127

2.16

0.943

0.962

0.044

0.028

0.068

381

Italian sample

302

127

2.38

0.927

0.951

0.053

0.012

0.081

392

Model

As shown in Table 2, comparison of the two measures favoured the threefactor structure of the AAW Scale, as also indicated by AIC. Regarding the reliability analysis, the nine-item SAAW (secure / autonomous attachment style) showed low α indexes from .64 to .67 in the three samples. For the seven-item Insecure attachment style (IAW), the α indexes ranged from .68 to .71. Given the limited reliability indexes obtained for the two dimensions of the AAW, the α indexes were also calculated for the three-factor model (secure, avoidant, and preoccupied), which involved the use of six items per factor. These α indexes were .74, .78, and .73 for the British sample; .81, .72, and .73 for the French sample; and .77, .71 and .75 for the Italian sample. Finally, as shown in Table 3, SAAW correlated positively with secure attachment (r = .39) and negatively with preoccupied attachment (r = −.31). The correlations with workplace attachment and the affective dimension of commitment were weak. IAW positively correlated only with preoccupied attachment (r = .33). Regarding the three dimensions of AAW, secure attachment correlated positively with both workplace attachment (r = .35) and affective commitment (r = .36). Preoccupied and avoidant attachment styles had weak (though significant) correlations with workplace attachment and affective commitment. DISCUSSION This study compared the two-factor solution of the AAW proposed by Neustadt, et al. (2006) and the original three-factor model of Collins and Read (1990) by comparing British, French, and Italian samples. As noted by Neustadt, et al. (2006, 2011) and Neustadt and Furnham (2006), the original version of the AAW (18, 16, and 23 items) does not discriminate between different styles of insecure attachment, so it is not possible to dif-

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 635

17/10/14 12:56 PM

636

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 636

TABLE 4 CORRELATIONS AMONG AAW DIMENSIONS, EALT, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT DIMENSIONS Scale

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

.67

2. IAAW

−.37‡ −.11, −.45

.70

.39‡ .12, .49

−.23‡ −.03, −.34

.77

−.31‡ −.09, −.39

.32‡ .10, .43

−.31‡ −.12, −.44

.74

−.21‡ −.01, .32

.26‡ .05, .37

−.34‡ −.14, −.45

.36‡ .14, .48

.74

6. Workplace attachment

.15‡ .01, .22

−.15‡ −.01, –.23

.35‡ .12, .42

−.17‡ −.04, −.24

−.16‡ −.02, −.27

.85

7. Affective commitment

.19‡ .03, .27

−.20‡ −.04, −.30

.36‡ .15, .48

−.20‡ −.05, −.32

−.21‡ −.05, −.30

.31‡ .10, .42

.78

8. Normative commitment

.08

.02

.07

−.14

−.04

.09

.19‡ .03, .32

.74

9. Continuance commitment

−.09

−.09

−.13

.03

.08

−.00

−.19‡ −.02, .26

.04

3. Secure attachment 4. Preoccupied attachment 5. Avoidant attachment

9

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

1. SAAW

.68

Note.— Average Cronbach's αs for the three samples are noted on the diagonal in italics. N = 660; SAAW = Secure/Autonomous Attachment in the Workplace; IAAW = Insecure Attachment in the Workplace. ‡p < .001.

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

637

ferentiate preoccupied and avoidant attachment despite the fact that these styles are thought to affect the way individuals relate to their workplace differently (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). A CFA was used to assess the fit of two models in the British, French, and Italian samples, revealing that an oblique three-factor solution for AAW provided the best fit to the given data in all three samples. All parameters were statistically significant, and the three latent variables (secure, avoidant, and preoccupied attachment at work) were weakly to moderately correlated. Given that the factor structure was found to be invariant across the three samples, it is reasonable to conclude that the threefactor model is robust in these countries. This finding, which is consistent with previous research in an Italian sample (Scrima & Lorito, 2011), supports the original theoretical distinction between Secure, Avoidant, and Preoccupied Attachment in the workplace. Convergent validity analyses were conducted by calculating correlation coefficients between the three styles of attachment in the workplace, affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990), and workplace attachment (Rioux, 2006). The correlations show that the three constructs in question can be considered distinct, since the correlations were significant, but weak to moderate. In addition, Le Roy and Rioux (2013) and Rioux and Pavalache-Ilie (2013) found higher correlation coefficients (.60, .54) between the EALT and the OCS than that reported in the present study (.34). This difference in correlation coefficients could be explained by differences in sample size: n = 660 in the present study, compared to n = 118 in Le Roy and Rioux's study (2013) and n = 150 in Rioux and Pavalache-Ilie (2013). Finally, a meta-analysis by Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (1996) examined 33 AAW studies and concluded that the worldwide frequency of the three traditional attachment styles was as follows: 58% secure, 24% avoidant/dismissing, and 18% anxious/preoccupied (in this study’s sample, 64% secure, 20% avoidant, and 16% preoccupied). These data, therefore, align well with previous research (Lorito & Scrima, 2011). One of the major limitations of this paper is that a generally positive attitude among colleagues in the workplace might explain the correlations between the constructs. Indeed, the correlational nature of the observed relationships between variables suggests a possible causal effect that can only be established through longitudinal replications and extensions. Although the above-mentioned evidence suggests that the AAW assesses the same processes in different populations, similar models do not guarantee full equivalence in terms of either item measurement or the theoretical factor structure (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989). Future research, therefore, should focus on factor stability using multi-sample analysis. Moreover, as the use of a single survey at one point in time raises concerns about single method bias, these results should be interpreted with caution.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 637

17/10/14 12:56 PM

638

F. SCRIMA, ET AL. REFERENCES

ALLEN, N. J., & MEYER, J. P. (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. ALLEN, N. J., & MEYER, J. P. (1996) Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 49, 252-276. BARBARANELLI, C. (2003) Analisi dei dati: tecniche multivariate per la ricerca psicologica e sociale [Analysis of data: multivariate techniques for psychological and social research]. Milano, Italy: LED. BARBARANELLI, C. (2006) Analisi dei dati con SPSS. Vol. 2: Le analisi multivariate [Data Analysis with SPSS. Vol. 2: Multivariate analyses]. Milano, Italy: LED Edizioni Universitarie. BENTLER, P. M. (1990) Fit indexes, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes and incomplete data in structural models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 163-172. BONAIUTO, M., AIELLO, A., PERUGINI, M., BONNES, M., & ERCOLANI, A. P. (1999) Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331-352. BONAIUTO, M., FORNARA, F., & BONNES, M. (2003) Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 41-52. BROWNE, M. W., & CUDECK, R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pp. 136-162. BURNHAM, K. P., & ANDERSON, D. R. (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer Verlag. BYRNE, B. M., SHAVELSON, R. J., & MUTHÉN, B. (1989) Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456. CARMINES, E. G., & MCIVER, J. P. (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. In G. W. Bohrnstedt and E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pp. 65-115. COLLINS, N. L., & READ, S. J. (1990) Adult attachment, working models and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663. DAVIDOVITZ, R., MIKULINCER, M., SHAVER, P., IZSAK, R., & POPPER, M. (2007) Leaders as attachment figures: leaders' attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers' performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 632-650. HAMBLETON, R. K., MERENDA, P. F., & SPIELBERGER, C. D. (2005) Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. London, UK: Erlbaum. HARMS, P. D. (2011) Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 285-296. HAZAN, C., & SHAVER, P. R. (1990) Love and work: an attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 270-280. HIDALGO, B., & HERNÁNDEZ, B. (2001) Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273-281. HU, L., & BENTLER, P. M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 638

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

639

JÖRESKOG, K., & SÖRBOM, D. (1996) LISREL 8: user's reference guide. (2nd ed.) Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. LE ROY, J., & RIOUX, L. (2013) The mediating role of workplace attachment in the relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 3, 211-233. LITTLE, L. M., NELSON, D. L., WALLACE, J. C., & JOHNSON, P. D. (2011) Integrating attachment style, vigor at work, and extra-role performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 464-484. LORITO, L., & SCRIMA, F. (2011) The content validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: an empirical investigation using text analysis. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(4), 243-255. MEYER, J. P., & ALLEN, N. J. (1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. MEYER, J. P., & ALLEN, N. J. (1997) Commitment in the workplace: theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MIKULINCER, M., & SHAVER, P. R. (2007) Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press. NEUSTADT, E., CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC, T., & FURNHAM, A. (2006) The relationship between personality traits, self-esteem, and attachment at work. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(4), 208-217. NEUSTADT, E., CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC, T., & FURNHAM, A. (2011) Attachment at work and performance. Attachment and Human Development, 13(5), 471-488. NEUSTADT, E., & FURNHAM, A. (2006) Attachment at work. Advances in Psychology Research, 43, 155. RIOUX, L. (2005) Approche psychosociale de l'attachement aux lieux de travail [Psychosocial approach to workplace attachment: a study carried out among hospital staff]. Working paper, Université d’Orléans, Orléans, France. (No. 2005-2) RIOUX, L. (2006) Construction d'une échelle d'attachement au lieu de travail: une démarche exploratoire [Construction of a scale attachment to the workplace: an exploratory approach]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 38(4), 325. RIOUX, L., & MOKOUNKOLO, R. (2005) Neighbourhood attachment and adolescence: a comparative study carried out in two neighbourhoods presenting a great cultural diversity. Bulletin de psychologie, 57(6), 611-620. RIOUX, L., & PAVALACHE-ILIE, M. (2013) Workplace attachment and organizational commitment: are they predictors of organizational citizenship behavior? Analele Ştiinţifice ale Universităţii Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iaşi. Psihologie, 1, 5-18. RIOUX, L., & PIGNAULT, A. (2013) Apego al lugar de trabajo, apropiacion del lugar de trabajo, y satisfaccion laboral [Workplace attachment, workspace appropriation, and job satisfaction]. Psyecology: Revista Bilingüe de Psicología Ambiental/Bilingual Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(1), 39-65. RONEN, S., & MIKULINCER, M. (2012) Predicting employees' satisfaction and burnout from managers' attachment and caregiving orientations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(6), 828-849. SCRIMA, F. (2014) Comprendre l’attachement au travail pour agir sur le confort au travail. Psychologie du Travail et des Organisations, 20(3), 295-310. SCRIMA, F., & LORITO, L. (2011) Un contributo alla validazione italiana dell'Adult Attachment in the Workplace. Risorsa Uomo, 16(3), 389-399.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 639

17/10/14 12:56 PM

640

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

SHUMAKER, S. A., & TAYLOR, R. B. (1983) Toward a clarification of people-place relationships: a model of attachment to place. Environmental Psychology: Directions and Perspectives, 2, 19-25. SIMMONS, B. L., GOOTY, J., NELSON, D. L., & LITTLE, L. M. (2009) Secure attachment: implications for hope, trust, burnout, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 233-247. VAN IJZENDOORN, M. H., & BAKERMANS-KRANENBURG, M. J. (1996) Attachment representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: a meta-analytic search for normative data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 8-21. VELASCO, L., & RIOUX, L. (2010) Psychosocial approach to workplace attachment: a study carried out among hospital staff. Estudios de Psicologia, 31(3), 309-323. Accepted September 17, 2014. APPENDIX: AAW Scale

Good morning, this questionnaire measures the relational quality in the workplace. Please complete the following questionnaire by choosing only one response. For each proposal, evaluate your relational quality at work indicating your agreement on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). There are no right or wrong answers. This questionnaire is anonymous. AAW - English Version 1

I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others at work.

2

Work colleagues are never there when you need them.*

3

I am comfortable depending on others at work.

4

I can count on work colleagues to support me when I need them.

5

I find it difficult, in the workplace, to trust others completely.

6

I often feel that I am on my own in this company.

7

I do not often worry about being left in the lurch at work.

8

I often worry that work colleagues do not trust me.

9

I find work colleagues reluctant to be as open as I would like.

10

I often worry that people would not want to stay in my work team.

11

I want to be completely in tune with my work colleagues.*

12

Work colleagues are sometimes put off by my desire to be on their wavelength.

13

I find it relatively easy to get close to others at work.

14

I do not often worry about someone confiding too much in me at work.

15

I am somewhat uncomfortable confiding in others at work.

16

I get nervous when anyone at work confides too much.

17

I am comfortable having others depend on me at work.

18 Often, work colleagues want me to be more open than I am comfortable being. *Items changed from Neustadt, et al.'s (2006) version.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 640

17/10/14 12:56 PM

ADULT ATTACHMENT IN WORKPLACE

641

Buongiorno, il presente questionario misura la qualità delle relazioni sul posto di lavoro. Si prega di compilare il seguente questionario scegliendo una sola risposta. Per ogni frase, valutare la qualità delle relazioni sul lavoro indicando il vostro accordo su una scala che va da 1 (per niente d’accordo) a 5 (totalmente d’accordo). Non ci sono risposte giuste o sbagliate. Il questionario è anonimo. AAW - Italian Version 1

Trovo difficile permettere a me stesso di dipendere dagli altri a lavoro.

2

I colleghi non ci sono mai quando ne ho bisogno.*

3

Sono a mio agio dal dipendere dagli altri a lavoro.

4

Posso contare sul supporto dei miei colleghi quando ne ho bisogno.

5

Trovo difficile, nel posto di lavoro, fidarmi completamente degli altri.

6

Spesso mi sento da solo in questa organizzazione.

7

Non mi preoccupo mai di essere piantato in asso a lavoro.

8

Sono spesso preoccupato che i colleghi di lavoro non si fidino realmente di me.

9

Trovo che i colleghi di lavoro siano ostili ad essere aperti come vorrei io.

10

Mi preoccupo spesso che i colleghi non vogliano stare nel mio gruppo di lavoro.

11

Voglio essere completamente d'accordo con i miei colleghi.*

12

I colleghi di lavoro sono spesso infastiditi dal mio desiderio di essere sulla loro stessa lunghezza d'onda.

13

Trovo relativamente facile avvicinarmi agli altri a lavoro.

14

Non mi preoccupo mai se qualcuno si confida con me a lavoro troppo spesso.

15

Mi sento qualche volta a disagio nel fidarmi degli altri a lavoro.

16

Mi innervosisco quando qualcuno a lavoro si confida troppo con me.

17

Mi sento a mio agio se gli altri dipendono da me a lavoro.

18

Spesso i colleghi di lavoro vogliono che io sia più aperto di quanto già non mi senta di esserlo.

*Items changed from Neustadt, et al.’s (2006) version.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 641

17/10/14 12:56 PM

642

F. SCRIMA, ET AL.

Bonjour, ce questionnaire mesure la qualité de la relation au travail. Merci de remplir le questionnaire suivant en choisissant une seule réponse. Pour chaque proposition, évaluez votre qualité relationnelle au travail en indiquant votre accord sur une échelle allant de 1 (fortement en désaccord) à 5 (fortement en accord). Il n’y a pas de bonnes ou de mauvaises réponses. Ce questionnaire est anonyme. AAW - French Version 1

Il m'est difficile de me reposer sur mes collègues.

2

Mes collègues de travail ne sont jamais là quand j'ai besoin d'eux.*

3

Je trouve qu'il est relativement facile de se sentir proche de mes collègues.

4

Je sais que je peux compter sur mes collègues en cas de besoin.

5

Il m'est difficile de faire totalement confiance au mes collègues.

6

Je me sens souvent seul dans cette organisation.

7

L'idée d'être délaissé(e) par mes collègues de travail m'inquiète quelquefois.

8

J'ai souvent peur que mes collègues ne m'aiment pas.

9

Mon désir de relation fusionnelle fait parfois fuir mes collègues.

10

J'ai souvent peur que mes collègues me rejettent.

11

Je souhaite avoir une relation fusionnelle avec quelqu'un de mes collègues.*

12

Mes collègues ont du mal à être aussi proches de moi que ce que je souhaiterais.

13

Je trouve qu'il est relativement facile de se sentir proche de mes collègues.

14

Cela m'inquiète quelquefois lorsque mes collègues veulent être proche de moi.

15

Je suis inquiet(e) quand quelqu'un de mes collègues est trop proche de moi.

16

J'ai du mal à me reposer sur mes collègues de travail.

17

J'aime bien que mes collègues se reposent sur moi.

18

Mes collègues demandent souvent davantage de relations personnelles avec moi que je ne le souhaite.

*Items changed from Neustadt, et al.'s (2006) version.

25-PR_Scrima_140129.indd 642

17/10/14 12:56 PM