please see me: students' reactions to professor's request as a function of attachment and...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of Colorado - Health ScienceLibrary]On: 11 October 2014, At: 20:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
The Journal of ExperimentalEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjxe20
Please See Me: Students'Reactions to Professor'sRequest as a Function ofAttachment and PerceivedSupportRose M. Perrine aa Eastern Kentucky UniversityPublished online: 02 Apr 2010.
To cite this article: Rose M. Perrine (1999) Please See Me: Students' Reactions toProfessor's Request as a Function of Attachment and Perceived Support, The Journalof Experimental Education, 68:1, 60-72, DOI: 10.1080/00220979909598494
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220979909598494
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
The Journal oj’Experimenta1 Educution, I999,68( 1). 60-72
Please See Me: Students’ Reactions to Professor’s Request as a Function of Attachment and Perceived Support
ROSE M. PERRINE Eastern Kentucky University
ABSTRACT. The author explored college students’ (N = 151) perceptions of a pro- fessor’s note-“Please see me”-as a function of the students’ attachment style and perceived support. Data collected were the students’ reactions to the note, attach- ment style, and perceived social support. Compared with the securely attached stu- dents, the insecurely attached students had more negative emotional reactions to the note and were less likely to believe that the professor had positive reasons for want- ing to see them. Fearful students, male students, and students with lower GPAs were more likely to ignore the note and expended less effort to see the professor. Perceived availability of support was related to attachment style, and satisfaction with support was related to some beliefs about the professor’s intentions.
“PLEASE SEE ME.” College instructors often write this, or a similar, note on students’ papers. That request may be motivated by the instructor’s desire to dis- cover why a student did poorly on an assignment and to provide some help for the future. However, what goes through the mind of a college student upon receiving that note? In the present study, I addressed that question and explored whether reactions to the note were related to students’ attachment style or to the level of perceived social support.
The literature on social support (reviewed by Cohen & Wills, 1985) provides numerous examples of the psychological benefits of receiving support from oth- ers. Social support has two, equally important, components (Sarason & Sarason, 1986). First, social support is the objective availability of others who are willing to help in times of stress. Second, social support is a perception. Whom does a
Address correspondence to Rose M. Perrine, Psychology Department, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475. E-mail: [email protected]
60
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Penine 61
person perceive as available for support, and how satisfied is that person with that perceived support? That perception of support is largely independent of actual support and could account for why some people do not recognize the support that may be available to them from the social environment. Furthermore, perception of support appears to be more important than actual support in buffering stress (Blazer, 1982; Kessler & McLeod, 1984).
Some researchers have begun to think about perceived support as the adult equivalent of attachment (Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990). A person’s percep- tion of support remains quite stable over time, even during periods of develop- mental transitions (Sarason, Sarason, & Shearin, 1986), and is not correlated strongly with actual support received in the past or with the actual number of people in one’s support network (Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987). Therefore, perceived support may be thought of as a stable personality charac- teristic, perhaps developing from early attachment experiences.
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), early experiences shape the development and quality of intimate adult relationships. Early relationships with caregivers form cognitive structures, which Bowlby called working models, relat- ed to the self and the relationship partner. A person’s perceptions of how others are expected to behave, and the meaning of their behavior, are affected by those working models. Therefore, early attachment experience should have long-term effects on how people view themselves and others in relationships.
Most research exploring links between attachment history and relationships is based on Ainsworth’s (1973) three original attachment categories of secure, ambivalent, and avoidant. More recently, researchers have identified two kinds of avoidant attachment: dismissing and fearful (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 199 1). One can derive that four-category attachment model by combining two levels of self-image (positive and negative) with two levels of image of others (positive and negative). The resulting attachment categories are secure (positive model of self and others), fearful (negative model of self and others), preoccupied (negative model of self and positive model of others), and dismissing (positive model of self and negative model of others). Whereas Ainsworth looked at infants’ and chil- dren’s attachment to caregivers, more recently researchers have explored how a person’s early attachment history influences later personal relationships. Those research findings suggest that adults who report different childhood attachment histories also report different feelings about themselves and their relationships as adults (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Levy & Davis, 1988). Bartholomew and Horowitz ( I 99 1) found that each pattern of insecure attachment was associated with a distinct pattern of interpersonal problems. Fearful avoidants are likely to be overly passive or subassertive, whereaq dismissing avoidants are likely to be cold, hostile, or both. However, both types of avoidant attachment are associated with interpersonal problems. Preoccupied persons tend to be overly dependent on oth- ers for their self-worth and use a controlling interpersonal style.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Penine 62
On the basis of attachment theory, we would expect people with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing avoidants) to be less capable of finding and using social support than would people with a positive model of others. Research supports those expectations: Compared with secure persons, avoidant persons seek out less support as their anxiety increases (Simpson, Rholes, & Nel- ligan, 1992), perceive less global support (Davis, Morris, & Kraus, 1998), are less likely to ask for help (Brennan & Shaver, 1995), view themselves as less close to and less trusting of others (Klohnen & Bera, 1998). and act in a com- pulsively self-reliant fashion (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
Kenny (1987) compared the new environment in which college students find themselves with the “strange situation” in which infants’ attachments are as- sessed (see Ainsworth, Blehar, Walters, & Wall, 1978). The authors of several studies found a relationship between attachment and social and emotional well- being in college students (e.g., Kenny, 1987; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Rice, FitzGerald, Whaley, & Gibbs, 1995). In addition, attachment to parents appears to predict adjustment to the challenges of college life beyond the personal and emotional realm. For example, Rice et al. (1995) found that secure students man- aged the educational demands of college better than insecure students did.
My purpose in the present study was to explore college students’ reactions to a note written by a professor as a function of students’ attachment style and per- ceived social support. As discussed above, previous research suggests that peo- ple with an avoidant attachment style perceive less global support (Davis et al., 1998). In the present study, I attempted to extend that finding by using a meas- ure of perceived support and a four-category attachment measure to explore pos- sible differences between fearful and dismissing avoidants. I predicted that one’s model of others would be the most important determinant of one’s per- ception of the availability of others. Specifically, I predicted that (a) people with a positive model of others (secure + preoccupied) would have a higher level of perceived support than would people with a negative model of others (dismiss- ing + fearful avoidants) and (b) people with a positive model of others would be more satisfied with their perceived support than would people with a negative model of others.
Previous researchers found that an ambiguous note was interpreted differently by persons with different levels of perceived global support. Specifically, persons with high levels of perceived support tended to perceive an ambiguous note as more supportive than did people with low levels of perceived support (Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1992). In addition, Lakey and Cassady (1990) found that people with low levels of perceived support were more likely to perceive support attempts as unhelpful and tended to recall fewer instances of supportive behav- ior by others. On the basis of that previous research, I predicted that (c) there would be a positive correlation between level of perceived support and percep- tion that the professor wants to help.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Pemne h l
The next predictions were based on research showing differences among people with different attachment styles. Avoidants tend to have a negative model of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and tend not to trust others (Klohnen & Bera, 1998). Preoccupied persons tend to have a positive model of others but a negative model of self, which may lead them to be overly dependent on others for their self- worth (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 199 I). Therefore, I predicted that insecurely attached persons would fear the worst when confronted with a note to see the pro- fessor. Specifically, I predicted that (d) insecurely attached persons would have more negative reactions to the note than would securely attached persons and (e) insecurely attached persons would be less likely than securely attached persons to believe that the reasons for the professor’s request were positive.
I based the next prediction on previous research showing that avoidant persons are less likely than secure persons to seek out support in times of need (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Main et al., 1985; Simpson et al., 1992). I predicted that (f) peo- ple with a positive model of others would make more of an effort to see the pro- fessor than would people with a negative model of others.
There was no theoretical reason to expect that the gender of the professor would affect responses; therefore, I manipulated gender as a precaution but made no predictions. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests that students who need help the most may be least likely to seek help. I collected data on grade point average (GPA) to explore that possibility.
The following are my predictions:
1. People with a positive model of others would have a higher level of per- ceived support than would people with a negative model of others,
2. People with a positive model of others would be more satisfied with their perceived support than would people with a negative model of others,
3. There would be a positive correlation between level of perceived support and perception that the professor wants to help, 4. Insecurely attached persons would have more negative reactions to the note
than would securely attached persons, 5. Insecurely attached persons would be less likely than securely attached
persons to believe that the reasons for the professor’s request were positive, and 6. People with a positive model of others would make more of an effort to see
the professor than would people with a negative model of others.
Method
Participants
The participants were 15 1 students ( 1 15 women; 36 men) from a regional uni- versity in the Southeast (student population: 16,000). Age and major were not recorded. To fulfill course requirements, students in various undergraduate psy-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Penine 64
chology courses volunteered to participate in a study on “Perceptions of Notes Written by Professors.” Other research, and nonresearch, options were available to the students.
Measures
Attachment style. The participants were classified into one of four attachment styles via an instrument based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) descriptions of how people typically feel in close relationships and Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) modification of that scale. Hazan and Shaver developed their scale by translating Ainsworth’s three infant attachment categories into terms appropriate for adult relationships. The revised version is based on more recent research that suggests that a four-category model may be more sensitive (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Following the procedure suggested by Griffin and Bartholo- mew (1994), the participants indicated the extent to which each paragraph described them on a scale of 1 (not at all like me) to 6 (very much like me). They then indicated the one paragraph that best described them. The participants could be categorized in several ways: (a) dismissing, fearful, preoccupied, or secure; (b) secure or insecure (dismissing + fearful + preoccupied); (c) positive model of self (secure + dismissing) or negative model of self (fearful + preoccupied); and (d) positive model of others (secure + preoccupied) or negative model of others (dismissing + fearful). Social support. Perceived availability of support and satisfaction with support were measured via a revised version of the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ; Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983). The SSQ has demonstrated ade- quate reliability and validity in various research settings and with various popu- lations. Each item on the SSQ has two parts. The first part assesses the number of available others the individual feels he or she can turn to in times of need. The second part measures the person’s degree of satisfaction with the perceived sup- port. Each item asks participants to list all the people on whom they could count for help or support in the manner described.
Sarason et al. (1987) tested a three-item short form of the SSQ (SSQ3) and reported adequate psychometric properties. Correlations of SSQ3 number (per- ceived availability) and satisfaction with the adjusted SSQ (short-form items removed) were .80 and 34, respectively. Internal reliabilities of SSQ3 number and satisfaction were .75 and .79, respectively. Test-retest correlations were .84 and .85, respectively.
I calculated the participants’ perceived availability of support score (number) by summing the number of support persons listed for each question and dividing by 3, the number of items. I calculated satisfaction with support by summing the ratings on the satisfaction scales and dividing by 3. Higher numbers indicated more satisfaction with support.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Penine 65
Perceptions of note. The participants read the following scenario:
Please imagine the following: You are in Math 105, taught by Dr. RodSusan Smith. This is the first class you have taken with Dr. Smith and you have heard nothing about himher. The first exam is returned to you. You have received a poor grade. Dr. Smith writes a note on your exam that says, “Please see me.”
To increase ecological validity, I placed below the scenario a picture of the first page of an exam with “Please see me” written in red ink. I did not include a grade on the exam so that students could form their own opinions about what consti- tuted a “poor grade.” I chose the content of the note by asking faculty in the Psy- chology Department (N= 17) what kinds of notes they write on exams on which a student has done poorly. All faculty surveyed indicated that they write some version of “Please see me” at least some of the time.
After reading the scenario, the participants indicated their reactions to the note by answering several questions. I chose those questions by asking students in several lower division psychology courses (N = 43) to indicate their reactions to similar notes. Those students also listed possible reasons that the professor might want to see them. Questions were developed from, but not limited to, the stu- dents’ responses.
On a scale of 1 (extremely negative) to 6 (extremelypositive), the students rated their first reaction to Dr. Smith’s note. On a scale of 1 (definitely not) to 6 (defi- nitely yes), they rated (a) their emotional reactions to the note (offended, pleased, embarrassed, angry, grateful, feel stupid, afraid, feel like a failure), (b) their beliefs about why Dr. Smith wanted to see them (to help me, to scold me, cares about my grade, to find out why I did poorly on the exam, has ideas that could help me get a better grade next time), (c) the likelihood of going to see Dr. Smith, and (d) the likelihood of making a second attempt to see Dr. Smith if he/she was not in the office the first time.
Other variables. The participants reported their GPA in broad categories of 3.04.0; 2.0-2.9; and < 2.0. They also recorded their gender. I manipulated gen- der of the professor who had written the note by stating in the scenario that the professor was Dr. Ron Smith or Dr. Susan Smith.
Procedure
The participants came to a laboratory in groups of 3 to 7. Questionnaires were placed face down on every other desk, and the participants were asked to sit at a desk on which there was a questionnaire. All participants completed the ques- tionnaire containing the note from the professor first. Next, they completed the social support and attachment questionnaires, which were counterbalanced. That order was chosen so that the participants would be less likely to guess the nature of the study. The participants were given as much time as necessary to complete
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Penine 66
the questionnaires and were debriefed before leaving the laboratory. Before the predictions were explained, the participants were asked what they thought the study was about; no one guessed correctly.
Results
Description of the sample
Attachment. The percentage of participants in each attachment category was as follows: dismissing-1 5%; fearful-26%; preoccupied-I 9%; secure40% (inse- cure-60% [dismissing + fearful + preoccupied]). Attachment was not related to gender or GPA.
Social support. The number of people listed as sources of support ranged from 0 to 6 for each support question; the average for the entire sample was 4.37 people (SD = 1.29). Satisfaction with support ranged from 1 (very dissatisjied) to 6 (very satisjied). The average satisfaction score for the entire sample was 5.42 (SD = -82).
GPA. The participants’ GPAs were reported as follows: 3.04.0-58%; 2.0-2.940%; and c 2.0-2%. Because only 2% of the participants reported GPAs of less than 2.0, that category was excluded from analyses.
Gender of professor: None of the participants’ responses to the note significantly differed as a function of gender of the professor. Therefore, that variable was not included in the analyses.
The predictions were tested via the general linear model procedure; the inde- pendent variables were participant gender and attachment style (four levels). Main effects and interactions were tested; there were no significant interactions between attachment style and gender on any of the outcome measures. First, attachment category (secure, dismissing, fearful, or preoccupied) was entered into the equa- tion. Second, if the means suggested a more parsimonious solution, then attach- ment categories were combined in theoretically meaningful ways. When respons- es for the three insecure categories were similar to each other and different from the secure category, then insecure versus secure attachment was reported. When the secure and preoccupied participants (positive model of others) responded sim- ilarly but differently from the dismissing and fearful participants (negative model of others), then positive versus negative model of others was reported. Model of self did not emerge as a meaningful category in the current data.
Attachment and Support
I predicted that compared with people with a negative model of others, people with a positive model of others would (a) have a higher level of perceived support
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Pemne 67
and (b) be more satisfied with their support. Only the first prediction was support- ed. The participants with a positive model of others (secure and preoccupied) listed significantly more supporters (M = 4.67; SD = .16) than did the participants with a negative model of others (dismissing and fearful; M = 3.93; SD = .18), F( I , 146) = 9.42, p < .01; OZ = .06.
Satisfaction with support showed no significant differences as a function of attachment style. There were no gender differences on those two variables.
Perceptions of Note and Support
The third prediction-that there would be a positive correlation between level of perceived support and perception that the professor wanted to help-was not sup- ported. There were no significant relationships between perceived availability of support and perceptions of the note. However, there were two significant correla- tions for satisfaction with support. The students who were more satisfied with their support were more likely to believe that the professor wanted to find out why they had done poorly on the exam, r( 149) = .18, p c .05; r2 = .03. Also, those who were more satisfied with their support were more likely to believe that the professor had ideas that could help them get better grades, r( 149) = .2 I , p < .05; r2 = .04.
Attachment and Perceptions of the Note
Fourth, I predicted that people with insecure attachment styles would have more negative emotional reactions to the note than would people with secure attachment styles. Two questions addressed that issue. First, the participants rated their first reaction to the note, with scores ranging from 1 (extremely nega- tive) to 6 (extremely positive). The participants with insecure attachment styles had significantly more negative reactions (M = 2.19; SD = .15) than did the par- ticipants with secure attachment styles (M = 2.90; SD = .19), F(1, 147) = 7.80, p < . O l ; u2 = .04. There was no gender difference. Second, the participants rated their emotional reactions to the note. For each emotion, the pattern of responses for secure and insecure participants was the same. Therefore, an average rating for all eight emotions was calculated, with higher numbers reflecting more neg- ative emotions. The participants with insecure attachment styles had more nega- tive emotions (M = 2.12; SD = .12) than did the participants with secure attach- ment styles (M = 1.53; SD = .l5), F( I , 147) = 9.13, p < .O l ; WZ = .07. There was no gender difference.
Fifth, I predicted that people with a secure attachment style would be more likely to believe that the professor had positive reasons for wanting to see them than would people with insecure attachment styles. For each belief, the pattern of responses for secure and insecure participants was the same. Therefore, an aver- age rating for all five beliefs was calculated, with higher numbers representing
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Perrine 68
more positive beliefs. The secure participants were more likely to believe that the professor’s reasons were positive (M = 3.53, SD = .14) than were the insecure participants (M = 3.09; SD = . l l), F( 1 , 147) = 5.77, p c .05; 02 = .03. There was no gender difference.
Sixth, I predicted that people with a positive model of others would be more likely to make an effort to see the professor than would people with a negative model of others. Three questions addressed that issue. First, the participants rated the likelihood that they would ignore the note written by the professor, with scores ranging from 1 (definitely no) to 6 (definitely yes). There was a significant difference as a function of attachment style, which partially supported the pre- diction. The fearful students reported that they would be more likely to ignore the note (M = 1.75; SD = .16) than did the students with dismissing, preoccu- pied, and secure attachment styles (M = 1.32; SD = .09), F( 1 , 147) = 5.30, p < .05; 02 = .03. Also, there was a significant gender difference, F( 1 , 147) = 15.24, p c .001; 02 = .09. The male participants reported that they would be more like- ly to ignore the note (M = 1.90; SD = .16) than did the female participants (M = 1.17; SD = .W). In addition, there was a significant interaction between attach- ment style and gender, F(1, 147) = 7.61, p < .01; 02 = .04. The fearful male par- ticipants reported that they would be more likely to ignore the note (M = 2.38; SD = .29) than did the fearful female participants (M = 1.13; SD = .IS) and the male (M = 1.43; SD = .16) and female participants with other attachment styles (M = 1.21; SD = .09).
Second, the participants rated the likelihood that they would go to see the pro- fessor, with scores ranging from 1 (definitely no) to 6 (definitely yes). Again, the fearful students were less likely to report that they would see the professor (M = 5.31; SD = .16) than were students with other attachment styles (M = 5.64; SD = .09), F( 1 , 147) = 3.27, p c .08; 02 = .01. The male participants were less likely to report that they would see the professor (M = 5.16; SD = .16) than were the female participants (M = 5.79; SD = .09), F( 1 , 147) = 11.82, p c .001; 02 = .07. Also, the interaction between attachment style and gender was significant, F ( 1 , 147) = 7.08, p < .01; 02 = .04. Fearful male participants were less likely to report that they would see the professor (M = 4.75; SD = .29) than were the fearful female participants (M = 5.87; SD = .15), the male participants with other attach- ment styles (M = 5.57; SD = .15), and the female participants with other attach- ment styles (M = 5.7 1; SD = .09).
Third, the participants rated, on the same scale, the likelihood that they would make a second attempt to see the professor if the first attempt was unsuccessful. Those scores ranged from 1 to 6 and were marginally different as a function of attachment style, F(1, 147) = 2.78, p c . lo ; OZ = .01. Again, the fearful students were less likely to report that they would try again (M = 4.72; SD = .22) than were the participants with other attachment styles (M = 5.14; SD = .13). Neither gender nor the interaction between gender and attachment style was significant.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Perrine hP
GPA
I made no predictions about GPA; however, I wanted to test the anecdotal evi- dence suggesting that students who most need help are least likely to request help. On all three questions addressing that issue, there were significant differ- ences as a function of GPA. The students with GPAs of 2.0-2.9 reported a high- er likelihood of ignoring the professor’s note (M = 1.56; SD = . 1 1 ) than did the students with GPAs of 3.0-4.0 (M = 1.14; SD = .09), F(1, 143) = 8.41, p c .01; OZ = .05. The students with lower GPAs reported a lower likelihood of going to see the professor (M = 5.44; SD = . 1 1 ) than did the students with higher GPAs (M = 5.81; SD = .09), F(1, 143) = 7.00, p < .01; w2 = .04. Likelihood of making a second attempt to see the professor was marginally related to GPA, F( 1, 143) = 3.48, p < .07; w2 = .02. Again, the participants with lower GPAs were less like- ly to report that they would make a second attempt (M = 4.90; SD = .15) than were the participants with higher GPAs (M = 5.26; SD = .12).
Discussion
In the present study, I explored college students’ reactions to a note-“Please see me”-written by a professor. The results showed that compared with secure- ly attached students, insecurely attached students (dismissing, fearful, and pre- occupied) had more negative emotional reactions to the note and were less like- ly to believe that the professor had positive reasons for the request. Those findings are consistent with previous work suggesting that avoidant persons are less trusting of others (Klohnen & Bera, 1998) and that preoccupied persons tend to be overly dependent on others for their self-worth (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In addition, preoccupied persons and fearful avoidants have reported lower levels of self-confidence (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Any of those characteristics may lead a student to fear the worst when confronted with a pro- fessor’s request to “Please see me.”
In the present study, both dismissing and fearful avoidants perceived fewer peo- ple as available to give them support. That finding extends previous research show- ing that avoidants perceive less global support (Davis et al., 1998). Davis et al. did not explore possible differences between dismissing and fearful avoidants; the pre- sent findings suggest that the two types of avoidants have similar perceptions of support. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) also found that dismissing and fearful avoidants are less likely to rely on others. Contrary to the prediction, avoidants were not less satisfied with their perceived support, suggesting, as Sarason et al. (1983) did, that the constructs of availability and satisfaction are largely indepen- dent. However, in the present study the students with a fearful attachment style did express the least willingness to see the professor, whereas dismissing avoidants’ responses did not differ significantly from secure or preoccupied students. That
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Perrine 70
finding suggests that there may be important differences between the two types of avoidants when it comes to seeking help, at least in this ambiguous situation. Indeed, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) found that fearful avoidants were most likely to be overly passive in their interactions with others, which is con- sistent with the present finding.
In the present study, level of perceived support was not related to perceptions of the professor’s note. That finding does not support those of Pierce et al. (1992), who found that students with higher levels of perceived support were more likely to perceive an ambiguous note as supportive. An important distinction between the two studies concerns the nature of the relationship with the note writer. In the Pierce et al. study, the note was supposedly written by the students’ mothers. Those researchers found that students’ expectations of their mothers contributed to the perception of the note. In the present study, the students had no previous relationship with the professor and, therefore, should not have had expectations about him or her. In the absence of a specific relationship, I anticipated that gen- eral expectations about people would determine perceptions. However, that may not have been the case. It is likely that students bring to each class expectations about professors as a group. Consequently, students’ reactions to the note may have been influenced by both general expectations about people and the student’s past experience with professors. In the present study, satisfaction with support was correlated positively with some beliefs concerning the professor’s desire to help. That suggests that students who are more satisfied with their support, in general, may be more inclined to believe in professors’ good intentions.
Some interesting effects were discovered for gender and GPA: The male par- ticipants and the students with lower GPAs were more likely to report that thev would ignore the professor’s note and that they would not go to see the profes- sor. Other researchers have noted that the traditional masculine role as “instru- mental” and “independent” may interfere with male participants’ support seeking (e.g., Turner, 1994). Previous researchers have not explored support seeking as a function of GPA, but the current findings support many instructors’ beliefs that students who need the most help are the least likely to ask for it. The effects of gender and GPA on support-seeking behaviors, such as seeking tutoring help, warrant further research.
Instructors who write notes on students’ papers need to be aware that students’ reactions to those notes may vary. The meanings that students attach to such notes may be quite different from the instructor’s intended meaning. Indeed, insecurely attached students may be predisposed to having negative emotional reactions to such notes and, as a result, be less willing to comply with the request to see the instructor. In addition, fearful students, male students, and students with lower GPAs may be more inclined to ignore such notes. One way to ame- liorate these unwanted reactions might be for instructors either to write more specific notes or to talk directly to students about their desire to help.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Perrine 71
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Caldwell & H. Ric- ciuti (Eds.), Review of Child Developnienf Research (Vol. 3, pp. 1-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar. M. C., Walters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Parferns ?/attachment: A psy- chological study of the strange situarion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (199 1 ). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four- category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226244.
Blazer, D. G. (1982). Social support and mortality in an elderly community population. American Journal of Epidemiology, 115, 684-694.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. Anierican J o u m l of Psychiatry, 145, 1-10,
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. Personaliry and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267-283.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.
Davis, M. H., Moms, M. M., & Kraus, L. A. (1998). Relationship-specific and global perceptions of social support: Associations with well-being and attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 468-48 I .
Griffin. D., & Bartholornew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensions under- lying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 430445.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 5 1 1-524.
Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college stu- dents. Journal q/Yourh and Adolescence. 16, 17-27,
Kenny. M. E., & Donaldson, G. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal ?/Counseling Psy- chology, 38, 479-486.
Kessler. R. C., & McLeod, J. D. (1984). Sex differences in the vulnerability to undesirable life events. Anierican Sociological Review, 49, 620-63 I.
Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly and securely attached women across adulthood: A 3 1 -year longitudinal perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74( I). 21 1-223.
Lakey, B., & Cassady, P. B. (1990). Cognitive processes in perceived social support. Journal of Per- sonaliry and Social Psychology, 59(2), 337-343.
Levy, M. B.. & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relarion- ships, 5. 439-47 I .
Main, M., Kaplan, M.. & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In 1. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.). Crowing poinrs qfatfachmenr theory and research (pp. 66106). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Developnienr, 50( 1-2). Serial No. 209.
Pierce, G. R.. Sarason. B. R.. & Sarason, 1. G. (1992). General and specific support expectations and stress as predictors of perceived supportiveness: An experimental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 297-307.
Rice. K. G.. FitzGerald, D. P., Whaley, T. J., & Gibbs, C. L. (1995). Cross-sectional and longitudinal examination of attachment. separation-individuation, and college student adjustment Jouml of Counseling and Development, 73, 463-414.
Sarason, 1. G.. Levine, H. M., Basharn, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The Social Support Questionnaire. Journal of Personality und Social Psychology, 44( I), 127-139.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, 1. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, 1. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An inreractional view (pp. 97-127). New York: Wiley.
Sarason, 1. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1986). Experimentally provided social support. Journal Of Person- ulity and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1222-1225.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Perrine 72
Sarason, 1. G., Sarason, B. R., & Shearin, E. N. (1986). Social support as an individual difference variable: Its stability, origins, and relational aspects. Journal of Personality a d Social Psycholo-
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Shearin, E. N., & Pierce, G. R. (1987). A brief measure of social sup- port: Practical and theoretical implications. Journal of Social a d Personal Relationships, 4 ,
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. J o u m l of Personality und Social Psychology, 62(3), 434-446.
Turner, H. A. (1994). Gender and social support: Taking the bad with the good? Sex Roles, 30(7/8),
gy, 50(4), 845-855.
497-510.
521-541.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
olor
ado
- H
ealth
Sci
ence
Lib
rary
] at
20:
06 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014