Date post: | 08-Jan-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | linda-ottosson |
View: | 94 times |
Download: | 0 times |
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 1
How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance,
Engagement and Motivation
Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin,
Tome Saidon, Victoria Shaw
Baruch College City University of New York
Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda
De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin, Tome Saidon, or Victoria Shaw,
Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch
Way, New York, N.Y. 10010
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 2
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….….……..5
Literature Review …………………………………………………………………….…………...6
Attachment Theory………………………………………………….…………………………….6
Attachment Theory and Adult/Romantic Relationships…………………………………12
Attachment in the Workplace……………………………………………………….......,17
Perception …………………………………………………………………………………,……19
Perception and Leadership……………………………………………...…………….….19
Leadership and Performance……………………………………………………………..………22
Engagement……………………………………………………………………………..………..28
Attachment and Engagement…………………………………………………………….28
Leadership and Engagement……………………………………………………………..30
Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………….....31
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………..32
Participants…………………………………………………………………………….....32
Measures………………………………………………………………………….……...33
Research Design and Procedures………………………………………………………...34
Results……………………………………………………………………………………..……..37
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….……….43
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….49
Future Studies …………………………………………………………………………...50
References ………………………………………………………………………..……..……….46
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 3
Appendices…………………………………………………………………….…………...…….60
Appendix A: Consent Form ...……………………………………………………………….…60
Appendix B: Demographic Survey ………………………………………………………….......64
Appendix C: Email Proposal for Professors…….…………………………………………...…..67
Appendix D: Permission to Recruit Subjects…………………………………………………….68
Appendix 1: MANOVA…………………………………………………………………………71
Appendix 2: Pearson Correlation………………………………………………………………...72
Appendix 3: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Final Grade; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and
Final Grade)…………………………………………………………………………………..….73
Appendix 4: ANOVA (Model1: Final Grade and ECR; Model 2: Final Grade, ECR, and
MLQ)…………………………………………………………………………………………….74
Appendix 5: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Final Grade)……………………………...75
Appendix 6: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and
Boosters)…………………………………………………………………………………………76
Appendix 7: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)……77
Appendix 8: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Boosters)…………………………………78
Appendix 9: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; Model 2: ECR, MLQ,
and Guzzlers/Mufflers)…………………………………………………………………………..79
Appendix 10: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and
Guzzlers and Mufflers)…………………………………………………………………………..80
Appendix 11: Multiple Regression Coefficients (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and
Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)……………...……………………………….81
Appendix 12: Experiences in Close Relationships and Final Grades…………………………....82
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 4
Appendix 13: Leadership Styles and Students’ Final Grades…………………………...………83
Appendix 14: Attachment Style and Engagement Levels……………………………..………...84
Appendix 15: Engagement Levels and Leadership Style……………………………………..…85
Appendix 16: GuzzlerMuffler Scores and Attachment Style……....………………………..…..86
Appendix 17: GuzzlerMuffler Means and Leadership Style…………………………………....87
Appendix 18: Mean of Final Grades and ECR………………………………………………..…88
Appendix 19: Mean of Final Grades and MLQ……………….…………………………………89
Appendix 20: Mean of Boosters and ECR………………….……...…………………………….90
Appendix 21: Mean of Booster scores and MLQ………………………………………………..91
Appendix 22: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and ECR………………………………………..92
Appendix 23: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and MLQ…………………………………...…..93
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 5
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect attachment style and perceptions of
leadership had on a student’s performance, motivation and engagement. Several analyses were
conducted after participants completed the Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) survey, the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES).
In addition, student’s final grades were used as a measure of performance. A MANOVA was
conducted to determine the effect of our two independent variables; attachment style and
perception of leadership, on our two dependent variables; final grade, and motivation and
engagement. Although there were no statistically significant results found in the MANOVA, a
Person’s Correlation was conducted to further examine the relationship between final grade,
Booster scores, Guzzler and Muffler scores, the MLQ, and the ECR). We used a Multiple
Regression to determine how much of the variance in grades could be explained by the ECR and
MLQ. Due to small sample sizes, not many statistically significant results were obtained;
however, patterns of relationships were identified and discussed for future research.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 6
Literature Review
An increasingly common explanation for how one relates to others is one offered by
attachment theory. Attachment has been studied to help explain engagement, romantic
relationships, addiction, and leader-follower relationships (Fletcher, Nutton, & Brend, 2015;
Hart, Bizer, & Collins, 2015; Hudson, 2013). Attachment is defined as the need of an individual
to remain close to another who one deems better able to cope with world events, otherwise
known as a caregiver. Attachment behaviors are most obvious in highly stressful situations
where an individual experiences feelings such as fatigue, frightfulness, and pain. It is in these
moments that individuals look to the availability of a caregiver for comfort and security
(Bowlby, 1988 pg. 26-27; Hudson 2013). Attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby,
and has since gained recognition around the world as one of the most influential theories
explaining how individuals relate not only to one another but also to groups and the quality of
these relationships (Hudson, 2013). In his earlier works, Bowlby observed patterns of responses
of young children temporarily separated from their mothers. Behavioral responses of these
children included detachment, protest, and despair. Detachment is defined as a defensive process
that occurs in children where the child temporarily becomes angry with a caregiver and pushes
them away for some interval of time, occurring during moments of stress as opposed to looking
to them for support (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 32-33). Furthermore, Bowlby observed similar patterns of
attachment responses across humans and animals, first in Konrad Lorenz’s work on goslings and
imprinting and later with Harry Harlow and his studies of infant monkeys (Bowlby & King,
2004; Bowlby, 1988 pg. 23). The argument of attachment as a biological component, innate
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 7
across different species, began to take shape as an influential factor that remains prominent
throughout the lifespan.
Bowlby theorized that parental behaviors are somewhat programmed like attachment
behaviors and play a significant role in the development of the dialogue and relationship between
the caregiver and child (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 4). This dialogue is established during infancy with
the caregiver’s responses to the infant- usually in the form facial expressions and vocalizations.
As a result, the infant will begin to kick and reach for the caregiver. These interactions continue
in cycles where factors such as the caregiver’s response time, the withdrawal and interaction
behaviors of the infant, and the ability of the caregiver to adjust to the infant’s needs, all play
significant roles in the development and efficiency of these dialogues (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 7). It
has been observed that an infant’s capacity to identify their caregiver and recognize when (s)he
is not present develops in the last 6 months of their first year. As a result, at 9 months of age it is
typical for a child to cry in the presence of a stranger when their mother is not present and to
reject the stranger (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 122). During this stage, internal working models of self
and other begin to develop as the infant becomes aware of the caregiver’s absence and return,
which continue to develop throughout their life (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 123).
Internal working models of attachment are based on experiences in the child’s life and
day to day interactions with their caregiver. The model of self and model of other develops as the
child experiences how the caregiver(s) feel towards and sees him/her and in turn how they feel
toward and see the caregiver(s) (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 129-130). These internal working models
become prototypes by which individuals view themselves and others in relationships later in life
(Bartholomew & Horovitz, 1991). A person’s model of self affects perceptions of self-worth and
self-acceptance. On the other hand, a person’s model of others affects perceptions of availability
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 8
and responsiveness of an attachment figure(s). If a child receives adequate and sensitive care
from an attachment figure, (s)he will develop a model of self as “worthy” with a view of others
as “predictable”. However, if a child receives inconsistent care or is rejected or neglected by
their attachment figure, (s)he will develop a model of self as “unworthy” with a view of others as
“unreliable.” Although these models of self and other form during childhood, attachment theory
proposes that they will continue to influence the individual in important ways throughout his or
her life (Hudson, 2013).
Mary Ainsworth, another leading theorist in attachment, expanded on Bowlby’s work and
tested his ideas empirically (Bretherton, 1992). Ainsworth focused her work around infancy in
Uganda, specifically the infant-mother relationship. It has been noted that a necessary first step
in the development of attachment is the ability of the infant to differentiate their mother from
other individuals. Ainsworth began identifying characteristics that helped define different
attachment styles such as differential crying, differential smiling, differential vocalization, crying
when the mother leaves, following, visual-motor orientation, greeting responses, burying of the
face, kissing and hugging, the use of the mother as a secure base, fleeing to the mother for safety,
and clinging (Salter Ainsworth, 1967, pg. 331-350). These characteristics were developed from
her continued observations of Ugandan infants and their mothers.
In the first quarter of the infant's life (birth to thirteen weeks) Ainsworth noted that
infants began to differentiate their mother from others through crying when the mother left the
room or when in the presence of a stranger. In the second quarter (fourteen to twenty-six weeks)
other differential patterns of behavior began to develop such as differential smiling and
differential vocalization. Towards the end of the second quarter the following behaviors emerged
as the infants began to crawl: greeting behaviors upon the mother's return, smiling, lifting the
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 9
arms, and vocalizations. Following the mother when she left the room became more prevalent in
the third quarter (twenty-seven to thirty-nine weeks). Greeting behaviors including approaching
the mother, clapping hands, and lifting of the arms occurred with more frequency in the third
quarter. Ainsworth noted that the extent to which initiative was taken by the infant was evidence
of how concrete the development of attachment behaviors was becoming. In addition, during the
third quarter infants began using their mothers as a secure base. In the fourth quarter and beyond
(forty to sixty weeks), behaviors displayed in the third quarter happened with more frequently in
the fourth quarter especially when approach responses were observed. Clinging and burying of
the face became more evident in the fourth quarter as well as increased negative responses to
strangers (Salter Ainsworth, 1967 pg. 351-385).
Through observations, Ainsworth and her colleagues determined that infants who
received more sensitive care from their mothers during their first year were less likely to cry
during the second half of their first year (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 9). Infants, once mobile, were more
likely to explore their surroundings during favorable conditions, while continuing to use their
mother as a secure base (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 45-46; Salter Ainsworth, 1967 pg. 373). Through her
observations of 12 month olds, Ainsworth classified infants into three categories based on
criteria which included (a) how often and how much the infant was willing to explore their
environment with or without their mother present and, (b) how they treated their mother when
she was present, when she departed, and when she returned. These three categories, once known
as the “non-attached” group, secure-attached group, and insecure-attached group, later developed
into secure, anxious-avoidant, and anxious resistant (Salter Ainsworth, 1967; Bowlby, 1988).
Secure attachment occurs when an individual has confidence in their parent to provide
needs such as responsiveness, availability, and comfort in adverse situations. These individuals
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 10
feel confident to explore their environment due to the sensitivity of the parent’s responsiveness
to the child’s needs. Secure children tend to be happier and less demanding which contributes to
healthy development. Low confidence in the responsiveness of a caregiver is a characteristic of
anxious-avoidant attachment. These children tend to teach themselves to be independent and to
distance themselves from love and support of others due to the expectation of being rejected by
their caregiver. Finally, anxious resistant children are unsure if their caregiver will respond to
their needs. These individuals tend to be clingy, develop separation anxiety, and are anxious
about exploring the world. This attachment develops due to the inconsistencies in responsiveness
of the caregiver and the threat of abandonment (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 124, 126, 166).
Mary Ainsworth’s and her colleagues’ Strange Situation experiment serves as a staple in
attachment research. They classified infants into one of the attachment categories based on the
interactions and behaviors displayed with their mothers and strangers. Situational conditions
decipher the intensity of these attachment behaviors once the attachment is formed (Ainsworth &
Bell, 1970; Bowlby, 1988 pg. 3). As noted earlier, it has been theorized that infants use their
mothers as a basis for security when exploring a strange environment. Fear of these new
surroundings is, in a sense, neutralized by the presence of the mother. In addition, attachment
behaviors become increasingly present when the mother is absent and when a stranger enters the
unfamiliar environment (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). In the strange situation reactions and
exploratory behaviors were recorded at each of the eight stages where infants were separated and
reunited with their mother (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Results showed that
infants identified as secure first experienced distress at their mother’s departure, avoided the
stranger when they were alone but were friendly when the mother was present, and happily
welcomed their mother upon reunion. These infants coped with their mother’s departure and,
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 11
upon her return, used her as a security basis while they explored their new environment. Anxious
resistant (later relabeled insecure-ambivalent) infants showed signs of intense distress upon their
mother’s departure, avoided the stranger and showed fear when in the presence of the stranger.
Upon reunion, these children approached the mother, however s(he) may have shown resistance
and ambivalence towards contact. These infants tended to cry more and were least likely to
explore their environment. Finally, infants identified as anxious-avoidant (later relabeled
insecure-avoidant) were not distressed when their mother left and continued to play normally in
the presence of the stranger. Upon their mother’s return, the infant showed little to no interest in
their mother and avoided contact with the parent (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).
In a study conducted by L. Allan Sroufe (1983) also mentioned in Bowlby (A secure
base, pg127), attachment behaviors of 12 month old infants were observed and assessed. When
the child was placed in a nursery school setting at 3 and a half years old it was determined that
those behaviors that were assessed at 12 months of age were highly predictive of the behaviors
that were displayed at the present time. . As a result, secure children were more likely to be
described by the nursery staff as resourceful, resilient, and cooperative. Anxious avoidant
children were described as hostile, attention seeking, and “emotionally insulated,” where anxious
resistant children were described a tense, impulsive, and easily frustrated.
Mary Main and June Cassidy (1988) developed four category classification of attachment
based on unstructured reunions of 6 year olds with their parents. This four category model served
as the first model to explain those individuals with attachment behaviors that did not fall into the
three category model. Building on the original three classifications of Ainsworth, Main and
Cassidy organized participants in one of the following four categories: secure, insecure-avoidant,
insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-controlling. In a review conducted by Main and Solomon
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 12
(1986) of the Strange Situation, it was discovered that there were some infants who were unable
to be classified into one of the three attachment categories and displayed disorganized or
disoriented behaviors which lead to the creation of a fourth attachment style- insecure-
controlling. Results indicated that secure children were relaxed with their reunion and often told
their parent what they did when they were separated. They remained in close proximity to the
parent while maintaining positive conversations and interactions. Insecure-ambivalent children
tended to over exaggerate their interactions when reunited with the parent and although the child
seemed dependent on the parent, they tended to display avoidant and sometimes hostile
behaviors throughout their interactions. Insecure-avoidant children minimized their interactions
with their parents. They held only brief conversations before occupying themselves with their
toys. Finally, insecure-controlling children attempted to control their interactions with their
parents either through humiliation and embarrassment, or through extreme enthusiasm, in an
attempt to direct their parent’s behavior (Main & Cassidy, 1988). Based on these findings, there
is evidence to support how attachment styles affect an individual through the different stages of
their lives.
Attachment and Adult/ Romantic Relationships
As noted earlier, it has been determined that attachment style continues to affect an
individual’s relationships throughout their life, especially in romantic relationships (Bowlby,
1988). Hazan and Shaver (1987) determined that self-reports could be used in assessing one’s
attachment style when studying couples in romantic relationships. Bartholomew and Horowitz
(1991) used the self-report method proposed by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and developed a four-
group model of attachment behavior based on the two levels of internal working models, the
model of self and others. By splitting the two levels into positive or negative four combinations
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 13
were created. The first category is a positive model of self and positive model of other
relationship, labeled secure, which includes individuals who encompass a sense of worthiness.
Individuals with a negative model of self but a positive model of other are labeled preoccupied.
This group is comparable to those previously labeled ambivalent where they seek to gain
acceptance of others but feel unloved. Those with a negative model of self and a negative model
of other not only feel unloved but are untrustworthy of others. These individuals protect
themselves from rejection through avoiding involvement with others. This category, labeled
fearful, corresponds with the previous avoidant category. Finally, those with a positive model of
self and a negative model of others are known as dismissing. These individuals maintain their
independence and avoid disappointment by abstaining from forming close relationships with
others. This category corresponds with the previously used insecure-controlling label.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) hypothesized that interview ratings and self-reports
made by the individual, would remain consistent with friend-report ratings of the four attachment
styles. Participants ranged in age from 18-22. Participant self-reports contained similar outcomes
as the friend reports about the participant. Participants who were categorized as having a secure
attachment style reported themselves to be well balanced and warm hearted, which was
corroborated by their friends. Dismissive avoidant individuals had high ratings of hostility and
introversion in both self-reports and friend-report ratings. Insecure-preoccupied subjects were
seen by their friends as overly expressive and very warm hearted since they valued relationships
so strongly. Fearful- avoidant individuals were often viewed as having lack of social inhibition
and assertiveness in their reports. This study provided evidence that one’s childhood attachment
style predicts the quality and character of future, adult relationships.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 14
Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) expanded on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991)
model by maintaining the categories of attachment and incorporating them on a high/low
anxiety, high/low avoidance scale. They created the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale.
Previous research has indicated that attachment developed during childhood plays a significant
role in our romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Rholes & Steven, 2006). Su Ahn,
Smith and Levine (2002) examined what happens in romantic relationships when partners
discovered that they were lied to by their partner about a matter of some consequence with the
use of Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) three category model. The reactions were dependent on the
attachment needs of the participants. Those who were labeled as secure were least likely to lie in
a relationship and were more likely to talk about the issue when they discovered that they had
been lied to. They also opted to continue the relationship. Anxious/ambivalent individuals
avoided the issue and preferred to stay in the relationship. Avoidant individuals on the other
hand, were most likely to lie in a relationship and were more likely to avoid their partner and not
talk to them at all. They were also more likely to terminate the relationship after deception was
discovered (Su Ahn, Smith and Levine, 2002).
Additional research looked deeper into the link between attachment style and its effect on
romantic relationships, focusing on the relationship to the internal working models of
attachment. Nancy Collins (1996) assessed the effects attachment styles have on social
perceptions and hypothesized a model that linked these working models of attachment to
behavioral, cognitive, and emotional response patterns. In the first study, participants were asked
to complete the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) to assess the individual’s attachment style.
Additionally, participants were asked to provide open-ended explanations to six relationship
events deemed negative. Participants were then asked to think about how they would feel if these
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 15
events occurred today and to describe in detail what they would say to their hypothetical partner
in response to these behaviors.
Collins (1996) drew three conclusions based on attachment styles.. First, the observed
attachment style in childhood is useful in predicting individual differences in adult attachment.
Second, different styles of attachment seem to be ingrained in cognitive models of others and
self. Third, adults that have different attachment styles also differ greatly in the quality of their
love relationships. As a result, it has been understood that the style of attachment one has directly
contributes to the quality of their relationship and is not simply a reflection of said relationship.
Therefore, in response to attachment-relevant events, working models of attachment are
automatically activated during these events.
Results showed that when an attachment-relevant event was present, participants were
much more likely to mention an attachment theme in their open-ended responses. It was
determined that participants who comfortably depended on others were less likely to mention an
attachment theme, whereas those who were worried about rejection were more likely to mention
an attachment theme. Working models of attachment played a significant role in a participant’s
negative or positive reactions to attachment-relevant events (Collins, 1996).
In a second study conducted by Collins (1996), participants were asked to respond to the
same assessments, and a relationship quality assessment, but in relation to their current partner
instead of a hypothetical partner. Those in secure relationships interpreted the behaviors of their
partner less negatively than those who felt unloved and anxious. In fact, the fear of rejection
consistently predicted the presence of attachment themes that were negative. As predicted, the
results suggest that the activation of attachment models contributed to responses to attachment-
relevant events (Collins, 1996). Only two significant outcomes were obtained. First, those who
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 16
were in committed, better quality relationships were less likely to attribute their partner's
response to dimensions of the relationship and were less likely to worry about rejection. Second,
those who felt unloved attributed their partner’s response to many factors of the relationship and
that these events were unlikely to change (Collins, 1996).
Collins & Feeney (2004) conducted a study where the social support participants received
during a stressful task was either manipulated or observed. In the study, one member of a
romantic couple was told that they would be giving a speech that would be videotaped and then
evaluated. Participating couples were instructed to complete questionnaires that measured
attachment style and relationship satisfaction. During the experiment notes were given to the
"support recipient" two times which were classified as two supportive notes or two relatively
unsupportive notes. In their analysis, the researchers determined there was a significant
relationship between the quality of the relationship and attachment-related anxiety. In contrast to
those in the high support group, those in the low support group who were identified as insecure
were more likely to report that their partner's note made them feel upset and angry, was
disappointing, made them feel bad, and was inconsiderate. Those who were identified as
preoccupied and dismissing reported the lowest levels of support. The researchers concluded that
models of attachment may influence perceptions only when their partner’s behavior is left open
to interpretation and is unclear (Collins & Feeney, 2004).
It has been determined that the identification of one’s attachment style remains constant
across self-reports and reports from others. Researchers have noted that the intensity with which
an attachment behavior is present is dependent attachment related events. These events serve as
triggers to the individual, therefore allowing the researchers to differentiate between the different
attachment styles. Overall, those who were secure in their relationships were less likely to
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 17
attribute their partner’s behavior to themselves and were least likely to lie in their relationships.
On the other hand, insecure individuals were more likely to lie in their relationships and
attributed their partner’s behavior to themselves or to some aspect of the relationship. in addition
to romantic relationships, attachment may play a significant role in other aspects of life such as
work relationships.
Attachment in the Workplace
Although many studies have focused on attachment and romantic relationships,
attachment in the workplace is an area where relatively less work has been published. Some
research has developed around the concepts of adult attachment and its role in the relationship
between attachment, leadership, and the leader-follower dynamic. VanSloten & Henderson’s
(2011) study used attachment and leadership measures to identify the causal relationship between
attachment orientations and subsequent leadership styles. The researchers hypothesized that
those individuals with an avoidant attachment style would be less likely to support strategies to
build relationships than those with a secure, neutral, or anxious attachment style. As predicted,
participants with avoidant attachment styles were less likely to develop relational or intellectual
relationships than those with secure, anxious or neutral attachment styles. Specifically, securely
attached individuals found higher satisfaction from relationships that were meaningful and
interpersonal, while avoidant individuals refrained from such relationships and were focused
instead on successful task performance. As a consequence, securely attached individuals were
drawn towards an engaging and relationship-based leadership style, while individuals with
avoidant attachment styles cherished task-oriented leadership styles, focused on rewards and
recognitions (VanSloten & Henderson, 2011). Individuals classified as anxious-insecure
displayed similar preferences as secure individuals where they were attracted to relational,
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 18
intellectual and interactive leadership styles. However, they become preoccupied with
maintaining these relationships for fear of being abandoned.
Researchers have identified factors that impact the workplace setting such as work-
related well-being, job satisfaction, and job involvement. Lanciano & Zammuner (2014) studied
the effect of attachment style on predicting work related well-being. Past research in this area has
identified the role of internal working models on building relationships within the workplace and
how this affects the individual’s perceptions, abilities, motivation, and overall organizational
commitment. Lanciano & Zammuner (2014) predicted that securely attached individuals will
positively associate with positive emotional traits, work-related traits, and work related well-
being otherwise known as job-involvement and job satisfaction. On the other hand, it was
predicted that those with anxious or avoidant attachment styles would positively associate with
negative emotional traits and negative work-related traits. Results confirmed both of these
hypotheses- secure attachment was positively correlated with positive work related traits and
positive emotional traits; insecure attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) were negatively
associated with these traits. The lower levels of job satisfaction were reported by both avoidant
and anxious attachment styles. This may be due to the individual distancing themselves from
others because they view others as unavailable or unresponsive as is a pattern seen in the
avoidant attachment style. Avoidant individuals are more independent and have a difficult time
trusting individuals. The researchers speculate that supervisor support plays a mediating role in
the well-being of insecurely attached individuals (Harms, 2011). Overall, this study identified
how interpersonal relationships affect well-being and the role attachment plays in this dynamic.
It suggests that future research should consider these individual differences when studying work
related behaviors and factors such as the effect on perception.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 19
For the purpose of this study, we will be focused on the educational setting. In a meta-
analysis conducted by Poropat (2009) it was argued that school becomes more like work as the
student progresses through their educational career. In addition, from the perspective of the
educator, educational settings serve as a place of work, serving as an influential figure in a
student’s life. As is true for any workplace, factors such as satisfaction, engagement, and work
relationships can affect an individual’s performance along with other aspects of the job.
Additionally, we are interested in the role that perception of the leadership of a teacher plays in a
student’s performance and engagement.
Perception
Perception and Leadership
Perception can be defined as the complex process by which people select and organize
sensory stimulation into a meaningful and rational picture of the world. It is the way in which an
individual interprets his/her experiences. External influences as well as internal feelings and
emotions play a significant role in how one views the outside world and others (Otara 2011). In
organizations, perceptions affect how one views leaders and managers. Otara (2011) talked about
the role that perception plays in influencing how employees view their managers and leaders in
the organization, and how that perception impacts the climate and effectiveness of the workplace
environment. Perceptions can differ greatly from leader to follower which is dependent on
differentiating interpretations. Communication is crucial in all organizations especially when
perceptions are identified through the communication process. Therefore, Otara (2011) suggested
that communication be used as a tool for leaders in order to remain sensitive to different
perceptions.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 20
Is it possible that different styles of leadership affect perception? Bass & Hater (1988)
replicated a previous research where a subordinate’s interpretation and perception of
transformational leadership added to individual ratings of satisfaction and effectiveness. The
researchers hypothesized that transformational leadership would influence subordinate’s ratings
of satisfaction, effectiveness, overall managerial performance, specific managerial performance,
work-group performance, and categorization of management over transactional. In addition, it
was predicted that managers who exhibit “top performance” would be rated higher on
transformational factors than “ordinary” performers. Results showed that subordinates ratings of
managers indicated that transformational leadership added to prediction of ratings of leader
effectiveness and satisfaction over transactional leadership. In addition, those managers
identified as “top” performers were rated higher on transformational leadership. Due to small
sample sizes, obtaining conclusive evidence concerning the remaining hypotheses was
unattainable but patterns indicated overall higher ratings for transformational leadership over
transactional. What role does attachment have in influencing leadership perceptions?
To date, little research has examined how experiences in childhood affect leadership
expectations (Keller, 2003). Therefore, interactions between leaders and followers in the
workplace can be influenced by differences in perceptions especially when considering the
complexity of human being’s perceptions. When employees are new to an organization they
often discover that there is a discrepancy between what they expect from their leader and the
behaviors that the leader displays. As a result, depending on one’s attachment style, it may be
difficult for the new employee to interpret and adapt to their leader’s style (Keller, 2003).
Ainsworth (1991) noted that in order for an attachment theme to be activated between leader and
follower an “affectional bond” must be present. This involves such circumstances as the leader
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 21
providing security, sharing experiences, providing a sense of worth, nurturing, and mentorship.
Therefore, leadership perceptions may be influenced by a follower’s attachment and attachment
needs as was discussed by Hansbrough (2012).
Hansborough (2012) focused on follower attachment and perceived transformational
leadership showing how follower’s attachment needs may influence leadership perceptions.
Previous research concentrated on leader attachment and transformational leadership as well as
follower attachment in relation to team membership. Hansborough (2012) noted that individuals
high in attachment anxiety are often preoccupied with identifying with individuals who can serve
as a secure safe haven. As a result, this can distort perceptions of leadership identifying
transformational leadership when it is not present. On the other hand, those high in attachment
avoidance do not trust others and do not like to depend on others. Therefore, the researcher
hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between attachment anxiety and
perceptions of transformational leadership. Findings indicated that those high in attachment
anxiety perceive leaders as capable of fulfilling their attachment needs and therefore may
identify the leader as transformational. These results were not shared by those high in attachment
avoidance, demonstrating the effect attachment has on perception.
Overall, the current researchers believe that one's attachment style will affect one’s
perceptions of leadership. Past research has suggested that individuals may view their leader as
transformational when they meet certain attachment needs, however, the accuracy of this
interpretation may be skewed when these needs are met. These leadership perceptions may also
affect other factors of the workplace or work environment such as performance. Therefore, we
ask what role leadership plays in performance and engagement when considering attachment as
an active player in this dynamic.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 22
Leadership and Performance
For the purpose of this paper we will be concentrating on transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire styles of leadership because they have been most researched throughout the
literature. James MacGregor Burns, as mentioned by Bass & Bass (2008), introduced the concept
of transformational and transactional leadership throughout his research concerning political
leaders. In his concept of transforming leadership Burns noted that leaders and followers work
together to achieve a higher level of motivation and morale. Burns described a transformational
leader as one who creates a change within people and the organization. That change is significant
and outlines a vision of future outcomes that can be shared among subordinates and peers. In
addition, a transforming leader is able to stimulate subordinates intellectually and can identify
individual differences among people (Transformational Leadership, n.d.). Burns identified
transactional leaders’ approach as being dependent on the personality and traits of the leader and
his/her ability to lead by example. Although they create a stimulating vision and challenging
goals, exchanges of rewards are contingent upon the displays of these desired behaviors by the
follower as outlined by the transactional leader. Within this theory of transforming leadership,
Burns identified that transformational and transactional styles of leadership were polarized
concepts. These forms of leadership were two opposite entities and did not overlap (Lowe et. al,
1996). However, Bernard M. Bass (2008) noted that transformational and transactional
leadership were related entities; transformational leadership actually built upon the established
behaviors of a transactional leader. On the other hand, there are times where an individual is
identified as laissez faire or the this kind of leader who waits until the last moment to make a
decision or will sometimes wait to make a decision at all (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Laissez-faire
leaders occupy a leadership position but are poor leaders. They are unable to meet subordinate
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 23
and organizational expectations. Laissez-faire leadership results in poor job satisfaction, reduced
productivity, and poor group performance. It has been shown that laissez-faire leadership lack
constructive leadership which can lead to role ambiguity which negatively impacts the work
environment (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Therefore, the quality
of the exchange between a subordinate and a leader, referred to as the leader-member exchange,
can be severely affected by the type of management practiced.
The leader-member exchange (LMX) is defined as the process by which an informal
leadership role is created through the interactions of leaders and subordinates. The subordinate’s
role is defined by the expectations that a leader puts forth about what they want the subordinate
to do (Bass & Bass, 2008). LMX is a process that has been recognized as beginning as a
transactional exchange which later has the potential of positively correlating with
transformational leadership. Dansereau (1995) as discussed in Bass (2008) argued that leaders
who support subordinates needs, such as self-worth, were confident in the subordinates’ abilities,
motivation, and integrity defining the quality of the LMX. Research has also looked at other
factors that may affect this exchange, such as environmental factors and type of leadership
assessment used.
Lowe’s et. al. (1996) meta-analytic review of leadership behaviors, concentrated on
several factors that affect leadership behaviors and success including type of organizations
(private vs. public), the level of the leader within the organization, and the type of criterion used
to measure leader effectiveness (subordinate perceptions vs. organizational measures). The
findings suggest, in regards to type of organization, that transformational leadership was more
likely to emerge in less constructive, or organic, environments and transactional leadership was
more likely to prevail in mechanistic organizations. Organic organizations are decentralized and
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 24
are built around horizontal communication and interactions where mechanistic organizations are
classified as having a hierarchal structure with centralized authority and formal procedures
("Organic Organization," 2014; "Mechanistic Organization," 2014). Furthermore,
transformational leadership has been identified more so within leaders who held higher positions
in the organization. On the other hand, those leaders in lower levels of management were more
likely to be identified as transactional leaders.
Finally, the meta-analysis suggested that subordinate perceptions play an important role
in the outcomes of scored leadership behaviors and that there is often a gap between
organizational measures of the leader and subordinate scores. These findings further support
Bass’ statement that the degree to which transformational leadership results in the effectiveness
of the organization is dependent upon environmental and organizational characteristics as will be
acknowledged in our study through the utilization of different classrooms within the same
organization (Lowe et. al, 1996). Our study will utilize several different undergraduate level
classrooms where teachers and class subject differentiate. Factors such as time of day and type of
class may influence not only leadership perceptions but also the degree of performance and
engagement.
Haber (2012) examined how college students defined the concept of leadership. Research
has examined how college experiences affect student leadership and continues to grow in
popularity, however, there is very little research conducted to examine student perceptions and
the role this may ultimately play in effective student leadership. In this study themes of
leadership were identified by independent raters through the assessment of participants’ free
response definitions. Three broad categories of themes were identified: (a) leader-follower
relationship, (b) leader characteristics and behaviors, and (c) leadership outcomes. Subcategories
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 25
of themes were also derived from the definitions given by the students. The leader-follower
relationship themes included collaborative, inspiring, influential, and direct. Themes of
leadership characteristics and behavior discussed three subcategories labeled as supportive,
modeling, and personal qualities. Finally, leadership outcomes identified themes of positive
differences, sharing of goals, and task. An overall finding derived from the statistical analyses
showed that students strongly focused on shared goals and task themes, when defining
leadership. However, the findings suggested that students’ perceptions of leadership were in
many of the cases contradictory; the student’s definition of leadership did not match their
behavior expectations of a leader. It has been noted that there is a disconnect between students’
understanding of leadership and how it is portrayed and taught by educators (Haber,
2012).Gaining insight into how college students perceive leadership and their expectations of
leadership may assist in the creation of leadership programs into college programs. These
programs may allow students to correctly identify different types of leadership and understand
the effect it has on subordinates and the organization as a whole.
Research conducted in 89 schools in Singapore examined the influence of
transformational behaviors of school principals on factors such as organizational commitment,
student academic performance, teacher satisfaction with the leader, and organizational
citizenship behavior. Although there was no direct impact on student performance,
transformational leadership of principals did play a role in enhancing organizational
commitment, teacher satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. However, the
researchers suggest that there may be an indirect impact on student performance through the
influence of transformational leadership on the teachers (Koh, Steers & Terborg, 1995). Davis
(2003) researched the nature and influence of relationships between students and their teachers
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 26
through meta-analytic procedures. The dynamic of this relationship was looked at from
attachment perspectives, motivation perspectives, as well as sociocultural perspectives. It has
been argued that the teacher-child relationship is an extension of the parent-child relationship
where the teacher provides the support a child needs to be motivated and to explore. In addition,
there is the argument that children may separate teachers as a different group from their parents,
creating a new opportunity for the child to build a secure attachment. Skinner and Belmont
(1993) as referenced in Davis (2003) noted that a teacher’s level of involvement with their
students influenced the student’s motivation and engagement in school.
Additional research discovered that secure attachment with a teacher partially
compensated for insecure child-mother attachment relationship. Students who reported more
positive bonds with their teachers obtained higher scores on self- and teacher-reported social and
emotional adjustment outcomes (Frederickson & Rhodes, 2004). Students who were more
motivated to seek approval from their teacher often exhibit achievement related behaviors to gain
this approval. Furthermore, Moss and St-Laurent (2001) investigated the relationship between
attachment style and school-related performance. Their study proposed that individuals with
secure attachment had higher academic performance. The study was conducted in Canada with
108 subjects who were part of an ongoing longitudinal study lasting two years. Child attachment
was assessed through “separation-reunion behavior” at age six and later on their performance at
age eight. Performance was measured through self-assessment and collection of year-end school
grades collected from each class teacher. Verbal IQ was also assessed at each age. In previous
studies of children, secure attachment was linked to higher level of sophisticated symbolic play,
more active exploration-play engagement and stronger task persistence (Moss & St-Laurent,
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 27
2001). As predicted, secure attachment was related to higher levels of academic success than
insecure attachment.
These findings were further investigated through a study conducted in Canada which
measured performance in relation to attachment state of mind of students during the transition
from high school to college (Larose et al, 2005). The study hypothesized that performance
among students with secure attachment styles would be higher than students with preoccupied or
dismissive attachment styles. Previous studies on the subject suggest that higher academic
performance at various developmental periods of life is consistently related to secure attachment.
In order to conduct the study, the research team used a random sample of 62 students, between
the ages of 16 to 17. The first measure was taken at the last year of high school where the “Test
of Reaction and Adaptation to College” (TRAC) study was conducted. The second meeting was
held during their first semester of college, during which they completed TRAC again as well as
Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). In addition, academic records were collected at the end of
high school and at the end of the first three semesters of college. The two goals of this study
included having the relationship between college students’ attachment style and cognitive,
behavioral, and emotional disposition towards learning investigated and the second was to test
whether the presumed relation between attachment and performance can be accounted for by
students’ learning dispositions during the college transition. The transition between high school
and college imposes greater responsibility, separation from parents and friends, and other
challenges on the students, and will act as a source of instability. With that in mind one might
classify the college transition as a context, likely to activate the students’ attachment system,
imposing a negative impact on students with insecure dismissing and preoccupied attachments
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 28
styles (Larose et al, 2005). Based on this study it is evident that attachment styles are consistent
patterns of behavior that can be observed from childhood through adulthood.
Our particular study aims to focus on the influence that attachment styles have on how a
student perceives their teacher. We are choosing this particular population because a student-
teacher relationship represents and can be compared to the dynamic of a relationship that an
employee has to their supervisor and the relationship a follower has to their leader, as has been
argued in previous research (Keller, 2003; Frederickson & Rhodes, 2004).
Engagement
Engagement can be defined as the behaviors that result from the drive and energy to
achieve a goal or one’s full potential (Martin, 2008b). For the purpose of this study engagement
is described in terms of adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions and maladaptive cognitive
and behavioral dimensions. As noted in Martin (2008a), past research has stressed that many
factors that contribute to motivation and engagement including factors such as self-efficacy,
anxiety, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and self-regulation. Several studies have shown how
domain specific the Motivation and Engagement Scale is across different settings such as school,
school level, school subject, sport, and music classes (Green et al., 2007; Martin, 2008a; Martin,
2008b). Therefore, the findings suggest that the construct for motivation and engagement are
factors that are common among different areas of interest such as school level and school
subject, creating reliability and validity within the measure.
Attachment and Engagement
To date there is little literature that examines the relationship between attachment and
engagement. Lin (2010) researched factors that directly influenced work engagement including
the four dimensions of perceived corporate citizenship: economic, legal, ethical, and
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 29
discretionary citizenship. The indirect effect of perceived corporate citizenship on work
engagement was also researched through the mediation of organizational trust. Work
engagement is defined as the expression of oneself through work and employee tasks. It is
imperative to identify those factors and situations that affect work engagement in order for a
business to continue to grow and retain their employees. Lin (2010) noted that previous research
showed that developing high organizational trust stems from higher engagement in the
workplace. He explored the role attachment theory played in work engagement explaining that
an employee’s secure relationship with the organization is dependent on the fulfillment of an
employee’s needs. Lin (2010) found that, related to work engagement, perceived economic
citizenship, perceived legal citizenship, and perceived discretionary citizenship were positively
correlated with work engagement. In addition, he showed that organizational trust was positively
related to work engagement through the partial mediation of organizational trust. Our goal is to
further explore the role attachment plays in engagement as it relates to the educational
workplace.
Tziner & Tanami (2013) examined the association between attachment style,
perfectionism, and the potential of job motivation with workaholism and job engagement. As
noted in the article, previous research has stressed the importance of creating congruence
between the needs of employees and the needs of the organization which will lead to a more
successful organization. Multiple factors influence worker satisfaction and productivity and it is
important to understand which patterns are beneficial to the employee and organization. Tziner
& Tanami (2013) separated workaholism into three categories: obsessive-compulsive,
perfectionist, and achievement-oriented. In addition, it has been acknowledged that not only has
engagement been defined in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption, but also in terms of
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 30
characteristic, psychological state, and behavior. In our study, we will focus on the later
definition of engagement. Furthermore, attachment has been defined in two categories: secure
and non-secure. Results indicated there was no correlation between safe attachment and job
engagement; non-safe attachment was positively correlated with workaholism, job engagement
was positively correlated with general motivation potential, and although job engagement and
workaholism were positively correlated, workaholism and motivation potential were not. In our
study, we predict that those who are labeled fearful avoidant and dismissive avoidant will have
similar results as the non-safe and workaholism relationship with a teacher who is transactional.
We theorize fearful avoidant and dismissive avoidant individuals will have higher performance
with transactional leaders. In conclusion, if the link between attachment theory and workplace
engagement is better understood, organizations can shape their engagement programs to
encourage and support the employee's use of more productive behaviors.
Leadership and Engagement
Breevaart et al (2014) examined the role transformational and transactional leadership
plays in employee work engagement through daily interactions. As noted in the article, only a
small amount of research has been concentrated on the effect leadership has on work
engagement. Engaged employees are intrinsically motivated and are therefore more likely to
enjoy their work. Breevaart et al (2014) additionally considered the role transactional leadership
has on employee engagement and argued that contingent reward, which is often displayed by
transactional leaders, has motivational power. Results showed that when transactional leadership
was controlled for, daily work engagement and transformational leadership were positively
related. When transformational and management by exception was controlled for, daily
contingent reward and engagement were positively related. Furthermore, transformational
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 31
leadership and contingent reward were positively related to social support and autonomy. Finally
when engagement from the previous day was controlled for, social support and autonomy were
positively related to work engagement (Breevaart et al., 2014). In our study we are interested in
how a student’s engagement is affected by a teacher whose leadership style is identified as
transformational, transactional, or laissez faire.
In another study, Wilson et al. (2012) examined the relationship between
transformational teaching and a student’s engagement, psychological needs satisfaction, and
motivation in an elementary physical education class setting. The researchers noted that past
research has provided consistent evidence of improved performance with a transformational
leader. Two models were proposed, from the individual level and from the class level. As it
relates to the individual level, perceived transformational teaching was positively associated with
psychological needs satisfaction and motivation. Perceptions of transformational leadership and
psychological needs satisfaction positively predicted student engagement. Psychological needs
satisfaction also served as a mediator between transformational teaching and engagement.
Therefore, in our study we are interested in determining if a student’s level of attachment affects
perceptions of leadership and how they view their immediate educator and what effect this has
on a student’s engagement. We predict:
H1: Individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.
H2: Individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.
H3: Individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.
H4: Individuals with a fearful attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 32
Method
Participants
The participants in the study consisted of undergraduate students attending Baruch
College, CUNY. There were originally a total of 164 participants in the study, however after
examining the questionnaires and consent forms there were a final number of 100 participants
who qualified as a research subject, 61 females and 39 males. Participants were disqualified on
premises based on either incomplete data or unreturned consent. Out of the 64 disqualified
participants, 6 students had neglected to record their name either in Day One or Day Two
packets resulting in the loss of completed data. While 12 participants completed in entirety the
questionnaires in the study, they did not complete their consent forms. 8 participants were
eliminated from the study due to only consenting to the use of their grade and failing to complete
the section of the consent form pertaining to the use of their questionnaires. The remaining 38
participants either did not complete the Experiences in Close Relationships Survey or the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which were two of the essential surveys. All of the
participants were above the age of 18 and fell anywhere within the range from freshmen,
sophomore juniors, and seniors. All participants were enrolled in the winter session at Baruch
College, where each class averaged about 20 students. Participation in the study was completely
voluntary where participants were informed they would be enrolled in a raffle conducted by the
researchers offering compensation to 10 winners. Confidentiality was highly stressed to the
participants, informing them that their professors would not have access to the questionnaires.
Finally, they were instructed that if any of the questions on the survey made them feel
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 33
uncomfortable they were allowed to bypass the question or drop out from the study at any given
time.
Measures
Each participant was given a manila envelope containing the consent forms (Appendix A)
and questionnaires. The Day One envelop consisted of the demographic survey (Appendix B)
which contained eight items in regards to the participants, age gender, and class year for
instance, the Experiences in Close Relationships -Revised (ECR) survey which measured
attachment style, and two copies of the consent form, one for the student’s record and one for the
researchers. The ECR survey was created by Fraley, Waller, & Brennan (2000). The 36 item
survey included questions regarding personal relationships in which the participants rated how
strongly each statement related to them. When scored, the ECR contains subscales that measure
avoidance and anxiety. Scores result from a sum of all ratings; therefore, the higher the
participants rated the statements the higher the level of attachment avoidance and anxiety.
Examples of items in the ECR include “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
away” and “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.”
Day Two envelops contained two additional copies of the consent form as well as the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Motivation and Engagement Scale-
University/College Survey (MES). The MLQ was designed to assess perceptions of leadership
style. Respondents rate the degree to which the leader possesses the qualities of a
transformational, transactional, or laissez faire leader. Transformational leaders are known to
influence positive change and motivate their followers to perform better whereas transactional
leaders believe in a give and take relationship, where the followers must put in effort for them to
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 34
be rewarded. Laissez faire leaders are not constructive leaders in comparison to the other two
styles. They tend to be passive in their approach which can lead to decreased performance and
commitment. Scores are computed for the different dimensions in the measure and are compared
to a percentile table in order to obtain a score for the different items. Examples of items in the
MLQ include “Is absent when needed,” “Spends time teaching and coaching,” and “Expresses
confidence that goals will be achieved.” The Motivation and Engagement Scale-
University/College Survey (MES), developed by Martin (2009), assesses positive and negative
thoughts in terms of planning, task management, anxiety, disengagement, and control. Booster
scores represent higher levels of motivation and engagement where Guzzler and Muffler scores
are associated with lower levels of motivation and engagement. Booster thoughts and behaviors
include self-belief, valuing, learning focus, planning, task management, and persistence. The
dimensions that make up negative thoughts include self-sabotage and disengagement (Guzzlers),
where negative behaviors such as anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control comprise
Muffler scores.
Research Design and Procedures
Multivariate Analysis of Variance, MANOVA, was used for the within subjects design.
Participants for this study were recruited via email and in person through approaching professors
at Baruch College, where they were provided with a full description of the research procedures
and goals (Appendix C). A list of Winter 2015 Session classes, which ran from January 2, 2015
until January 23, 2015, was compiled. The professors were not being asked to participate in
research activities themselves but rather for access to their classroom and students. Email
addresses were obtained through Baruch College’s faculty directory. Those professors who
agreed to participate were sent a Participation Recruitment form (Appendix D) stating they were
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 35
granting the researchers access to their classroom where student participants would be recruited
for the study. The professors also agreed to leave the classroom once the researchers arrived to
ensure the confidentiality of the students participating in the study.
Upon entering the classroom, the students were read a script that explained the outline of
the study, the purpose of each survey, the consent form, and time duration of the study. We
explained that end of term grades would be collected as a measure of performance. All students
were assured that their professor would have no knowledge of who participated until the
semester had officially ended and grades were submitted to the Registrar's' office, indicating that
their participation in the study would have no impact on their final grade. The students were also
notified that by participating they were automatically enrolled into a raffle where they had the
opportunity to win a $10.00 gift card.
Once the students confirmed they fully understood the purpose of the study, as well as
their responsibilities, the researchers distributed the packets. On Day One, the students received
the two consent forms including the Permission for Access to Educational Records form from the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well consent to participate in the study,
the demographic questionnaire, and lastly the ECR survey which measured their attachment
style. Then one week later on Day Two, the students received the MLQ and the MES. Once all
materials were distributed, participants were informed to leave their completed items in the
sealed envelope on the front desk. The researchers then exited the classroom to avoid undue
influence. After the last student left the classroom, the researchers collected the packets After all
data was collected, we compiled a list of all incomplete surveys, any participants who may have
completed Day One but not Day two and vice versa, as well as any incomplete consent forms.
The participants falling in any of these categories were then contacted via email with a request to
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 36
complete any missing information. The last step in the data collection process was to email the
professors an Microsoft Excel sheet containing a list of student’s names who consented to submit
their final grades in the study. The professors then emailed back the Excel within two business
days with the student’s final grade listed next to their names. Finally, we notified the winners of
the raffle on February 23, 2015. Any participant who did not fill out necessary information was
then disqualified from the study and their responses were not included in the analysis.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 37
Results
A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted in order to determine
the effect of our two independent variables; attachment style and perception of leadership, on our
tw0 dependent variables; final grade, and motivation and engagement. The Wilks’ Lambda row
indicated that the dependent variables do not indicate a statistically significant effect on Booster
scores (high motivation and engagement), F (8, 36)=2.12 p>.05. There was no statistical
significant effect of attachment style and perception on Guzzler and Muffler scores (low
motivation & engagement) F (6/ 36)= 1.96 p>.05 (Appendix 1). There was no statistically
significant difference found between attachment style and perception of leader on final grades, F
(2, 18)=3.09 p>.05 (Appendix 1). Overall, we did not find statistically significant results in the
MANOVA, as a result a Person’s correlation and Multiple Regression were conducted.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between
final grade, Booster scores, Guzzler and Muffler scores, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Experience in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR). There
was a strong statistically significant, negative correlation between Booster scores and Guzzler
and Muffler scores, (r= -.218, n=100, p=-.22) (Appendix 2). Guzzler and Muffler scores show a
positive association with the MLQ (r=.246, n=97, p=.25) (Appendix 2). There was strong
positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and final grade (r=.289, n=79, p=.29)
(Appendix 2), showing the strong relationship between low motivation and final grade. There
was a strong positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and the ECR (r=.227,
n=99, p<.05) (Appendix 2), which shows the statistical validity of the Motivation and
Engagement Scale.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 38
We used a Multiple Regression to determine how much of the variance in grades could be
explained by the ECR and MLQ. When the ECR was isolated as the sole predictor of grades, a
positive correlation of .56 was obtained. For the first model its value is 0.003, which means that
attachment style accounts for .3% of the variation in final grades; however, when the MLQ was
included (model 2), this value increased to 0.036 or 3.6% of the variance in final grades
(Appendix 3). For model 1, we obtained an F ratio is of 0.241 and for model 2 the F ratio is
1.399. The table indicates that the independent variables, ECR and MLQ, are not significantly
predictive of the dependent variables, final grades and motivation and engagement, F (1,76) =
.241 p>.01 and F (2,75) = 1.39 p>.01(Appendix 4).In the estimated model coefficients, the
general form of the equation to predict final grade from the ECR (model 1) is predicted, Grade =
1.114 + (.023 x Experience in Close Relationships) (Appendix 5).In the estimated model
coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict final grades from the ECR and MLQ
(model 2) is predicted, Grade = .973 + (.019 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.088 x
MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire).These equations were obtained from the Coefficients
Table (Appendix 5). For complete display of means see (Appendix 18 and Appendix 19).
Attachment style (b=0.019): This value indicates that the more secure a student, the student’s
grade will increase by 0.019. This is only true if the effects of the student’s perception of
leadership are held constant. MLQ (b=0.088): This value indicates that as a student’s perception
of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to transformational, the student’s final grade increased by
0.088. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held constant. The
correlations are small thus given these coefficients we do not see evidence that the analysis
revealed significant association between variables.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 39
The regression model is not a good fit of our data, thus ECR and MLQ scores did not
predict final grade In conclusion, these variables in model 1 did not predict grade, F (1,76) =
.241 p> .005 R2 =.003 (Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). Experience in Close Relationships variable
in model 1 did not predict grade, p>.05 . The variables Experience in Close Relationships and
Multi-Factor Leadership in model 2 did not predict grade, F ( 2, 75) = 1.399 R2 = .036 p>.05
(Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). The ECR and the MLQ were not predictive of grade.
An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with ECR and MLQ and Booster
scores. When only the ECR is used as a predictor, the correlation between how secure a student’s
attachment style is and their Booster scores is 0.01. When the MLQ is included, the R value
remains at 0.01. For the first model the value is 0.000; attachment style accounts for 0% of the
variation in grades. When the other predictor, MLQ (model 2), was accounted for, the value still
remains at 0% of the variance in grades. Ultimately, our findings do not support our
hypothesized relationships (Appendix 6).
The ANOVA table shows that for model 1, the F ratio is 0.012 and for model 2 the F
ratio is 0.009. This means that the initial model did not significantly improve our ability to
predict Booster scores. The table shows that the independent variables (ECR and MLQ)
statistically are not significantly predictive of the dependent variable (Booster scores), F (1,97) =
.012 p>.05 and F (2,96) = .009 p>.05 (Appendix 7). The regression model is not good fit of the
data. For complete display of means (Appendix 12).For complete display of means see
(Appendix 15 and Appendix 16).
In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster
scores from the ECR (model 1) is, Booster scores = 81.938 - (.136 x Experience in Close
Relationships). ECR does not predict Booster scores (Appendix 8). In the estimated model
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 40
coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster scores from the ECR and the
MLQ (model 2) is, Booster scores = 81.710 - (.149 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.148
x MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire). ECR and MLQ do not predict Booster scores
(Appendix 8). The b-values in the table show both a negative and positive relationship
exists. The b-value for attachment style is -0.149, which indicates that there is a negative
relationship between a student’s attachment style and their booster scores. However, the b-value
for MLQ is 0.148, which indicates that the greater a student’s perception of leadership, the
higher their Booster scores. Attachment style (b=-0.149): This value indicates that as the
dependent variable (Booster score) decreases, the less secure is a student’s attachment style will
be when holding all the other independent variables constant. MLQ (b=0.148): this value
indicates that as a student’s perception of leadership increases, the student’s Booster score
increases by 0.149. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held
constant. Another multiple regression was run to predict Booster Scores from the ECR and
MLQ. These variables in model 1 statistically did not predict Booster Scores, F (1,97) = .012 p>
.005 R2 =.000. The ECR variable in model 1 did not add statistical significance to the prediction
p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The variables ECR and MLQ in model 2, statistically did not predict
Booster Scores, F ( 2, 96) = .009 R2 = .000 p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The ECR and MLQ were
not predictive of Booster scores.
An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with the ECR and MLQ and our dependent
variables: Guzzlers and Mufflers. When only the ECR was used as a predictor, the simple
correlation between a student’s attachment style and their guzzlers and mufflers scores equals
0.227 (Appendix 9).
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 41
When MLQ is included, the R value increased to 0.31 (Appendix 9), for the first model
(R2) is 0.05, which means that attachment style accounts for 5.2% of the variation in guzzlers and
mufflers score. When the other predictor is included (model 2), the value increases to 10% of the
variance in guzzlers and mufflers score (Appendix 9).
The ANOVA table shows that the ECR and the MLQ are significantly predictive of
Guzzlers and Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 and F (2,96) = 5.304. This means that the initial model
significantly improve our ability to predict the outcome. For complete display of means see
Appendix 17 and 18. In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to
predict Guzzlers and Mufflers from ECR (model 1) is predicted, Guzzlers/Mufflers = 40.191 +
(2.843 x Experience in Close Relationships). Describing the model 1 equation is as such, for
every incremental increase in the ECR there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.843
(Appendix 10). In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict
Guzzlers and Mufflers from the ECR and the MLQ (model 2) is, GuzzlersMufflers = 34.260 +
(2.495 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (3.865 x Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire)
(Appendix 10). Describing the model 2 equation is as such, for every incremental increase in the
ECR, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 and for every incremental increase
in MLQ scores, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 (Appendix 10). When
predicting Guzzlers and Mufflers scores from ECR and MLQ. In model 1, ECR statistically
predicted Guzzlers/Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 p=.02 R2 =.052 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and
MLQ in model 2 statistically predicted Guzzlers and Mufflers, F ( 2, 96) = 5.304 R2 = .100 p=.04
and p=.03 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and MLQ predicted Guzzler and Muffler scores.
The b -values in the table indicates a positive relationship exists for both predictors. The
b-value for attachment style 2.495 which indicates that the less secure a student’s attachment
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 42
style and the higher Guzzler and Muffler scores. In addition, the b-value obtained for the MLQ
was 3.865. This shows that as a student’s perception of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to
transformational, they will obtain lower Guzzler and Muffler scores. Attachment style has a b-
value of 2.495, indicating that as a student becomes less secure, their Guzzler and Muffler scores
with decrease by 2.495. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held
constant (Appendix 9).
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 43
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine if a student’s academic performance and level
of motivation and engagement is influenced by their perception of leadership in relation to their
attachment style. In the current study we predicted that students who reported having a secure or
preoccupied attachment style would have a high level of motivation and engagement as well as
positive perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor they perceive as being
transformational. For dismissive or fearful students, we predicted they would have positive
perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor that they perceived to be
transactional. These students would illustrate greater motivation and engagement with a leader
they perceived as transactional (compared with laissez-faire and transformational). While our
study did not show any meaningful significance in terms of our hypothesis, we did find several
patterns within our analysis that supported our predictions.
We used Mary Main and June Cassidy (1988)’s model of attachment style classification.
The model includes four levels of attachment style; secure, insecure dismissive, insecure fearful,
and insecure preoccupied. We proposed that attachment style affects one’s perception of
leadership style. Leadership style could be perceived to be either transformational, transactional,
or laissez faire. This perception of leadership was theorized to have an effect on midterm grades,
i.e., performance, and engagement in the class. Our analyses revealed results that were not
statistically significant. However, the results did show patterns that supported our predictions.
The Multiple Regressions and One-way ANOVAs were used to reveal the patterns that
existed between student’s attachment style, performance, and motivation and engagement.
Patterns were identified between a student’s performance and their perception of leadership.
Therefore, as a student’s grade shifted from A to B, their perception of the professor shifted
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 44
transformational to transactional to laissez faire. In addition, a pattern was found between a
student’s attachment styles and student performance. Thus, though our results were not
statistically significant, they are consistent with prior work. For example, Gore and Rogers
(2010) found that secure attachment style was positively associated with GPA scores.
In addition, we found a pattern between Booster scores, which is a measure of high
motivation and engagement, and attachment style. The results showed that secure and
preoccupied attachment styles scored higher Booster scores. These scores decreased as
attachment styles shifted towards dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we found a pattern
between Booster scores and perception of leadership. Students with high Booster scores were
more likely to perceive their professor as more transformational. However, Booster scores
decreased as attachment style shifted towards transactional and increased again when shifted to
laissez-faire.
Moreover, a pattern was observed between Guzzlers and Mufflers scores, which is a
measure for low motivation and engagement, attachment style, as well as perception of
leadership. The results show that students with a secure and preoccupied attachment styles
received lower Guzzlers and Mufflers score. As attachment styles shifted from dismissive to
fearful, Guzzlers and Mufflers score increased, indicating less motivation and engagement.
Additionally, the perception of the students’ professors shifted from transformational to
transactional as Guzzler and Muffler scores decreased. However, when Guzzlers and Muffler
scores increased, perceptions shifted from transactional to laissez-faire.
As previously mentioned, though our results were not statistically significant, we were
able to identify patterns that were consistent with our hypotheses. We will proceed to explain
these patterns found by discussing various attachment styles beginning with secure, preoccupied,
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 45
dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we will discuss the patterns found with the various
perceptions of leadership.
Secure Attachment
Our first hypothesis stated individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive
perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational
leader. The researchers found that students with a secure attachment style earned the second
highest final grade scores. Though the results in this study were not statistically significant, the
pattern is consistent with other studies such as Pashaeia (2014), which showed a positive
correlation between secure attachment styles and academic performance of students. Their
results showed that as a student’s score increases on the secure attachment scale, this leads to an
increase in academic performance (Pashaeia, 2014). Participant grades ranged from A’s to B
minus’. This may provide an explanation as to why the researchers were unable to find
significance in the relationship between the student’s attachment style and their performance. In
addition, it is theorized that those students who consented to the release of their final grade were,
in general, high performers and were confident in the final grade they would obtain.
With regards to the Motivation and Engagement Scale, the average Booster score earned
by the students was 81.68, which means that all the students who participated in the study were
highly motivated and engaged in their class; this score is based out of a total high score of 100.
Therefore, the students displayed positive thoughts in self-belief, valuing and learning focus and
positive behaviors in planning, task management and persistence. Students identified as having a
secure attachment style scored the second highest in Booster scores. On the other hand,
secured students scored the lowest in the Guzzler and Muffler scores on the Motivation and
Engagement Scale. This pattern was expected as we anticipated that the student’s with a secure
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 46
attachment style would not display negative thoughts in anxiety, failure avoidance and uncertain
control and negative behaviors in self-sabotage and disengagement. In addition, it has been
suggested that those students enrolled in winter courses tend to be more motivated and higher
performers due to the average student neglecting to enroll in extra courses during intersession.
Preoccupied Attachment
Our third hypothesis states that individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high levels of motivation & engagement, and high performance with a
transformational leader. Based upon the Experiences in Close Relationships and Performance
graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in performance;
therefore, students with a preoccupied attachment style had the highest grades in comparison to
secure, dismissive, and fearful students. In the Booster Scale versus Experiences in Close
Relationships graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in
their Booster scores indicating the highest levels of motivation and engagement. Finally, when
analyzing the Guzzler and Muffler scores in comparison to Experiences in Close Relationships
graph, we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked second lowest in their
Guzzler and Muffler scores. This means that preoccupied students had the second lowest levels
of self-destructive or anxious behavior. It was unexpected to find that students with a
preoccupied attachment style obtained the highest final grades and the highest Booster scores
since the researchers predicted that the secure students would be the top performers.
This prediction was made in reason that secure individuals tend to be more confident and
have higher self-efficacy beliefs. However, according to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)’s
classification of the different attachment styles, preoccupied students have a very low view of
self but have a high regard of relationships with others. Building off of this theory, preoccupied
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 47
individuals’ are consumed with gratifying and acting in accordance with other’s wishes in order
to maintain the relationship. It is their priority to please others before pursuing acts related to the
self. With that being said high levels of attentiveness as well as high performance in a classroom
will prove to be in accordance with the leader’s desire. Preoccupied students ultimately have a
higher desire to please than secure individuals do, and will therefore put more effort in their
behavior in the classroom.
Dismissive Attachment
Our third hypothesis stated that individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high performance, and high motivation and engagement with a
transactional leader. Although there was unsupported evidence concerning the impact of type of
leadership, based on our findings, dismissive individuals scored the highest on Guzzler and
Muffler scores, indicating the lowest motivation and engagement. Furthermore, when comparing
Booster scores, dismissive individuals fell in between the highest (pre-occupied) and lowest
(fearful) scores. Research has found that individuals high in avoidance are more likely to inhibit
group cohesion and engage in counterproductive work behaviors, further supporting our patterns
(Rom and Mikulincer, 2003; Richards and Schat, 2007; as reported in Harms, 2011). Although
all participants obtained relatively high final grades, dismissive participants scored the lowest
grades. Gore and Rogers (2010) argued that attachment style describes an individual's
relationships more so than their personal interests. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that those
individuals classified as secure are motivated to perform for reasons such as for their family
more so than those whom are classified as avoidant. These findings semi-support the results we
obtained which determined that dismissive-avoidant individuals had the lowest performance
when compared to the other attachment styles.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 48
Fearful Attachment
Our fourth hypothesis states that individuals with a fearful attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high performance and high levels of Motivation and Engagement with a
transactional leader. We found that students with fearful attachment had the second to lowest
performance, lowest Booster scores, and second to highest Guzzler and Mufflers scores
indicating low motivation and engagement. Although no findings showed statistically significant
results, the pattern of the findings does support the predictions of our hypothesis.
Previous studies by Nancy Collins and Steven Read (1990) support that fearful-avoidant
attachment styles are more likely to perform worse under pressure and stress, supporting the
observed patterns in our study. Samantha Reis and Brin Grenyer (2004) wrote in their study that
a fearful-avoidant person carries a deep distrust in their perception of others and a low regarded
view of self. Further on, such negative perceptions of others and of self could result in
motivational dysfunction, which supports the pattern of both our predictions and findings.
Perception scores
Results found that students who perceived their professor as being a transactional leader
were those who had lower Booster scores compared to those who perceived their leaders
identified as transformational or laissez-faire. These students were not as highly motivated and
engaged as those students who perceived their professors as being transformational or laissez-
faire. The students who perceived their professors as being laissez-faire leaders were reported to
have the highest Booster scores, meaning they were more highly motivated and engaged than
students who perceived their professors as being transformational or transactional.
In terms of a student’s perception of leadership in relation to their Guzzlers and Mufflers
scores, we found that students who perceived their professor as being laissez-faire scored the
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 49
highest compared to those students who perceived their professor as being transactional or
transformational. This means that these students who perceived their professor to be a laissez-
faire leader tended to be less motivated and engaged compared to students who perceived their
professors to be transactional or transformational.
In terms of a student’s perception of leadership and how well students performed, we
were not able to find a meaningful significance between perception and performance, however
we found that within our study, perception was a good predictor of performance. Research has
identified mixed results concerning leadership perceptions and performance (Hope, 2002). Our
study found that those students who perceived their leader as being transformational were the
students who scored the highest in terms of final grades. Students who perceived their leaders as
being transactional also performed well, but their final grades were not as high compared to
those who perceived their leader as transformational. These patterns supported our hypothesis to
some degree in stating that a student’s perception of leadership contributes to their performance.
Limitations
Although the researchers had sufficient data to test many of our predictions, the study
design and unrelated time constraints limited the overall number of participants. The researchers
visited the classes twice for approximately twenty minutes each at the end of their session
resulting in some students being less inclined to stay and participate. Furthermore, entering the
classroom at two different points during the semester increased the likelihood of participant
dropout. Participants also found the questionnaires to be time consuming and excused
themselves from participating. The researchers found this especially true for the evening classes
that ended approximately 8:30 PM resulting in an increased dropout rate. Nevertheless, though
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 50
the winter session limited the amount of classes being offered, it did allow for the students to
develop a stronger relationship with their professor due to the increased frequency of meetings.
Another challenge the researchers encountered during this process was time
constraints. The timeframe between gaining approval to conduct the study and the beginning of
the winter session was very narrow. The researchers had very limited time to reach out to
professors to obtain permission to utilize their classroom for participant recruitment. Due to this
time constraint, professors were unable to provide the allotted time necessary to conduct the
study, indicating that had they been informed sooner of the research, they would have made the
necessary provisions in include time for the study in their syllabus.
Finally, as previously mentioned the measure of collecting data included three surveys
each consisting over thirty questions. Though the surveys were an integral part of our study, the
length might have discouraged the students from fully completing all three in addition to the
supporting documents. Moreover, the Motivation and Engagement scale has not been utilized
extensively in the United States; therefore, perhaps a different and less time consuming scale
should have been used to measure motivation and engagement.
Future Studies
This study has highlighted a few areas for further research. While our focus was on the
possible link between an individual’s attachment style and their academic performance, future
studies might investigate the relationship of attachment style to other performance domains, such
as in the workplace. We chose to conduct our research in an academic setting by measuring
students’ attachment styles and how they perceive their professor as a leader figure. Such studies
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 51
in a workplace environment and other performance environments like a sports teams would add
to our understanding of the relationship between attachment style and performance.
Future research might also examine how a student’s perception of their professor’s
leadership compares to the professor’s perception of their own leadership style. This would be
beneficial because a professor might believe that they have a certain leadership style but in
reality their students perceive them as something else. This can help professors become aware of
students perceptions and help them adjust their teaching style to be more beneficial to their
students learning. The next step would be to analyze this relationship in other performance
domains such as between an employee and a supervisor.
Finally, an experiment could be conducted in order to observe how individuals perform
with a specific leadership style and a specific attachment style. For example, a group of
individuals with a secure attachment style will have a leader that exhibits the characteristics of a
transformational leader. The interaction between the transformational leader and secure group
would be observed along with how they perform in given tasks. This experiment would be
carried out for each leadership style and attachment style in order for the researcher to determine
which combination yields the best level of performance. This would allow researchers to explore
each of these scenarios to see what combinations would produce greater results when being
exposed to different variables. For instance, we would expect that someone with a secure
attachment style would work well with any type of leader. Whereas, someone with an insecure
attachment style who isolates themselves and are harder to connect with may work better with a
transactional leader. This may also depend in the environment in which the experiment is being
carried out, the industry, the level of position, the company culture and the various attachment
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 52
triggering events. An experiment like this would be beneficial for both companies and
individuals in order to help them see if they are a fit candidate for specific positions.
In conclusion, although our research did not show significant results in how a student’s
perception of their professor’s leadership style affects their grades and their level of motivation
and engagement, we were able to show patterns that were aligned with our hypothesis. Though
the results were not statistically significant, we also established that there was a relationship
between student’s grade and their attachment style. Nevertheless, we conclude that a student’s
perception of leadership was a better predictor of grades and their level of motivation and
engagement than attachment style. This helped us in understanding that the way students
perceive their professors’ impacts their grades and how motivated and engaged they are in the
class. Furthermore, this can assist professors in understanding their style of teaching and how
this affects their student’s needs and performance. This opens the possibility for professors to
partake in training and development in leadership as they strive to cater to their student’s
learning needs and produce highly motivated and engaged students with greater academic
performance.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 53
References
Ainsworth, M. D. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M.
Parks, J.Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Morris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle ( pp. 22–
51). London, UK: Tavistock/Routledge.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. ( 1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated
by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Mind
Garden Inc.
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), 226-244.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: theory, research, and
managerial applications (Fourth ed.). New York, NY: The free press. (Original work
published 1974)
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.
Bowlby, S., & King, P. (2004). Fifty Years Attachment Theory : The Donald Winnicott
Memorial Lecture. London, GBR: Karnac Books. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 54
transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal
Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138-157.
doi:10.1111/joop.12041
Brennan, K.; Clark, C.; Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measures of adult romantic attachment. In
J. Simpson and W. Rholes, Attachment Theory and Close Relationships. New York:
Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.
Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and
behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 71(4), 810-832.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working Models of Attachment Shape Perceptions of
Social Support: Evidence From Experimental and Observational Studies. Journal Of
Personality And Social Psychology, 87(3), 363-383. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student-Teacher Relationships
on Children's Social and Cognitive Development. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved October
27, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S153
Fletcher, K., Nutton, J., & Brend, D. (2015). Attachment, a matter of substance: The potential of
attachment theory in the treatment of addictions. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1),
109-117. doi:10.1007/s10615-014-0502-5
Fredrikesen, K., & Rhodes, J. (n.d.). The Role of Teacher Relationships in the Lives of Students.
Pearweb. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from
http://www.pearweb.org/ndyd/pdfs/samplecha
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 55
Gore, J. S., & Rogers, M. J. (2010). Why Do I Study? The Moderating Effect of
Attachment Style on Academic Motivation. Journal Of Social Psychology, 150(5), 560-
578. doi:10.1080/00224540903365448
Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and Engagement in English,
Mathematics and Science High School Subjects: Towards an Understanding of
Multidimensional Domain Specificity. Learning And Individual Differences, 17(3), 269-
279.
Haber, P. (2012). Perceptions of Leadership: An Examination of College Students'
Understandings of the Concept of Leadership. Journal Of Leadership Education, 11(2),
26-51.
Hansbrough, T. (2012). The Construction of a Transformational Leader: Follower
Attachment and Leadership Perceptions. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6),
1533-1549. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00913.x
Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management
Review, 21(4), 285-296. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006
Hart, J., Nailling, E., Bizer, G. Y., & Collins, C. K. (2015). Attachment theory as a framework
for explaining engagement with Facebook. Personality And Individual Differences, 7733-
40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.016
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior's Evaluations and Subordinates' Perceptions of
Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 73(4),
695-702.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process.
Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 56
Hope, S. R. (2002). Employee Perceptions of Leadership and Performance Management in the
Botswana Public Service. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 531.
Hudson, D. L. (2013). Attachment theory and leader-follower relationships. The Psychologist-
Manager Journal, 16(3), 147-159. doi:10.1037/mgr0000003
Keller, Tiffany (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: an attachment
perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 141–160. DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on
teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal Of Organizational
Behavior, 16(4), 319-333.
Lanciano, T., & Zammuner, V. L. (2014). Individual Differences in Work-Related Well-Being:
The Role of Attachment Style. Europe's Journal Of Psychology, 10(4), 694-711.
doi:10.5964/ejop.v10i4.814
Larose, S., Bernier, A., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2005). Attachment State of Mind, Learning
Dispositions, and Academic Performance During the College Transition. Developmental
Psychology, 41(1), 281-289. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.281
Lin, C. (2010). Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement
Based on Attachment Theory. Journal Of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517-531.
doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6
Lowe, K. B., & Galen Kroeck, K. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analytic.. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385.
Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 57
Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.
Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 415-426. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment
pattern. In T. B. Brazelton, M. W. Yogman, T. B. Brazelton, M. W. Yogman (Eds.) ,
Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing
Martin, A.J. (2014). The Motivation and Engagement Scale (14th Edition). Sydney, Australia:
Lifelong Achievement Grou (www.lifelongachievement.com).
Martin, A. J. (2008a). How Domain Specific Is Motivation and Engagement across School,
Sport, and Music? A Substantive-Methodological Synergy Assessing Young
Sportspeople and Musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 785-813
Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance settings: Testing their
generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal Of
Research In Personality, 42(6), 1607-1612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.003
Mechanistic organization. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mechanistic-organization.html
Moss, E., & St-Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance.
Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 863-874. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.863
Organic organization. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organic-organization.html
Otara, A. (2011). Perception: A Guide for Managers and Leaders. Journal of
Management and Strategy, 2, 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jms.v2n3p21
Pashaeia, Z. (2014). The Relationship Between Attachment Styles and Academic
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 58
Performance of Secondary School Students. Reef Resources Assessment and
Management Technical Paper, 40, 5-5. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from
http://behaviorsciences.com/
Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. S. (2004). Fearful attachment, working alliance and treatment response
for individuals
with major depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11(6), 414-424.
doi:10.1002/cpp.428
Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (Eds.). (1998). Attachment Theory and Close
Relationship (Illustrated ed.). Guilford Press.
Salter Ainsworth, M. D. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of
love. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The
destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal Of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80
Su Ahn, J., Smith, S. W., & Levine, T. R. (2002). To Stay or To Leave? The Role of Attachment
Styles in Communication Patterns and Potential Termination of Romantic Relationships
Following Discovery of Deception. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 236.
Transformational Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2014, from Transformational
Leadership website: http://www.langston.edu/sites/default/files/basic-content-
files/TransformationalLeadership.pdf
Tziner, A., & Tanami, M. (2013). Examining the links between attachment, perfectionism, and
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 59
job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Revista De Psicologia
Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 29(2), 65-74. doi:10.5093/tr2013a10
VanSloten, J. A., & Henderson, M. (2011). Attachment Orientation and Leadership
Style: The Effect of Avoidant Attachment Priming on Relational Leadership.
Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.yale.edu/yrurp/issues/
VanSloten%20&%20Henderson%20%282011%29.pdf
Wilson, A. J., Liu, Y., Keith, S. E., Wilson, A. H., Kermer, L. E., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp,
M. R. (2012). Transformational teaching and child psychological needs satisfaction, motivation,
and engagement in elementary school physical education. Sport, Exercise, And Performance
Psychology, 1(4), 215-230. doi:10.1037/a0028635
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 60
Appendix A
BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department You are being asked to participate in this study because we are interested in the relationship between the attachment style of an individual and their perceptions of leadership. We are curious as to how this relationship will impact performance and self-engagement. Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if your perception of leadership is related your attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you volunteer to participate in this research study, we will ask you to do the following: The package you have received from the researchers includes a Demographic Questionnaire and the Experiences in Close Relationships Self-Report, which measures your attachment style. You will be asked to provide your name and e-mail address. Please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code. At no point prior to the completion of the semester will the professor have the knowledge of those students in their classroom that chose to participate in the study or not. Below you will be asked by the researchers to provide permission for the use of
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 61
your final grade for the study. The final grade will used as a measure of performance. Please note that the researchers will contact you at the closure of the semester to obtain your final grade. We will obtain your final grade strictly through self-reporting of which you may consent to below. Upon signing this consent form and completing the surveys in the package, we ask that you place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit. Secondly, we will meet with you for our second visit during the last week of this term. At that time, we will distribute another package in an envelope which will include another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures your perception of your professor’s leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures your level of engagement. Neither the researchers nor your professor will be present as you complete the questionnaire. Just as in time one, when the questionnaire is completed, we’ll ask you to place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit.
Please circle yes or no to the following: I approve to have my final grade disclosed to the researchers via self-report for the purpose of a performance measure for this study. Yes No Time Commitment: Your participation in this research study is expected to last for a total of one hour between the two sessions. We believe each session will require no more than 30 minutes. Potential Risks or Discomforts: Though procedures are in place to prevent brief of confidentiality, risk still exists. We will convert the names of all the participants into a numerical code in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided for the purpose of this study. All original forms aside from the Consent Form will be shredded in February 2018, three years after the study has been completed. All Consent Forms will be stored in a locked file cabinet of a faculty member. Compensation for Participation: As a token of appreciation, all participants will be entered into a raffle where each person has 5% chance of winning. At the completion of the semester/study and through the use of the numerical identification number assigned to you, ten participants will be selected randomly via the Excel random number generator. All winners will be contacted via e-mail on February 23, 2015, and given a $10.00 Visa gift card. Confidentiality:
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 62
We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect your confidentiality by inputting all of the completed survey and questionnaire scores and the final grades to a password-protected external hard drive. We will also be locking all hard copies in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In February of 2018, we will shred the original documents twice to ensure it is destroyed and delete the Excel file with your identifying information. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Participants’ Rights: Your participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You can decide to withdraw your consent and stop participating in the research at any time, without any penalty. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 63
Signature of Participant: If you agree to participate in this research study, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Participant
_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Participant
____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Participant Date
_____________________________________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Consent
____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent Date
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 64
Appendix B
Demographic Questionnaire Please circle the answer that applies to you. All questions must be answered. 1. Please provide your full name below: *Your name will be converted into a numerical code upon completing the study to protect your identity and your information. ____________________________ 2. What is your age range? *If you are under 18, unfortunately you are ineligible to participate in this study. Under 18 18 – 23
24 – 29 30 – 35 Above 35
3. Gender:
Male Female Prefer not to disclose
4. Marital Status:
Single In a relationship Married Divorced
5. What is your race/ethnicity?
Asian or Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino American Indian/Native American
White/Caucasian More than one race
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 65
6. What is your classification in college?
Freshman (First Year) Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Unclassified
7. What range reflects your cumulative GPA?
4.0 - 3.7 3.6 - 2.7 2.5 - 1.7 1.5 - 0
8. What is your major at Baruch College?
Accountancy Ad Hoc Major Actuarial Science Art History and Theatre (Ad Hoc) Arts Administration (Ad Hoc) Asian & Asian American Studies (Ad Hoc) Biological Sciences Business Journalism Business Writing Communication Studies Computer Information Systems Corporate Communication Economics English Finance Graphic Communication History Industrial/Organizational Psychology International Business Journalism Management Management of Musical Enterprises Marketing Management Mathematics Modern Languages & Comparative Literature (Ad Hoc) Music
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 66
Natural Sciences (Ad Hoc) Philosophy Political Science Psychology Public Affairs Real Estate Religion and Culture (Ad Hoc) Sociology Spanish Statistics Statistics & Quantitative Modeling Undecided
Thank you for participating in our research study.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 67
Appendix C
Email Proposal for Professors
Subject: Research Participation Proposal
Date: Dear Professor, My name is ________________ and I am a Masters student at Baruch College in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program. My colleagues and I are conducting a study under the supervision of Dr. Daniel Benkendorf an adjunct professor at Baruch College. Our study is about how attachment style and leadership perception impacts a students overall performance, engagement and motivation. Our intention is to contribute to the current literature available on the four adult attachment styles and on transformational and transactional leadership. We are currently seeking the participation of faculty who will be teaching during the Winter Session of 2015. We are asking faculty members to allow us to survey their students to obtain information on their attachment styles, leadership perceptions and of level of self-engagement. Please note that our study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Baruch College. Overall, this study will involve two visits to your class during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your allotted classroom time. The first visit would be during the first week of the term. In order to ensure the privacy of your students, we will kindly ask for you to leave the classroom for the day. Then we will distribute two surveys and two copies of the consent form in an envelope. The second meeting would take place in the final week of the Winter Session during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your classroom time. As the students complete both packages, we would wait outside the classroom until all students who wished to participate have placed the completed the questionnaires on the front desk and had left the classroom. Finally, students will consent (or not) to self-report their grades reported to us via e-mail. The final grade would be used as a measure of the students’ performance. As a token of our appreciation for the students’ participation, ten students will be randomly and given a $10 gift card after data have been collected. If you agree to work with us, you will be asked to sign a permission form which will be e-mailed to you. In addition, we would like to schedule a meeting either in-person or by phone to review the details of this study and address any questions or concerns you might have. We would greatly appreciate your participation in our study. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 68
Appendix D
BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department
PERMISSION TO RECRUIT SUBJECTS
Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts
Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department
Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if students’ perception of leadership are related to their attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you grant us access to conduct the research study in your classroom, we will ask you to do the following: Allow us to access your classroom at the end of your lesson for two separate 30 minute sessions where we will be distributing questionnaires to your students. The first package, distributed on our first visit will include consent forms, a Demographic Questionnaire, and the Experiences in Close Relationship Self-Report, which measures attachment. During a second visit, we will
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 69
distribute another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures the student’s perception of your leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures the student’s overall level of engagement in college. We ask that you not be present in the classroom while the surveys are being completed to ensure that students feel free to participate or not without any perceived coercion. Students will be asked to provide their names and e-mail addresses but please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code to protect confidentiality. You will not be aware of which students in your classroom chose to participate in the study. Students will be asked to self-report their final grade via e-mail only after they consented to self -repot. The final grade will used as a measure of performance for the research study. Confidentiality: We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study, and that can identify you and/or your students. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect student’s confidentiality by inputting all the completed surveys and test scores to a password protected external hard drive. Upon entering the data into an electronic file, we will shred the original documents, aside from the consent form, twice to ensure it is destroyed. This will occur in February 2018. All consent forms will be stored in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect their identity and the information they have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Professors’ Rights: Your involvement in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to allow your class to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected]
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 70
If you have questions about your involvement or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Signature of Professor: If you agree to allow the researchers to use your class in this research study during the Winter 2015 session, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this permission form to keep.
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Professor
_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Professor
_____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Professor Date
Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent ______________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Permission
______________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Permission Date
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 73
Appendix 3: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Final Grade; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Final Grade)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 74
Appendix 4: ANOVA (Model1: Final Grade and ECR; Model 2: Final Grade, ECR, and MLQ)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 75
Appendix 5: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Final Grade)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 76
Appendix 6: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 77
Appendix 7: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 78
Appendix 8: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Boosters)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 79
Appendix 9: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Guzzlers/Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 80
Appendix 10: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 81
Appendix 11: Multiple Regression Coefficients (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 82
Appendix 12: Experiences in Close Relationships and Final Grades
Note. Final grades are displayed with an inverse relationship for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Preoccupied students had the highest means of final grades and were therefore the highest performers. Students with a Dismissive attachment style had the lowest means and therefore had the lowest final grades.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 83
Appendix 13: Leadership Styles and Students’ Final Grades
Note: Final grade means are displayed with an inverse relationship to the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders to be Transformational had the highest final grades over students who labeled their professors to be laissez faire.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 84
Appendix 14: Attachment Style and Engagement Levels
Note. Booster scores are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment style. Preoccupied participants had the highest levels of engagement in the classroom. Dismissive individuals displayed the lowest levels of engagement.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 85
Appendix 15: Engagement Levels and Leadership Style
Note. Engagement scores are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership Style. Transformational leader are coded as 1, Transactional leaders are coded as 2, and Laissez faire leaders are coded as 3. Students who identified their leader as Laissez faire had the highest levels of engagement scores, whereas students who labeled their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 86
Appendix 16: GuzzlerMuffler Scores and Attachment Style
Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Secure individuals had the lowest means indicating they displayed the lowest levels of self-sabotage and anxiety. Dismissive students on the other hand, had the highest means indicating high levels of self-sabotage and stress in school.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 87
Appendix 17: GuzzlerMuffler Means and Leadership Style
Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders as Laissez faire had the highest GuzzlerMuffler scores indicating highest levels of self-sabotage or anxiety in the classroom. Students who rated their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest levels of self-sabotage behaviors.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 88
Appendix 18: Mean of Final Grades and ECR
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 89
Appendix 19: Mean of Final Grades and MLQ
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 90
Appendix 20: Mean of Boosters and ECR
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 91
Appendix 21: Mean of Booster scores and MLQ
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 92
Appendix 22: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and ECR