Attachment, Caregiving, and Altruism

23 Pages·2005·0.16 MB·English

JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology Copyright2005bytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation
2005,Vol.89,No.5,817–839 0022-3514/05/$12.00 DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.817
Attachment, Caregiving, and Altruism: Boosting Attachment Security
Increases Compassion and Helping
Mario Mikulincer Phillip R. Shaver, Omri Gillath, and
Bar-IlanUniversity Rachel A. Nitzberg
UniversityofCalifornia,Davis
RecentstudiesbasedonJ.Bowlby’s(1969/1982)attachmenttheoryrevealthatbothdispositionaland
experimentally enhanced attachment security facilitate cognitive openness and empathy, strengthen
self-transcendentvalues,andfostertoleranceofout-groupmembers.Moreover,dispositionalattachment
security is associated with volunteering to help others in everyday life and to unselfish motives for
volunteering.Thepresentarticlereports5experiments,replicatedin2countries(IsraelandtheUnited
States),testingthehypothesisthatincreasesinsecurity(accomplishedthroughbothimplicitandexplicit
priming techniques) foster compassion and altruistic behavior. The hypothesized effects were consis-
tently obtained, and various alternative explanations were explored and ruled out. Dispositional
attachment-related anxiety and avoidance adversely influenced compassion, personal distress, and
altruistic behavior in theoretically predictable ways. As expected, attachment security provides a
foundation for care-oriented feelings and caregiving behaviors, whereas various forms of insecurity
suppressorinterferewithcompassionatecaregiving.
Keywords:attachment,altruism,empathy,compassion,caregiving
Thereisalargeliteratureonaltruistichelping(i.e.,helpingwith Bowlbycalledthe“caregivingbehavioralsystem”—aninnatebe-
the goal of benefiting the other person; see Post, Underwood, havioral system that responds to the needs of dependent others,
Schloss,&Hurlbut,2002,foracollectionofreviews),muchofit especially (but not only) children. This behavioral system is
examining whether there really is such a thing as unselfish altru- thought to have evolved mainly to complement the “attachment
ism, especially directed toward strangers and nonkin familiars behavioral system,” which governs people’s, especially young
(e.g., Batson, 2002). More recently, researchers have focused on children’s,emotionalattachmentstotheircaregivers,anditsfunc-
thepossibilitythatthereareidentifiableandmeasurablemotivesor tioningisexpectedtobeinfluencedbyaperson’ssenseofattach-
reasons for helping strangers (e.g., Penner, 2002). Of special ment security. Attachment theory has already proven useful in
interest are the mental mechanisms, some learned and some po- explainingempathyandphilanthropicvolunteerism(e.g.,Gillath,
tentially innate, that account for helpful behavior (e.g., Batson, Shaver,&Mikulincer,2005;Gillathetal.,2005;Mikulinceretal.,
Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002; Losoya & Eisenberg, 2001). To 2001)andhasreceivedsupportfromseveralexperimentalstudies.
date, however, there have been relatively few attempts to link
altruistic helping to broad psychological theories of personality,
motivation,andsocialbehavior.Evenwhenexistingtheorieshave Attachment Theory and Research
beencalleduponforexplanations,fewexperimentalstudieshave
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982), human
beenconductedtotestthesetheories.
The purpose of the present article is to conceptualize altruistic beings are innately equipped with attachment and caregiving be-
helpingwithregardtoBowlbyandAinsworth’sattachmenttheo- havioralsystems,amongotherimportantbehavioralsystems(e.g.,
ries (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969/ exploration, sexuality) because during evolution becoming emo-
1982, 1973, 1980). When considered from the standpoint of at- tionallyattachedtocaregivers(e.g.,parents)andprovidingcarefor
tachment theory, altruistic behavior is viewed in terms of what dependent or injured individuals (e.g., infants, children, injured
familymembers)enhancedthechancesofsurvival,reproduction,
andsuccessfulparenting(i.e.,geneticsuccessorinclusivefitness).
AccordingtoBowlby(1969/1982),thefunctionoftheattachment
Editor’sNote. ThisarticlewasacceptedbyguesteditorMargaretS.
systemistoprotectapersonfromdangerbyassuringthatheorshe
Clark.—CSC
maintains proximity to caring and supportive others (attachment
MarioMikulincer,DepartmentofPsychology,Bar-IlanUniversity,Ra- figures) who provide protection, support, and relief in times of
matGan,Israel;PhillipR.Shaver,OmriGillath,andRachelA.Nitzberg,
adversity. The attachment system is most evident during infancy
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofCalifornia,Davis.
and childhood but continues to be important across the life span.
Preparation of this article was facilitated by a grant from the Fetzer
Its innate parameters are gradually shaped and altered by social
Institute.
experienceswithattachmentfigures,resultingeventuallyinfairly
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mario
Mikulincer, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan stable individual differences in attachment style—a systematic
52900,Israel.E-mail:[email protected] pattern of relational expectations, emotions, and behaviors that
817
818 MIKULINCER,SHAVER,GILLATH,ANDNITZBERG
results from a particular attachment history (Fraley & Shaver, therefore directs attention to the other’s distress rather than to
2000;Hazan&Shaver,1987). one’sownemotionalstate.Initsprototypicalform—thatis,inthe
Research,beginningwithAinsworthetal.(1978)andcontinu- parent–child relationship—the set goal of the child’s attachment
ingthroughrecentstudiesbysocialandpersonalitypsychologists system (proximity that fosters protection, reduces distress, in-
(reviewed by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), indicates that major creasessafety,andestablishesasecurebase)isalsotheaimofthe
individual differences in attachment style can be measured along parent’scaregivingsystem.Extendingthisconceptualizationtothe
two orthogonal dimensions, attachment-related avoidance and broader realm of compassion and altruism, one can view the
attachment-related anxiety (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). A caregiving system as being activated by the presence of a dis-
person’s position on the avoidance (or avoidant-attachment) di- tressedperson,evenastrangerinneed,anditsaimasbeingtoalter
mensionindicatestheextenttowhichheorshedistrustsrelation- theneedyperson’sconditionuntilsignsofincreasedsafety,well-
ship partners’ goodwill and strives to maintain behavioral inde- being,andsecurityareevident.
pendence and emotional distance from partners. A person’s Beyond explaining this complementarity between the support
position on the anxiety (or anxious-attachment) dimension indi- seeker’sattachmentsystemandthesupportprovider’scaregiving
catesthedegreetowhichheorsheworriesthatapartnerwillnot system, Bowlby (1969/1982) also conceptualized the interplay
beavailableandresponsiveintimesofneed.Peoplewhoscorelow betweenthesetwosystemswithinthemindofapotentialsupport
onthesetwodimensionsaresaidtobesecurelyattachedortohave provider. Just as Ainsworth et al. (1978) argued that a child’s
asecureattachmentstyle. explorationsystemisinhibitedordistortedbyanurgentneedfor
Since the mid-1980s, scores of studies have shown that a per- attachment security in strange or threatening situations, we (Gil-
son’s attachment style, assessed with fairly simple, two- lath,Shaver,&Mikulincer,2005)andothers(e.g.,B.C.Feeney&
dimensionalself-reportmeasures,isapowerfulpredictorofvari- Collins, 2001) have argued that the altruistic, innate tendency to
ouspsychologicalphenomenaincludingself-andsocialschemas, attend empathically to others’ distress and provide care when
self-regulation of stress and emotion, the quality of relationships needed can be interfered with, suppressed, or overridden by at-
withromanticormaritalpartners,sexualmotivation,andreactions tachmentinsecurity.Underconditionsofthreat,adultsoftenthink
to relationship breakup or loss (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003; first of turning to others for support and comfort rather than
Shaver & Clark, 1994; Shaver & Hazan, 1993, for extensive providingsupporttoothers.Atsuchtimestheyarelikelytobeso
reviews). Attachment security (i.e., relatively low scores on the focused on their own needs that they lack the mental resources
avoidance and anxiety dimensions) is related to positive concep- necessarytoattendempathicallytoothers’distressandtoengage
tions of self and others, curiosity and interest in exploration, inaltruisticbehavior.Onlywhenreliefisattainedandasenseof
cognitive openness and information-processing flexibility, rela- security is restored can many people easily direct attention and
tionship commitment, and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Bar- energy to other behavioral systems, such as caregiving. Only a
tholomew&Horowitz,1991;Collins&Read,1990;J.A.Feeney, relatively secure person can easily perceive others not only as
2002;Mikulincer,1997). sourcesofsecurityandsupport,butalsoassufferinghumanbeings
whohaveimportantneedsandthereforedeservesupport.
The Caregiving System and Its Interplay With the In short, the aim of the caregiving system is more likely to
becomesalientandberealizedinbehaviorwhenapersonissecure
Attachment System
enough to allow for an empathic focus on someone else’s needs.
According to Bowlby (1969/1982), the caregiving system is This ability to help others is a consequence of having witnessed
designedtoprovideprotectionandsupporttootherswhoareeither and benefited from good care provided by one’s own attachment
chronically dependent or temporarily in need. It is inherently figures,whichbothincreasesone’ssenseofsecurityandprovides
altruistic in nature, being aimed at the alleviation of others’ dis- models of good caregiving (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Kunce &
tress, although the system itself presumably evolved because it Shaver, 1994). Furthermore, the sense of attachment security re-
increased the inclusive fitness of individuals by making it more ducesneedsforself-protectionandself-enhancement(Mikulincer
likely that children and tribe members with whom the individual & Shaver, 2005) and allows a person to shift resources to other
shared genes would survive and reproduce (Hamilton, 1964). behavioral systems, including caregiving, and to take the other’s
Within attachment theory, the caregiving system provides an en- perspective(Mikulinceretal.,2002)—thekeymechanismunder-
tre´e to the study of compassion and altruism; moreover, under- lying altruistic helping (Batson, 1991, 2002). According to our
standing this system provides a foundation for devising ways of currentunderstandingoftheprocess,attachmentsecuritydoesnot
increasingpeople’scompassionandeffectivealtruism. activatethecaregivingsystemdirectlybutratherprovidesasolid
Caregivingreferstoabroadarrayofbehaviorsthatcomplement andstablepsychologicalfoundationforaformofempathythatis
a relationship partner’s attachment behaviors or signals of need. not overwhelmed by others’ suffering or threatened by the inter-
The set goal of such behaviors is reduction of the partner’s suf- dependence entailed by caregiving. In other words, attachment
fering (which Bowlby, 1969/1982, called providing a “safe ha- securityfacilitateshelpingbehaviorthatistrulyaimedatbenefit-
ven”) or fostering the partner’s growth and development (which ing another person even when there is no egoistic reason for
Bowlbycalledprovidinga“securebase”forexploration).Thekey helping.
mechanism for achieving these goals is the adoption of what Attachmenttheorycanalsoexplaincasesinwhichpeoplefailto
Batson (1991) called an empathic stance toward others’ suffer- behave truly altruistically. Theoretically, we expect attachment-
ing—takingtheperspectiveofthedistressedpersontosensitively relatedinsecuritiestointerferewithaltruistichelping.Attachment-
andeffectivelyhelphimorherreducesufferinganddistress.That anxious individuals tend to focus more on their own distress and
is, the caregiving system is focused on the other’s welfare and needforgreaterattachmentsecurity(Collins&Read,1994).These
ATTACHMENT,CAREGIVING,ANDALTRUISM 819
concerns may draw mental resources away from taking the per- outsidetheromanticdomainwerereportedbySoerensen,Webster,
spectiveofadistressedpersonandengaginginaltruisticbehavior. and Roggman (2002), who found that attachment security pre-
Attachment-avoidant individuals tend to be uncomfortable with dictedpreparationtocareforolderrelatives.
closenessandinterdependenceandmorecynicalanddisapproving Research also indicates that attachment security is associated
in response to other people’s signals of vulnerability, weakness, with compassionate responses to needy strangers. In a study of
and need (Collins & Read, 1994). Obviously, these dispositions preschoolers,forexample,Kestenbaum,Farber,andSroufe(1989)
mightwellinterferewithcompassionandaltruism. foundapositiveassociationbetweensecureattachmenttomother
Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatanxiousandavoidantpeople, andempathicresponsestootherchildrenwhoweresuffering.Ina
althoughbothareconceptualizedinattachmenttheoryasinsecure, conceptuallysimilarstudyofadults,WestmaasandSilver(2001)
willreactinthesamewaytoanotherperson’sdistress.Inanumber found that adults who scored high on attachment avoidance be-
of studies, Batson (1991) found that lack of helpful, altruistic havedlesssupportivelytowardapersonwithcancerthanpartici-
behavior can be due either to lack of empathy and a prosocial pantswhoscoredlowonthisdimension.Inaddition,participants
orientation toward other people or to what he called “personal whoscoredhighonattachmentanxietyreportedgreaterdiscomfort
distress,”aformofself-focusedworryanddiscomfortthatisnot whileinteractingwiththepersonwithcancerthanparticipantswho
easilytranslatedintoeffectivehelping.Onthebasisofattachment scored low on this dimension. Recently, Gillath et al. (2005)
theoryandpreviousresearch(e.g.,Gillath,Shaver&Mikulincer, examinedassociationsbetweenattachmentstyleandvolunteerism
2005), we expected people who score high on attachment avoid- (long-term, planned, pro-social behavior, especially behavior in-
ance to distance themselves from others’ suffering, resulting in tended to benefit strangers; Penner, 2002). In two studies con-
decreasedempathyandaltruistichelping.Incontrast,weexpected ducted in three countries (Israel, the Netherlands, and the United
peoplewhoscorehighonattachmentanxietytoworryabouttheir States), we found that attachment insecurities were negatively
own personal distress and desire for social acceptance, which correlated with volunteer activities and positively correlated with
mightsometimescausethemtoseemupsetaboutothers’suffering egoisticmotivesforvolunteering.
withouttheirdistressresultingineffectivecaregiving. There is also evidence that contextual, laboratory-induced
Attachment theory is also a useful framework for explaining augmentation of a person’s sense of attachment security in-
casesinwhichpeopleendorseegoisticmotivesforhelpingornot creases empathy and prosocial attitudes. For example, Miku-
helping.Thereisclearevidencethathelpingbehaviorisnotalways lincer and Shaver (2001) reported that subliminal or supralim-
guided by other-oriented, altruistic motives but can also be gov- inalactivationofattachment-securityrepresentations(thoughts
erned by egoistic motives such as enhancing one’s own mood, offeelingcomfortedandreassuredbyattachmentfiguresduring
relievingone’sowndistress,andprotectingone’spersonallyvalu- times of stress) increased people’s willingness to interact with
ablecloserelationships(Cialdinietal.,1987,1997;Smith,Keat- out-groupmembers.Inanothersetofstudies(Mikulinceretal.,
ing, & Stotland, 1982). Theoretically, we expected attachment 2003), an experimentally boosted sense of security increased
insecurities,mainlyalongtheattachment-avoidancedimension,to the endorsement of values that encourage caring for others,
favor the endorsement of egoistic motives for helping. For including strangers.
avoidantpersons,whoarenotabletodealdirectlyorsymbolically In a direct experimental test of compassion, Mikulincer et al.
with pain or distress and tend to engage in defensive maneuvers (2001) examined effects of dispositional and contextually aug-
aimed at maintaining positive mood and protecting or enhancing mentedattachmentsecurityoncompassionateresponsestoothers’
their fragile self-esteem (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003), helping suffering. Across five experiments, a variety of methods for en-
otherscouldbeviewedasonepossibleroutetofeelingbetterabout hancingattachmentsecurity(askingparticipantstorecallpersonal
themselves.Therefore,whensuchapayoffissalient,theywould memoriesofsupportivecare,havingthemreadastoryaboutone
be eager to help with the ultimate goal of benefiting themselves. person’sprovisionofcareforanother,havingthemnoticeapicture
When no egoistic payoff is salient, avoidant persons would not of a supportive interaction, or subliminally exposing them to
haveareasontohelpandwoulddistancethemselvesfromothers’ proximity-relatedwords),butnotsimpleenhancementofpositive
suffering. affect, strengthened reports of compassion in reaction to others’
There is extensive evidence that attachment security is associ- suffering. In addition, dispositional avoidance was inversely re-
ated with responsive and sensitive care for relationship partners. lated to compassion. Attachment anxiety was associated with
For example, secure mothers are more caring and supportive in personal distress in response to another’s suffering, but not with
interactionswiththeirchildrenthaninsecuremothers(e.g.,Crow- compassion.
ell&Feldman,1991;Rholes,Simpson,&Blakely,1995).Secure
individualsarealsomoresensitivetoromanticpartners’needsand
The Current Studies
describethemselvesasmorelikelytoprovideemotionalsupportto
theirdistressedpartners(e.g.,J.A.Feeney,1996;J.A.Feeney& Despite the robust associations we have observed between at-
Hohaus, 2001; Kunce & Shaver, 1994). Their self-reports are tachmentsecurityandcompassionateresponsestoothers’distress,
corroborated by partners’ reports. Moreover, self-report findings the studies we have conducted so far suffer from at least three
have been bolstered by observational studies in which dating limitations. First, Mikulincer et al. (2001) assessed only self-
couples were videotaped while one partner waited to undergo a reported reactions (compassion and personal distress), not actual
stressfulexperience(e.g.,B.C.Feeney&Collins,2001;Simpson, helpingbehavior.Thisisanimportantgapintheevidencelinking
Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992; Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, attachmentsecuritywithaltruistichelping,becauseapersonmay
2002). More secure participants in those studies spontaneously feelpersonallydistressedorevencompassionatewithoutactually
offeredmoresupporttotheirdistressedpartners.Similarfindings helping(e.g.,Batson,1991).Second,experimentsinMikulinceret
820 MIKULINCER,SHAVER,GILLATH,ANDNITZBERG
al.(2001)wereconductedonlyinIsrael.Wewantedtobesureour Toassessemotionalreactionstoaneedyperson(empathyor
conclusionsgeneralizedtoothersocieties. compassion, as well as personal distress) and participants’
Third, although Mikulincer et al. (2001) showed that experi- actual decision to help or not to help this person, we created a
mentally induced attachment security increased compassionate laboratory situation in which participants watched another os-
responses and dispositional attachment avoidance was related in- tensible participant (a young woman confederate who was
verselytocompassion,theseinvestigatorsfailedtoconsideralter- actually appearing on videotape) while she performed a series
native,moreegoisticexplanationsofwhatmightonlyhavelooked ofaversivetasksinanearbyroom.Asthestudyprogressed,the
like altruistic responses. This is important, given our theoretical confederate became increasingly distressed by the aversive
analysis, because we expected attachment security to facilitate tasks,finallygettingquiteupsetabouttheprospectofhavingto
altruistichelpingbyallowingpeopletotaketheperspectiveofthe
pet a large, live tarantula in an open-topped glass tank. After a
distressedperson—themainmechanismunderlyingaltruism(Bat-
short break in the procedure, supposedly to allow the confed-
son, 1991). That is, we expected attachment security to promote
eratetocalmdown,participantsratedtheiremotionalreactions
helpingevenwhentherewasnoegoisticpayoffsuchasenhancing
whilewatchingthiswoman(compassion,personaldistress)and
one’sownmood,experiencingempathicjoy,orbenefitingsome-
their willingness to help by replacing her in the subsequent
one to whom one was allied or obligated (Cialdini et al., 1987,
tasks. Then, after being told that she felt very uncomfortable
1997;Smith,Keating,&Stotland,1989).Thesemotivesshouldbe
with the remaining tasks, participants were given an opportu-
more salient in insecure individuals, whose worries and attitudes
nitytotraderoleswithher,whichmeantthattherealparticipant
interfere with normal altruistic functioning of the caregiving
would bear the distress associated with those tasks.
system.
As with the other studies reported in this article, Study 1 was
In the five experiments reported here, we examined effects of
conducted simultaneously in the United States and Israel. It con-
experimentally enhanced attachment security on compassion and
sisted of two sessions. In the first, participants completed the
altruisticbehaviorinsamplesofIsraeliandAmericanparticipants.
Experience in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; Brennan et al.,
We also examined associations between dispositional attachment
1998). In the second, they were randomly divided into three
anxietyandavoidance,ontheonehand,andmeasuresofcompas-
sion,personaldistress,andhelping,ontheother,andevaluatedthe experimental conditions according to the subliminal primes to
egoisticexplanationsofhelpingproposedbyCialdinietal.(1987, which they were exposed immediately before the aversive-task
1997) and Smith et al. (1989). We expected that contextually scenario just described: priming with the name of a participant’s
heightened attachment security would facilitate compassion and security-providingattachmentfigure,primingwiththenameofa
helping,thatdispositionalattachmentanxietywouldbeassociated close person who did not function as an attachment figure, or
with high levels of personal distress in response to another per- priming with the name of a mere acquaintance. At the point of
son’s suffering without promoting helpful behavior, and that dis- makingadecisionaboutreplacingthedistressedwoman,allpar-
positional attachment avoidance would be associated with rela- ticipants completed brief measures of compassion, personal dis-
tively low levels of both compassion and helping. We further tress, and willingness to take her place. Our predictions were as
expectedtheeffectsofsecurityenhancementtobeattributableto follows:
genuinely empathic altruism and therefore to be observed even
whentherewasnoegoisticreasonforhelping.Totheextentthat 1. Participants in the security-priming condition would re-
egoistic motives played any role in helping at all, we expected porthigherlevelsofcompassionandgreaterwillingness
themtooccurmainlyamonginsecurepeople.Finally,becausewe tohelpthedistressedwomanandwouldactuallybemore
anticipatedthatcritics,asinthecaseofBatson’sresearch,would likely to help her (i.e., trade roles with her) than would
proposethattheeffectsofattachmentsecuritywereactuallydueto participantsinthetwocontrolconditions.
confounded variables such as self-esteem and neuroticism, we
includedmeasuresofthosevariablesinStudies3–5. 2. Participants’ scores on attachment avoidance would be
inversely correlated with rated compassion, willingness
to help the needy woman, and actual agreement to help
Study 1
her.
In Study 1, we assessed participants’ dispositional attachment
style,manipulatedthemomentarymentalavailabilityofsecurity- 3. Participants’scoresonattachmentanxietywouldbepos-
related representations, and assessed their effects on emotional itivelyassociatedwithratingsofpersonaldistresswhile
reactions to a needy woman and on willingness to help her. To watching the distressed woman performing the aversive
heightentheaccessibilityofmentalrepresentationsofattachment tasks.
security, we used a subliminal priming technique developed by
Mikulincer et al. (2001). Participants were exposed for 20 ms to Wealsoexploredpossibleinteractionsbetweensecuritypriming
names of people they had previously nominated as security- andscoresonthetwoattachment-styledimensions.Althoughwe
enhancing attachment figures. We compared this condition with did not make any prediction about these interactive effects, it
twocontrolconditions:(a)subliminalprimingwithnamesofclose seemed possible that the effects of security priming would be
relationship partners who did not serve a secure-base function in independentoftheeffectsofattachmentstyle,astheyhadbeenin
the attachment-theory sense and (b) subliminal priming with previous studies (e.g., Mikulincer et al., 2001; Mikulincer &
names of acquaintances who were not close and did not serve Shaver, 2001). Because all human beings are potentially respon-
secure-basefunctionsfortheparticipant. sivetoanenhancedsenseofsecurity,theyallmaybesusceptible
ATTACHMENT,CAREGIVING,ANDALTRUISM 821
Table1
Cronbach’sAlphaCoefficientsfortheScalesUsedintheFiveStudies,ReportedSeparatelyfor
theAmericanandIsraeliSamples
Measure Study1 Study2 Study3 Study4 Study5
Attachmentanxiety
Americansample .92 .89 .86 .85 .89
Israelisample .93 .92 .85 .84 .89
Attachmentavoidance
Americansample .93 .92 .89 .88 .84
Israelisample .87 .88 .86 .85 .82
Compassion
Americansample .85 .79 .86 .89 .90
Israelisample .92 .90 .87 .85 .86
Personaldistress
Americansample .86 .90 .88 .89 .89
Israelisample .93 .88 .88 .88 .91
Willingnesstohelp
Americansample .90 .91 .91
Israelisample .90 .89 .91
Self-esteem
Americansample .88 .89 .89
Israelisample .93 .88 .87
Neuroticism
Americansample .89 .92 .90
Israelisample .88 .88 .86
totheeffectsofsecurityprimingregardlessofvariationsinattach- someweresufficientlystressfulthatsomepeopledidnotwanttocomplete
mentstyle. them.Theythenreceivedthelistoftaskstheotherpersonwouldperform:
lookingatgoryphotographsofpeoplewhohadbeenseverelyinjuredor
Method killed;pettingalaboratoryrat;immersingonehandinicewaterfor30s;
petting a live tarantula; touching a preserved sheep’s eye; petting a live
Participants. Ninety American undergraduates at the University of snake;insertingonehandintoasealed,blackbag;allowingcockroachesto
California,Davis(68womenand22men,ranginginagefrom19to30 crawlonone’shandandarm.Participantswerealsotoldtherewasavideo
years,Mdn(cid:1)21),and90IsraeliundergraduatesfromBar-IlanUniversity camera in each room connected to TV monitors (the participant saw
(68womenand22men,ranginginagefrom18to33years,Mdn(cid:1)22) himselforherselfonaTVmonitoratfirst,toaddtothecredibilityofthis
participatedinthestudyinexchangeforcreditstowardaresearchpartic- claim,butheorshewasthentoldthattheotherpersonwouldnotseethem
ipationrequirementinoneoftheirpsychologycourses.1Eachofthetwo
duringthefirstphaseoftheexperiment).Theyweretoldthattheywould
samples, American and Israeli, was randomly divided into three experi-
seetheotherpersonafterthecameraintheotherroomwasswitchedon,
mentalconditionswith30participantsineach.
because this was necessary to allow the participant to watch her
Materialsandprocedure. Thestudywasrunintwosessions.2Inthe
performance.
firstsession,participantscompletedtheECRscale.Theyratedtheextent
towhicheachitemwasdescriptiveoftheirfeelingsincloserelationships
ona7-pointscalerangingfromnotatall(1)toverymuch(7).Eighteen
itemstappedattachmentanxiety(e.g.,“Iworryaboutbeingabandoned”) 1Eachstudyinvolvednewsamplesofparticipantswhohadnotpartic-
and18itemstappedattachmentavoidance(e.g.,“Iprefernottoshowa ipatedintheotherstudies.Acrossthefivestudies,inclusionofgenderas
partnerhowIfeeldeepdown”).Thereliabilityandvalidityofthescales an additional factor in the analyses did not notably change the reported
havebeenrepeatedlydemonstrated(e.g.,Brennanetal.,1998;Mikulincer findings.Moreover,nosignificantandconsistentgenderdifferenceswere
&Florian,2000).Inthecurrentstudyaswell,Cronbach’salphaswerehigh foundacrossthefivestudies,andnoneoftheinteractionsbetweengender
fortheanxietyandavoidancescales(seeTable1).Higherscoresindicated and the other predictor variables were significant. We therefore say no
higher anxiety and avoidance; low scores on both dimensions indicated moreaboutgenderexceptforbriefcommentsintheGeneralDiscussion
attachmentsecurity.3 section.
Threetofourweekslater,adifferentexperimenterofthesamegenderas 2Acrossallfivestudies,thematerialsandprocedureswereidenticalin
theparticipant,blindtoparticipants’attachmentscores,contactedthemby the paired U.S. and Israeli studies, although all of the materials were
phoneandinvitedthemtotakepartinastudy.Eachpersonthencameto presentedinEnglishintheU.S.studiesandinHebrewintheIsraelistudies.
thelaboratory(oneatatime)andwasrunthroughtheexperiment.After Carefultranslationandback-translationprocedureswereusedtomakethe
arrivingatthelaboratory,participantswereinformedthatthestudydealt materialsassimilaraspossibleinthetwolanguages.
withsocialabilities,reactionstounpleasantstimuli,andreactionstoother 3In all five studies, statistical analyses revealed no significant differ-
people behaving in unpleasant situations. They were told that there was encesinattachmentscoresasafunctionofgender,nationality,orcondi-
anotherparticipantinthenextroom,afemalefellowstudentwhohadbeen tion.Acrossthestudies,thecorrelationbetweenanxietyandavoidancewas
randomlyassignedtoperformsomeunpleasanttaskswhiletheparticipant generallylow,rangingfrom.09to.23intheAmericansampleandfrom
receivingtheinstructionshadbeenrandomlyassignedtowatchtheother .11to.28intheIsraelisample.Themeancorrelationacrossallsamples
personperformthesetasksandevaluateherperformance.Participantswere was.18.Thisiscompatiblewiththeconceptualorthogonalityofthetwo
then informed that, although none of the tasks was actually dangerous, dimensionsofinsecurity(Brennanetal.,1998).
822 MIKULINCER,SHAVER,GILLATH,ANDNITZBERG
Following these instructions, participants completed three measures enoughtoallowittobeconsciouslyseen.Participantsweretoldthateach
designed to elicit names of attachment figures, other close persons, and trialwouldbeginwithanxinthemiddleofthescreen,wheretheyshould
acquaintances to be used in the priming task. The order of these three keeptheireyesfixed,followedbyamildflash,whichtheyshouldignore,
measureswasrandomizedacrossparticipants.Inonemeasure,participants and then, after a brief pause, the target letter string. It is important to
received a list of 100 first names displayed in an Excel worksheet and mention that even when a prime is presented for as little as 20 ms, the
markedthenamesofpeopletheyknew.Theywereinstructedtopress3 afterimage may temporarily remain active in the peripheral parts of the
afterthenameofapersontheyknewand1afterthenameofapersonthey visual system, allowing people to recognize the name and thereby inter-
didnotknow.Inasecondmeasure,participantswereaskedtotype,inan feringwiththesubliminalprimingprocedure.Toavoidthisproblem,we
Excelworksheet,thefirstnamesoftheirfather,mother,brothers,sisters, masked each prime with an XXX pattern immediately following its
best friends, current and previous romantic partners, grandfathers, and presentation.
grandmothers.(Nomentionwasmadeaboutthefunctionsthesepeopledid Forpurposesofthistask,werandomlydividedparticipantsintothree
ordidnotserveintheparticipant’slife.) conditions according to the name to be subliminally presented in all 20
Thethirdmeasurewasacomputerizedversionofthesix-itemWHOTO trials. In the security-priming condition, the prime was the name of the
scale developed by Fraley and Davis (1997; based on previous work by personmostfrequentlymentionedasanattachmentfigurewhenthepar-
Hazan,Hutt,Sturgeon,&Bricker,1991).Thisscaleaskedparticipantsto ticipant completed the WHOTO measure (in cases where the top two
providethefirstnamesofcloserelationshippartnerswhoserveattachment namesappearedequallyoften,thecomputerprogramchoseoneofthemat
functions. Specifically, participants were asked to record in a separate random).Intheclose-person-primingcondition,theprimewasthenameof
Excelworksheetthefirstnamesofpeoplewithwhomtheysoughtprox- aclose-relationshippartnerwhowasnotnominatedasservinganyofthe
imity and who provided a safe haven or secure base for them or both. attachmentfunctionsmentionedintheWHOTOscale.Theprogramwas
(Thesetwoconceptsfromattachmenttheorywereexplainedinlaypersons’ designed to pick the name of a participant’s mother if she was not
terms.)Twoitemstappedtheproximity-seekingaspectofattachment,with nominatedintheWHOTOscale.Incaseswhereshewasnominatedasan
oneofthemfocusedonseparationprotest(“Whoisthepersonyoumost attachmentfigure,thecomputerpickedthenameoftheparticipant’sfather
like to spend time with?”; “Who is the person it is hardest to be away astheprime.Iffatherwasnotavailable,theprogrammovedthroughthe
from?”). Two items tapped the safe-haven function (“Who is the person namesofsisters,brothers,andclosefriendswhowerenotnominatedas
youwanttotalktowhenyouareworriedaboutsomething?”“Whoisthe attachmentfiguresandchoseonerandomlytoserveastheprime.Inthe
personyouturntowhenyouarefeelingdown?”),andtwoitemstappedthe acquaintance-priming condition, the prime was the name of a person
secure-basefunction(“Whoisthepersonyouknowwillalwaysbethere knownbytheparticipantbutnotviewedasaclose-relationshippartneror
foryou?”;“Whoisthepersonyouwanttoshareyoursuccesseswith?”). anattachmentfigure.
For each item, participants wrote the first name of the person who best Following the lexical-decision task, the experimenter said he or she
servedthetargetedfunctionandlabeledthatperson’srelationalrole(e.g., would go to the next room to tell the other experimenter that his or her
mother,father,friend). participantcouldnowbeginperformingthetasksonthelist.Theexperi-
Acrossallofthestudiesreportedinthisarticle,theaveragenumberof menteralsosaidtheotherexperimenterwouldbegintodisplaytheother
differentattachmentfigures’namesparticipantsgeneratedinthesix-item participant’sperformanceontheactualparticipant’sTVmonitor.Aspart
WHOTOscalewas3.36(SD(cid:1)1.09).Aclosefriendwasnominatedasan ofthecoverstory,theexperimenterremindedtheparticipanttofocuson
attachment figure in 43% of the cases (across all WHOTO items), a thewaytheotherparticipantperformedthetask.Theexperimenterthenleft
romanticpartnerwasnominatedin18%ofthecases,motherin20%ofthe theroomforoneminute,returnedtotheexperimentalroom,andturnedon
cases,fatherin9%ofthecases,andotherfamilymembersin10%ofthe theTVmonitor,allowingparticipantstowatchaprerecordedvideotape,
cases.Nosignificantassociationwasfoundbetweenparticipants’attach- whichtheybelievedwasaliveperformance.Onthetape,afemalefellow
ment scores and nomination of specific figures (mother, father, friends, participantcouldbeseenperformingaseriesoftaskspresentedbyamale
romanticpartner).Thesefindingsreplicatepreviousresults(e.g.,Fraley& experimenter. All of the tasks had been selected on the basis of pilot
Davis,1997;Mikulincer,Gillath,&Shaver,2002)andindicatethatmost research.Welocatedaversivetasksthathadbeenusedinpreviousstudies
ofthepersonsidentifiedintheWHOTObyparticipantsinourstudieswere and also asked Israeli and American undergraduates to generate lists of
extrafamilialfigures. aversivetasksthatmightbeusedinlaboratorystudies.Anothersampleof
Followingthesecomputerizedquestionnaires,participantscompleteda undergraduates rated the averseness of each of these tasks. We used the
short delay filler questionnaire about life habits and were then asked to eighttasksthatreceivedthehighestaversenessratings.
complete a 20-trial computerized lexical-decision task. This task was In the videotaped segment, participants saw Liat, a female participant
designed to prime a specific mental representation subliminally. In this (actuallyabilingualstudentfromIsraelwhowasstudyingattheUniversity
task,participantsreadastringoflettersandwereaskedtodecidewhether of California, Davis), with a male experimenter. The experimenter ex-
it constituted a word. The task was run on a Pentium IBM-PC, with an plainedtoLiat(inEnglishfortheversionusedintheUnitedStatesandin
SVGAcolormonitor,andwasprogrammedusingSuperlabsoftware.The HebrewfortheversionusedinIsrael)thatshewouldbeaskedtoperform
letterstringsweredisplayedinblackletteringonawhitebackgroundinthe a variety of aversive tasks and that she was free to stop whenever she
middleofthemonitorscreen.Participantscompleted20trials.Eachtrialof chose.Sheagreedtoproceedandthenbeganthefirsttask,whichwasto
thetaskconsistedofarapidsubliminalpresentationoftheprime(for20 lookatthreesomewhatgoryaccidentanddeathpictures.Liatactedasif
ms)followed,afterapauseof500ms,bythepresentationofoneof20 shewasmoderatelyhorrifiedbythethreepictures(showingaburnedhand,
target letter strings (for 1 s). Participants judged as quickly as possible aburnedman,andaninjuredface),butshedidmanagetolookatthem.She
whether the letter string was or was not a word by pressing 1 on the thenrestedwhiletheexperimenterpreparedthenexttask,whichinvolved
keyboardnumberpadiftheythoughtthestringwasawordand3ifthey holdingalargegraylabrat.Theexperimentertooktheratoutofitscage
thoughtitwasnotaword.Therewere10words(e.g.,lake,table)and10 andputitinLiat’shands.Sheseemedtobedismayedbytheratbutdid
nonwords(e.g.,aekl). hold it for a few seconds before almost dropping it, at which point the
For each participant, the subliminal prime was one of three names, experimentertookitback.
chosenonthebasisofeithertheperson’suniqueanswerstotheWHOTO Liatrestedandthenbeganthethirdtask,whichwastoplungeherhand
questionnaire,thenamesofotherclosepersonsprovidedbytheparticipant, andforearmintoicewaterfor30s.Theexperimentertookalargebucket
orthenamesofpeopletheparticipantknewbuttowhomheorshewasnot fromunderthetableandfilleditwithrealice.Liatthentriedoncetoput
close.Oneachtrial,theprimewaspresentedfor20ms,whichwasnotlong herhandinit,butfoundittoocoldandpainful,andwithdrewherhand.
ATTACHMENT,CAREGIVING,ANDALTRUISM 823
Thesecondtimeshesucceededbutkeptgrumbling,“Ooh,it’spainfuland InboththeAmericanandIsraelisamples,Pearsoncorrelationsrevealed
cold.” After 20 s she said, “I’m not sure I can go on with it.” The thatthedecisiontohelpthedistressedpersonwasstronglyassociatedwith
experimenteraskedLiatifshewantedtoquit,butshereplied,“No,Ihad reportedwillingnesstohelpher(rsof.62and.59,ps(cid:2).01)andmoder-
better finish the experiment.” After finishing this task, Liat asked how atelyassociatedwithratingsofcompassion(rsof.26and.29,ps(cid:2).01).
many more tasks there were, and the experimenter said there were five Actuallyvolunteeringtohelpwasnotsignificantlyassociatedwithratings
more.Liatthenapproachedthefourthtask(whichwasactuallyscriptedto ofpersonaldistress(rsof(cid:3).12and(cid:3).06),indicatingthatdistressdidnot
bethelast)—touchingalivetarantula(alarge,hairyspider).Thetarantula, leadtohelping.
visibleinsideanopen-toppedglassaquarium,wasplacedinthemiddleof
thetable,andtheexperimentertouchedittoshowLiatthatitwasalive.He Results and Discussion
asked her to touch it. She tried but broke off quickly, saying with great
distressthatitwasjusttoomuchforher.Theexperimenteraskedhertotry Effectsofattachment-securitypriming. Totestourpredictions
again,whichshedid,butagainshebrokeoffquicklyandsaid,veryupset, abouttheeffectsofattachment-securityprimingoncompassionate
“Ican’tgoon.Maybetheotherpersoncandoit.”Theexperimenterthen and helping responses, we conducted two-way multivariate and
triedtocalmLiat,butwhenhesawthatshereallycouldnotgoon,hesaid, univariateanalysesofvariance(ANOVAs)forprimingcondition
“OK,I’llstopthecameraandwe’lltryagainlater.”
(attachment security, close person, acquaintance) and nationality
After the TV screen went blank in the actual participant’s room, the
(American, Israeli). The dependent variables were participants’
experimenter asked the participant to complete a 24-item questionnaire
ratings of compassion, personal distress, and willingness to help
whilewaitingforLiattorecover.(Aswementionedearlier,participants
the distressed woman, as well as their actual agreement to help
wereinitiallyinstructedthattheywereassignedtowatchtheotherperson
her.5
performsometasksandtoevaluateherperformance,sothequestionnaire
did not seem surprising or out of place.) Among other questions, this The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed
instrumentincludedthemaindependentvariablesofthestudy:emotional significant main effects for priming condition, F(8, 342) (cid:1) 5.44,
reactionstothedistressedparticipant(compassion,personaldistress)and p(cid:2).01,andparticipantnationality,F(4,171)(cid:1)20.08,p(cid:2).01.
willingnesstohelpherbyperformingtheremainingtasks. The interaction term was not significant, F(8, 342) (cid:1) 0.09. Uni-
Participantswerepresentedwith10adjectivesdescribingdifferentemo- variate ANOVAs revealed that the main effect of priming condi-
tionalstatesandwereaskedtoratehowmuchtheyhadexperiencedeach tionwassignificantforratingsofcompassion,F(2,174)(cid:1)8.51,
emotion while watching Liat. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale, p(cid:2).01,(cid:1)2(cid:1).10,ratedwillingnesstohelpthedistressedwoman,
rangingfromnotatall(1)toverymuch(7).Theadjectiveswerechosen F(2,174)(cid:1)11.60,p(cid:2).01,(cid:1)2(cid:1).12,andactualagreementtohelp
from lists created by Batson, Fultz, and Schoenrade (1987) to measure her,F(2,174)(cid:1)11.46,p(cid:2).01,(cid:1)2(cid:1).12.Theprimingprocedure
empathy, or compassion, and personal distress. The list included four
had essentially no effect on ratings of personal distress, F(2,
compassion-related adjectives (sympathetic, warm, compassionate, and
174) (cid:1) 0.57. As can be seen in Table 2, Scheffe´ post hoc tests
tender) and six personal distress adjectives (afraid, uncomfortable, trou-
revealedthatAmericanandIsraeliparticipantswhoweresublim-
bled,distressed,disturbed,andworried).
Afactoranalysisusingvarimaxrotationyieldedtwomainfactors(with inallyprimedwithanattachment-securityrepresentationreported
eigenvalues greater than 1) that explained 64% of the variance in the higher levels of compassion and more willingness to help the
Englishversionofthescaleand76%ofthevarianceintheHebrewversion distressed woman and more often decided to replace her for the
and replicated the two-factor structure intended by Batson et al. (1987). remainingaversivetasks,comparedwithparticipantsintheclose-
The first factor (accounting for 42% of the explained variance in the person and acquaintance-priming conditions. No significant dif-
Americansampleand46%intheIsraelisample)includedthesixpersonal ference was found between the close-person and acquaintance-
distressadjectives(allwithfactorloadingsabove.60).Thesecondfactor primingconditions.ANOVAsalsorevealedsignificantdifferences
(accountingfor22%ofthevarianceintheAmericansampleand30%in
between the two samples, American and Israeli, in compassion,
theIsraelisample)includedthefourcompassionadjectives(allwithfactor F(1,174)(cid:1)11.61,p(cid:2).01,(cid:1)2(cid:1).06,andpersonaldistress,F(1,
loadingsabove.60).Cronbach’salphacoefficientsforunit-weightedscales
174) (cid:1) 66.89, p (cid:2) .01, (cid:1)2 (cid:1) .28. As can be seen in Table 2,
composedofitemsloadinghighlyonthetwofactorswerehigh(seeTable
American participants reported higher compassion and personal
1). Higher scores on the scales indicate higher compassion and personal
distress.4 distressthandidIsraeliparticipants.Noneoftheunivariateinter-
Inaddition,participantsratedtheextenttowhichtheywerewillingto actionswassignificant,allFs(cid:2)1.
replaceLiatandperformthetasksshewassupposedtoperform.Thisrating The contribution of attachment-style dimensions. In examin-
wasalsodoneona7-pointscale,rangingfromnotatall(1)toverymuch ingtheuniqueandinteractivecontributionsofthetwoattachment
(7).Oncethesequestionswereanswered,theexperimentersaidhewould
gotothenextroomandseeifLiatwasreadytocontinuewiththetarantula
task and the four remaining tasks. The experimenter left the room for 1 4In all five studies, the compassion score was significantly but not
min,returnedtotheexperimentalroom,andtoldtheparticipant,“Wehave stronglyassociatedwiththepersonaldistressscore,withrsrangingfrom
adifficultsituationhere.Theotherpersonisveryuncomfortablewiththese .21to.29(allps(cid:2).05)intheAmericansampleandfrom.25to.32(all
tasks.” The experimenter then asked the actual participant if he or she ps(cid:2).05)intheIsraelisample.Themeancorrelationacrossallthesamples
wouldagreetohelpLiatbyreplacingherinthetarantulataskandthefour was .26. This suggests that some participants interpreted their personal
remaining tasks. Participants were also told that Liat would be asked to distressascompassionorviceversa.However,thisdidnoteliminatethe
continue if they felt they could not help. The participant’s dichotomous very distinct patterns of findings for the two variables. Compassion was
response(yes(cid:1)1,no(cid:1)0)wasusedasanadditionaldependentvariable. consistentlyassociatedwithsecurityandhelping,whereaspersonaldistress
Afterdecidingyesornotothisfinalquestion,eachparticipantwasfully was not. Also, personal distress was consistently associated with attach-
debriefedaboutthegoalsandmethodsofthestudyandwasinterrogated mentanxiety,whereascompassionandhelpingwerenot.
forsuspicionsaboutthemanipulations,goals,andhypothesesofthestudy. 5Inallfivestudies,thesignificancelevelforanalysesconductedonthe
Across all of the studies reported in this article, only a few participants entiresampleofAmericanandIsraeliparticipantswassetatp(cid:2).01to
expressedsuspicionsandtheywereexcludedfromthestatisticalanalyses. avoidinflationofTypeIerrors.
824 MIKULINCER,SHAVER,GILLATH,ANDNITZBERG
Table2
Means,SDs,andF-RatiosforCompassion,Distress,WillingnesstoHelptheVictim,and
AgreementtoHelpAccordingtoPrimingConditionandSampleNationality(Study1)
Attachment
Measure Total Figure ClosePerson Acquaintance F(2,87)
Americansample
Compassion M 5.01 5.64a 4.71b 4.69b 4.28*
SD 1.49 1.30 1.46 1.50
Distress M 5.11 4.98a 5.09a 5.27a 0.39
SD 1.30 1.55 1.19 1.16
Willingtohelp M 3.88 4.77a 3.33b 3.53b 4.63*
SD 2.05 2.02 2.01 1.91
Agreetohelp M 0.48 0.70a 0.36b 0.37b 4.78*
SD 0.50 0.47 0.49 0.50
Israelisample
Compassion M 4.21 4.95a 3.76b 3.94b 4.34*
SD 1.49 1.62 1.83 1.61
Distress M 3.30 3.13a 3.35a 3.41a 0.25
SD 1.64 1.43 1.88 1.59
Willingtohelp M 3.17 4.30a 2.37b 2.87b 7.09**
SD 2.20 2.10 2.01 2.08
Agreetohelp M 0.41 0.67a 0.27b 0.30b 6.83**
SD 0.49 0.48 0.45 0.47
Note. F-ratios examining differences between priming conditions in each of the two samples. Means with
differentletterswithinarowweresignificantlydifferentatp(cid:2).01.
*p(cid:2).05. **p(cid:2).01.
dimensions, four-step hierarchical regression analyses were con- .01,andasignificantmaineffectofattachmentanxiety,(cid:2)(cid:1).26,
ducted on compassion, personal distress, willingness to help the p (cid:2) .01. Higher attachment-anxiety scores were associated with
distressed woman, and actual agreement to help her. In the first higherpersonaldistresswhilewatchingLiatsuffer.Noothermain
step, security priming (a dummy variable contrasting security effectsorinteractionsweresignificant.
priming with the combination of close-person and acquaintance Overall,thefindingssupportedourpredictions.First,subliminal
priming),nationality(adummyvariablecomparingAmericanwith priming with names of security-providing attachment figures led
Israeliparticipants),attachmentanxiety,andattachmentavoidance participantstoreporthigherlevelsofcompassiontowardawoman
wereintroducedaspredictors.Theproducttermsrepresentingall in distress and higher willingness to help her. More important,
ofthetwo-wayinteractionswereintroducedinthesecondstep,the theseparticipantsweremorelikelyactuallytorelieveherdistress
products representing all of the three-way interactions were en- bytakingovertheremainingaversivetasksthanparticipantsinthe
teredinthethirdstep,andthefour-wayinteractionwasaddedin two control conditions. Because this contextual activation was
thefourthstep. accomplishedatasubliminallevel,weinferredthattheobserved
The regressions conducted on compassion, willingness to help prosocialeffectsofattachmentsecuritydidnotrequireconscious
the distressed woman, and actual agreement to help revealed mediation or deliberation. Rather, the attachment-caregiving link
similar patterns of effects. First, they yielded significant main seems to be made at a preconscious, automatic level. Second,
effectsofsecuritypriming,(cid:2)sof.23,.28,and.29,ps(cid:2).01,even whereasavoidancescoreswereinverselyassociatedwithcompas-
after controlling for the contributions of the attachment dimen- sionate and helpful responses, attachment anxiety was associated
sions.Second,theyyieldedthealreadyreportedsignificanteffect withhigherratingsofpersonaldistresswhilewatchingasuffering
ofnationalityoncompassion,(cid:2)(cid:1).24,p(cid:2).01.Third,theunique woman.Itisimportanttonotethattheseeffectswereobtainedin
main effect for attachment avoidance was also significant for both the American and the Israeli samples, and there was no
compassion ratings and willingness and agreement to help the significant interaction between attachment-style dimensions and
sufferingwoman,(cid:2)sof(cid:3).31,(cid:3).22,and(cid:3).21,ps(cid:2).01.Support- contextual activation of attachment security as determinants of
ing our predictions, higher scores on attachment avoidance were participants’ reactions to another person’s distress. That is, the
associatedwithlowerlevelsofratedcompassiontowardLiatand prosocialeffectsofheightenedaccessibilityofattachment-security
less rated and actual willingness to help her. Neither the main representationswereobservedregardlessofvariationsindisposi-
effect of attachment anxiety nor any of the interactions were tionalattachmentorientation.
significant. Testing an alternative interpretation. Despite the theoretical
Theregressionconductedonthepersonaldistressscoreyielded predictability and cogency of the findings, they might also have
thealreadyreportedsignificanteffectofnationality,(cid:2)(cid:1).52,p(cid:2) beenexplainedintermsofmodeling,becausetheprimingproce-
ATTACHMENT,CAREGIVING,ANDALTRUISM 825
duremightdirectlyarousethoughtsofhelpingwithoutanymedi- 0.81), F(1, 28) (cid:1) 29.08, p (cid:2) .01. However, there was no signif-
ation by attachment representations. Although modeling might icantdifferenceincaregivingmotivesbetweenthetwovisualiza-
also have been facilitated caregiving, we believed that the most tion conditions (M (cid:1) 2.92, SD (cid:1) 0.77 for attachment figure
directeffectofexposingapersontorepresentationsandreminders visualization; M (cid:1) 3.02, SD (cid:1) 0.79 for close person visualiza-
ofacaringfigureistheactivationoffeelingsofbeingprotected, tion), F (cid:2) 1. In addition, simple main effects tests indicated no
supported, and comforted rather than the activation of wishes to significant difference between attachment security feelings and
assistothers.Moreover,theprimedthoughtsandfeelingsrelatedto caregiving motives while visualizing a close person, F (cid:2) 1, but
attachment security were not assumed to activate caregiving rep- higherattachmentsecurityfeelingsthancaregivingmotiveswhile
resentations automatically; rather, we believed they potentiated visualizinganattachmentfigure,F(1,28)(cid:1)26.71,p(cid:2).01.These
theserepresentationsinconjunctionwithencounteringapersonin findingsclearlyindicatedthatthinkingaboutacaringattachment
need.Inotherwords,inthepresenceofsignalsofneed,heightened figure elicits representations of attachment security but not care-
security promotes smooth activation and functioning of the care- givingrepresentations.
givingsystem.Thecaregivingsystemisnotdirectlyactivatedby Inthesecondsupplementarystudy,wewantedtoevaluatethis
representations of a caring person but by exposure to other peo- conclusionfurtherandpossiblyextendittotheimplicitprocesses
ple’sdistress;representationsofafamiliarcaregiverorattachment examined in Study 1. Specifically, we examined the effects of
figure facilitates this activation by removing attachment-related subliminal priming with the name of an attachment figure (as in
worries and defensive (avoidant) tendencies. If this reasoning is Study1)onthecognitiveaccessibilityofrepresentationsofattach-
correct, thinking about a caring attachment figure without the ment security and representations of caregiving in a lexical-
presence of another person in need or distress should activate decisiontask.Adifferentsampleof28Israeliundergraduates(20
representationsofattachmentsecuritybutnotnecessarilyactivate women and 8 men) completed the WHOTO scale and provided
thoughtsofhelpingothers. names of close persons. They then performed a 96-trial comput-
Toexplorethisissuewerantwosmalladditionalstudies.Inthe erizedlexical-decisiontaskbasedontheprocedureusedbyBald-
firstone,asampleof30Israeliundergraduates(21women,9men) winetal.(1993).Theparametersofthetaskwereidenticaltothose
completed the WHOTO task, which was designed to elicit the describedintheprecedingMethodsection.Eachtrialconsistedof
names of attachment figures, and also provided the names of a rapid subliminal presentation (for 20 ms) of a prime word
people who were close to them without being attachment figures followedbyabackwardmask(anXXXpattern)and,afterapause
(see the preceding Method section). Participants were then ran- of 500 ms, the appearance of a three-word sentence (for 1 s).
domlyassignedtooneoftwoconditions.Half(11women,4men) Participantsjudgedasquicklyaspossiblewhetherthelaststringof
wereaskedtovisualizethefaceofthepersontheynominatedmost letters in the three-word sentence was or was not a word by
frequently in the WHOTO scale (the attachment-figure priming pressing 1 on the keyboard number pad if the string was a word
condition), and the others (10 women, 5 men) were asked to and3ifitwasnotaword.Participantswererandomlyassignedto
visualize the face of a close-relationship partner who was not twoconditions,eachreceivingonlyoneofthetwokindsofprimes.
nominatedintheWHOTOscale(theclose-personprimingcondi- For half the participants (10 women, 4 men), the prime was the
tion). In both conditions, participants were asked to bring the name of the person they most frequently nominated in the
targetedpersontomindandthinkabouthimorherfor2min.This WHOTO scale (attachment-figure priming). For the remaining
visualizationprocedurewasidenticaltotheoneusedbyBaldwin participants (10 women, 4 men), the prime was the name of a
et al. (1996). Next, all participants completed a 15-item scale close-relationshippartnerwhowasnotnominatedintheWHOTO
tapping feelings, thoughts, and motives elicited by the visualiza- scale(close-personpriming).
tion task. Participants rated the extent to which each item was Thethree-wordsentenceswereoftwokinds:“Ifeel____”and
descriptive of their feelings, thoughts, and motives during the “I want to ____” (in Hebrew there is no need to insert the word
visualizationtask.Ratingsweremadeusinga7-pointscale,rang- “to,”soallsentencesincludedonlythreewords).Weconstructed
ingfrom1(notatall)to7(verymuch).Embeddedamongother 12“Ifeel____”sentences.Thelaststringoflettersin3ofthese
items,therewere4tappingattachmentsecurity(“Ifeltasenseof sentences was an attachment-security word (safe, protected,
safety,” “I felt protected from danger,” “I thought I’m loved by loved);in3sentencesitwasaneutralword(clean,different,thin),
others,”“Ifelthappyabouthavingpeoplewhocansupportmein andin6sentencesitwasanonword(generatedbytakingcommon
timesofneed”;Cronbach’salpha(cid:1).91)and4tappingcaregiving Hebrew words and scrambling their letters). We also constructed
motives(“Ifeltaneedtohelpanotherperson,”“IthoughtthatIam 12 “I want to ____” sentences. The last string of letters in 3 of
acaringperson,”“Iwantedtorelieveotherpeople’sdistress,”and these sentences was a caregiving word (help, care, protect), in 3
“I thought about the suffering of human beings”; Cronbach’s sentences a neutral word (eat, walk, think), and in 6 sentences a
alpha(cid:1).88).Twoaveragescoreswerecomputedforeachpartic- nonword.Eachofthe24sentenceswaspresentedfourtimesina
ipant,oneforsecurityandoneforcaregiving. randomorderforeachparticipant.Reactiontimes(RTs)foriden-
A two-way ANOVA for Visualization Condition (cid:4) Targeted tifying whether the last string of letters in each sentence was or
Items(attachment,caregiving),withthesecondfactortreatedasa wasnotawordwasusedasanindexofcognitiveaccessibilityof
within-subjectrepeatedmeasure,revealedasignificantinteraction, correspondingmentalrepresentations(e.g.,Baldwinetal.,1993).
F(1,28)(cid:1)16.61,p(cid:2).01,(cid:1)2(cid:1).16.Testsforsimplemaineffects For each person, RTs for correct responses were averaged
revealed that the visualization of an attachment figure led to accordingtotypeofletterstring(attachment-securitywords,care-
stronger feelings of attachment security (M (cid:1) 4.37, SD (cid:1) 0.84) givingwords,neutralwords,andnonwords).Wethenconducteda
than the feelings that were aroused by visualizing a close person two-wayANOVAforprime(attachmentfigure,closeperson)and
whowasnotnominatedasanattachmentfigure(M(cid:1)2.87,SD(cid:1) targetword(attachment-security,caregiving,neutral),controlling
826 MIKULINCER,SHAVER,GILLATH,ANDNITZBERG
forRTsfornonwords.Targetwordwastreatedasawithin-subject of attachment theory, an exploration partner) and to recall a par-
repeated factor. This analysis revealed a significant interaction ticularinteractionwiththatpersoninwhichtheyenjoyedworking
effect,F(3,52)(cid:1)3.57,p(cid:2).05,(cid:1)2(cid:1).06.Asexpected,subliminal or studying together and (b) asking participants to think about a
priming with the name of an attachment figure led to faster RTs mere acquaintance and recall a particular situation in which they
(higher cognitive accessibility) for attachment-security words interactedwithhimorher.Thepredictionswereidenticaltothose
(M(cid:1)626.83)thandidsubliminalprimingwiththenameofaclose ofStudy1.
person who was not an attachment figure (M (cid:1) 696.18), F(1,
52) (cid:1) 4.63, p (cid:2) .05. It is important to note that no significant
differencewasfoundbetweenthetwoprimingconditionsinRTs Method
for the other target words (M (cid:1) 702.78 vs. M (cid:1) 697.43 for
Participants. Ninety American undergraduates at the University of
caregivingwords;M(cid:1)697.94vs.M(cid:1)694.47forneutralwords),
California,Davis(56womenand34men,ranginginagefrom19to30
allFs(cid:2)1. years,Mdn(cid:1)21),and90IsraeliundergraduatesfromBar-IlanUniversity
In the close-person prime condition, no significant difference (64womenand26men,ranginginagefrom18to35years,Mdn(cid:1)22)
wasfoundbetweenattachment-securitywords,caregivingwords, participatedinthestudyinexchangeforresearchcreditsinapsychology
and neutral words, F (cid:5) 1. In the attachment-figure prime condi- course. Each of these two samples was randomly divided into three
tion, however, participants reacted faster (displayed greater cog- conditionswith30participantsineach.
nitive access) to attachment-security words than to neutral and Materials and procedure. Like Study 1, Study 2 was run in two
caregiving words, F(2, 52) (cid:1) 7.95, p (cid:2) .01. No significant sessions.Thefirstsessionwasconductedidenticallytothefirstsessionof
difference was found between caregiving and neutral words. Study1;participantscompletedtheECRscales,whichonceagainproved
Again, this pattern of differences indicates that subliminal expo- reliable(seealphacoefficientsinTable1).
sure to the name of an attachment figure automatically heightens Threetofourweekslater,adifferentexperimenter,unawareofpartic-
ipants’attachmentscores,contactedparticipantsbyphoneandinvitedthem
cognitive access to attachment-security representations but not to
to take part in an experimental study. After arriving at the laboratory,
representationsofcaregiving.Infact,participantsreactedtocare-
participants were given instructions identical to those in Study 1, were
givingwordsinthesamewaytheyreactedtoneutralwords.
randomlydividedintothreeconditions,andperformedaguidedimagina-
Overall,theresultsofthesetwosupplementarystudiesprovided
tiontask.Intheattachment-securityprimingcondition,participantswere
strongsupportfortheideathatthinkingaboutacaringattachment
instructedtothinkofpeopletowhomtheyturnedwhentheyfeltdistressed
figureautomaticallyactivatesrepresentationsofattachmentsecu-
or worried. They were then asked to list six of these people’s central
rity, while casting doubt on the possibility that the procedure qualities, to visualize a specific situation in which one of these people
directlyactivatesrepresentationsofone’sowncaregivinginclina- actuallycomfortedandhelpedthemwhentheywerefeelingdistressedor
tions or behaviors. Moreover, this conclusion applies to both worried,andtowriteabriefdescriptionoftherecalledsituationandthe
explicit and implicit levels of cognitive processing. Hence, the waytheyfeltduringit.
findings of Study 1 cannot easily be explained by modeling pro- In the exploration-priming condition, participants were instructed to
cessesbutinsteadarebestexplainedintermsofthefacilitatingor think of people with whom they enjoyed studying or working, list six
enablingeffectsofattachment-securityrepresentationsoncaregiv- qualitiescommontothesepeople,visualizearealsituationinwhichthey
ing cognitions, feelings, and behaviors in response to another learnedsomethingwithorworkedwithoneofthesepeople,andwritea
description of the recalled situation and their feelings during it. In the
person’sdistress.
acquaintance-priming condition, participants were instructed to think of
other students they knew but with whom they did not have a close
Study 2 relationship,listsixtraitsthatdescribedthesepeople,visualizeaspecific
lecturetheyattendedwithoneofthesepeople,andwriteadescriptionof
Study2wasdesignedtotestthereplicabilityofStudy1,while
therecalledsituationandtheirfeelingsduringit.
also allowing us to examine whether supraliminal priming of
Followingtheguided-imaginationtask,participantswatchedtheprere-
attachment-security representations, a process that involves con- corded videotape of Liat undergoing four unpleasant tasks and being
scious deliberation, also heightens participants’ compassionate unabletocompletethetarantula-pettingtask(seeStudy1).Then,afterthe
reactions to a person in distress. For this purpose, we designed a TVscreenwentblankintheactualparticipant’sroom,theexperimenter
two-session study similar to Study 1. Specifically, American and askedtheparticipanttoratehisorheremotionalreactionstoLiat(com-
Israeli participants completed the ECR scale, watched the same passion,personaldistress)andwillingnesstohelpherbyreplacingherfor
videotape used in Study 1, rated their level of compassion and theremainingtasks.(ThereliabilitycoefficientsforthescalesinStudy2
personaldistresswhilewatchingthedistressedwomanaswellas areshowninTable1.)Finally,afterinformingtheparticipantthatLiatfelt
their willingness to help her, and were given the opportunity to uncomfortable with the tasks, the experimenter asked the participant
whetherornotheorshewouldhelpLiatbyreplacingherinthetarantula
helpherbyreplacingherfortheremainingaversivetasks.
taskandthesubsequentfourtasks.Afterprovidingayes-or-noresponseto
The single difference between the two studies concerned the
thisquestion,theparticipantwasdebriefedaboutthegoalsandmethodsof
priming of attachment-security representations. In Study 2, each
thestudyandthankedforparticipating.Datafromthefewparticipantswho
participantwasaskedtothinkconsciouslyaboutanactualperson
expressed any suspicion about the procedures were excluded from the
whofunctionedforthatparticipantasasecurity-providingattach-
analysis.AsinStudy1,PearsoncorrelationscomputedfortheAmerican
ment figure, visualize this person, and recall a particular interac-
and the Israeli samples revealed that actual agreement to help Liat was
tion with him or her in which the participant felt supported and stronglyassociatedwithreportedwillingnesstohelpher,rsof.66and.63,
comforted. This supraliminal priming was compared with two ps(cid:2).01,andmoderatelyassociatedwithratedcompassion,rsof.31and
control-primingconditions:(a)askingparticipantstothinkabouta .26, ps (cid:2) .01. Agreement to help was not significantly associated with
personwithwhomtheyenjoyedworkingorstudying(intheterms personaldistress,rsof.03and(cid:3).10.