Individual differences in responses to workplace stress: thecontribution of attachment theoryMelissa Johnstone, Judith A. Feeney

School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia

Correspondence concerning this article should

be addressed to Melissa Johnstone, School of

Psychology, The University of Queensland, St

Lucia QLD 4072, Australia.

E-mail: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/jasp.12308

Abstract

Work stress is a major cause of physical and psychological distress, and both theory

and research highlight the importance of individual differences in coping efforts.

The present research clarifies the mechanisms linking attachment insecurities (anxi-

ety and avoidance) to maladaptive coping; specifically, we tested an integrative

model assessing stress appraisals as a mediator between attachment insecurities and

coping strategies, together with mediating and moderating effects of coping resour-

ces (perceived self-efficacy and social support). A community sample of 113 men

and 115 women completed an online survey which incorporated a standardized

vignette depicting workplace stress. The results supported stress appraisal as a medi-

ator between attachment anxiety and less adaptive coping, and established both

mediating and moderating effects of perceived coping resources. The effects support

the relevance of attachment theory to the study of workplace stress.

The World Health Organization defines work stress as “the

response people may have when presented with work

demands and pressures that are not matched to their knowl-

edge and abilities and which challenge their ability to cope”

(Leka, Griffiths, & Cox, 2004, p. 3). Causes of work stress are

varied, and can include unreasonable performance demands,

lack of autonomy and control over work, unclear roles and

responsibilities, and job insecurity (Bakker & Demerouti,

2007; Leka et al., 2004). The links between work stress and

poorer psychological and physical health are well established

(Semmer, 2003), with work stress being linked to anxiety

and depression, as well as to physical problems such as

migraines, injury, and sleep disturbances. Further, prolonged

stress may lead to more serious health problems, including

cardiovascular disease (Econtech, 2008). Research has also

demonstrated negative “spillover” effects of job stress onto

couple and family relationships (Ferguson, 2012). The costs

of work stress for the economies of western societies are con-

siderable. It is estimated that work stress costs Australia

$14.81 billion per year in absenteeism and presenteeism (in

which individuals report for work, but do not function opti-

mally) (Econtech, 2008). These costs are likely to increase in

the future as the labor market is affected by increasing job

insecurity, rapid change, and the intensification of work

demands (Landsbergis, Grzywacz, & LaMontagne, 2014).

The present study investigates the implications of attach-

ment insecurities (attachment anxiety and avoidance) for

responses to workplace stress, using a standardized vignette

designed to depict core elements in the experience of work-

place stress: change, challenge, and uncertainty. The study

extends previous research by testing a theoretical model that is

integrative in two respects: first, it combines attachment prin-

ciples with key concepts from the field of stress and coping;

and second, it examines stress appraisal as a mediator between

attachment insecurities and maladaptive coping, together with

the mediating and moderating roles of key coping resources

(perceived self-efficacy and social support). As such, the study

has the potential to identify variables that place some individu-

als at greater risk of negative responses to workplace stress, and

further, to inform interventions that may assist employers and

employees to manage stress more effectively.

The transactional model of stress andcoping

For some decades, the dominant theoretical perspective on

stress and coping has been the transactional (or process)

model, which emphasizes the crucial role of stress appraisals

(e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos & Billings, 1982). Dif-

ferent people find different events stressful; in order for an

event to be experienced as stressful, it must be appraised as

such. Appraisal, which involves both primary and secondary

elements, refers to an evaluation of the significance of a situa-

tion for one’s well-being, and establishes the meaning of an

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

encounter. Primary appraisal is the individual’s initial rapid

assessment, evaluating a situation as either threatening, chal-

lenging, or benign. Research has identified several dimen-

sions of primary appraisal (e.g., threat, challenge, and

centrality), but the most crucial of these dimensions is threat,

which is defined as the degree of danger and negativity per-

ceived in the situation. Specifically, in a series of studies

investigating appraisals of a range of potential stressors, Pea-

cock and Wong (1990) demonstrated that the threat dimen-

sion of appraisal was most strongly associated with global

ratings of the stressfulness of situations.

Secondary appraisal then focuses on the individual’s per-

ceptions of options and resources for coping, which can

either dampen or increase initial perceptions of threat. Cop-

ing resources can be divided into two broad groups: Personal

resources are relatively stable personality and cognitive char-

acteristics that shape coping processes, while environmental

resources are relevant aspects of the physical and social envi-

ronment. In terms of personal resources, theory and research

indicate that coping is influenced by a range of dispositional

factors (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) that are related to a

sense of control; further, a major environmental resource is

perceived support from the social network, which has been

linked to positive appraisal and constructive coping (Cicog-

nani, 2011; Holahan, Moos, & Bonin, 1997; Holahan, Moos,

Holahan, & Cronkite, 1999).

Collectively, primary and secondary appraisals then trigger

the selection of coping strategies (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985;

Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Hence, stress appraisals are cru-

cial because they influence coping behaviors. Individuals

who appraise a situation as overwhelming, and their resour-

ces as inadequate, are less likely to make constructive efforts

to address the situation (problem-focused coping), and more

likely to focus on the negative emotions associated with the

situation (emotion-focused coping). Although emotion-

focused coping can be useful when stressful situations are

beyond the individual’s control, problem-focused coping is

generally regarded as more adaptive (Abraham, Conner,

Jones, & O’Connor, 2008; Lazarus, 1999).

Attachment theory

Given individual differences in stress appraisals and their

implications for coping behavior, it is vital to understand the

sources of these differences in appraisals. Attachment theory

is uniquely suited to this research topic. The attachment sys-

tem is activated by signs of threat or stress, and across the life-

span, attachment-related differences in behavior (i.e.,

differences related to attachment style) are strongest in stress-

ful situations (Bowlby, 1984; Feeney, 1998; Simpson, Rholes,

& Phillips, 1996).

Although early research on individual differences in

attachment security adopted categorical models of attach-

ment style, recent applications to adults’ behavior have

favored a two-dimensional model, defined by attachment

avoidance (marked by avoidance of intimacy, unwillingness

to trust or depend on others, and reluctance to seek or pro-

vide help), and attachment anxiety (marked by fear of rejec-

tion, excessive reassurance seeking, and a desire for extreme

closeness). These differences in attachment security are

thought to be shaped by experiences with caregivers through-

out childhood and adolescence, particularly in the context of

stressful situations (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2013). Individuals

whose caregivers are available and responsive learn that it is

acceptable to express distress and seek help from others. In

contrast, those whose caregivers have been distant and reject-

ing learn that expressing distress in the face of stress is

unlikely to garner effective support, and may even alienate

caregivers; hence, they develop an avoidant approach marked

by compulsive self-reliance and down-playing of attachment

needs. Finally, individuals whose caregivers have responded

inconsistently to their needs and signals learn to make more

frequent and strident demands in stressful situations, in an

attempt to force caregivers to pay attention and provide sup-

port. Thus, they tend to show increased attention to, and

expression of, attachment needs.

Although attachment theory focuses largely on experiences

in close relationships, its relevance to workplace behavior has

been established both theoretically and empirically. Hazan

and Shaver (1987), who conducted the seminal studies of

attachment style and romantic love, subsequently argued that

adults’ workplace behavior has important conceptual similar-

ities to children’s exploratory behavior. Hence, just as secure

attachment facilitates children’s active exploration of the

physical and social environment, secure attachment also pro-

motes effective workplace behavior, marked by a sense of

confidence, by positive relationships with coworkers, and by

an appropriate balance between career strivings and involve-

ment in intimate relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990).

Subsequently, a growing body of evidence has supported

these claims. In terms of workplace behavior, studies have

linked secure attachment to such variables as workplace

cohesion, satisfaction with work, and low levels of work

strain and burnout (e.g., Landen & Wang, 2010; Pines, 2004;

Schirmer & Lopez, 2001; Simmons, Gooty, Nelson, & Little,

2009; Vasquez, Durik, & Hyde, 2002). More broadly, research

focusing on such diverse stressors as high workload, chronic

pain, first-time parenthood and relationship conflict, have

linked attachment security to positive appraisals of stress and

adaptive coping strategies. As a result, secure attachment has

been described as a core protective factor from which coping

resources, such as self-efficacy and social support, are derived

(Mikulincer & Florian, 1998).

In terms of primary appraisal, studies have consistently

linked attachment anxiety to perceptions of potentially stress-

ful situations as highly threatening. Attachment avoidance

Johnstone and Feeney 413

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

has also been associated with appraisals of stressors as threat-

ening, although the findings are not as strong or clear-cut as

for attachment anxiety—this may be because avoidant indi-

viduals often try to block or suppress feelings of vulnerability

(Fraley & Shaver, 1997).

Attachment dimensions are also associated with appraisals

of coping resources. Attachment theory highlights the link

between attachment anxiety and negative working models of

self; that is, anxious individuals tend to perceive the self as

unworthy, unlovable and inadequate. Consistent with this

formulation, attachment anxiety is related to low self-esteem

and to feelings of helplessness and powerlessness (Mikulincer

& Shaver, 2007). Conversely, attachment avoidance is linked

to negative working models of others; that is, to the tendency

to perceive others as unavailable and untrustworthy. In line

with this tenet, avoidance has been related to perceived lack

of social support. However, anxious individuals may also

appraise support negatively, often perceiving others’ support

efforts as inept and inadequate. Thus, both anxiety and

avoidance have been linked to general perceptions of others

as unavailable or unsupportive, and to negative evaluations

of the support provided by friends, partners, and family

members (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Mikulincer & Shaver,

2007).

With regard to coping strategies, the most robust finding

has linked attachment anxiety with emotion-focused cop-

ing—that is, coping efforts that are directed to managing

emotional distress, rather than dealing with the stressor itself.

Some studies have also linked attachment avoidance with

emotion-focused coping, but this effect seems to apply pri-

marily when stressors are severe or persistent (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007, 2013). Findings also suggest that insecure adults

are less likely than secure adults to use problem-focused

strategies—that is, strategies that deal directly with the stres-

sor. Although this finding has not emerged in all studies, null

findings tend to occur in those studies in which participants

receive advice about constructive ways of tackling the situa-

tion (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, 2013).

In summary, leading researchers in the field of stress and

coping (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lazarus & Folkman,

1984) have argued that stress appraisals and coping resources

precede and influence coping. Hence, integrating attachment

theory with the transactional model of stress and coping

implies a mediation model, in which attachment insecurities

predict appraisals of threat (primary) and coping resources

(secondary), which in turn shape the selection of coping

strategies. However, it is important to consider whether the

key coping resources of self-efficacy and social support

should be conceptualized as mediators or as moderators (or

both) of attachment-related effects. With regard to modera-

tion, it is plausible that perceptions of poor coping resources

may exacerbate the tendency of insecure individuals to use

less effective coping strategies, and conversely, that percep-

tions of adequate coping resources may act as a buffer against

maladaptive coping.

The present study

This study was designed to test the proposed mediation

model of attachment, stress appraisals, and coping strategies

in the context of workplace stress, and to investigate possible

moderated (interactive) effects of attachment dimensions

and coping resources in predicting emotion-focused and

problem-focused coping. Drawing on attachment principles,

the research provides a theoretically grounded approach to

the study of workplace stress and coping, aiming to clarify

the inter-related effects of attachment dimensions, stress

appraisal, and coping resources. Methodological strengths

include the use of a structured vignette embedded in an

online survey, and recruitment of a broad community sample

marked by a balanced representation of both men and

women and both younger and older adults.

As noted earlier, the most robust findings from studies of

attachment and stress link attachment anxiety to perceptions

of stressors as threatening and overwhelming, and of the self

as inadequate and helpless. Hence, we expected attachment

anxiety to be associated with more emotion-focused coping

and less problem-focused coping (Hypothesis 1a). Although

the link between attachment avoidance and emotion-focused

coping is less robust, we also predicted that avoidance would

be related to more emotion-focused and less problem-

focused coping (Hypothesis 1b). Regarding attachment and

the mediators, we expected attachment anxiety to predict

threat appraisals (Hypothesis 2a) and low self-efficacy

(Hypothesis 2b), and both anxiety and avoidance to predict

perceptions of low social support (Hypothesis 2c).

Finally, regarding mediation per se, the associations

between attachment anxiety and coping strategies were

expected to be mediated by threat appraisals (Hypothesis 3a).

Further, perceived lack of self-efficacy reflects the negative

self-views that are central to attachment anxiety, and should

hamper involvement in task-oriented activities; hence, we

expected low self-efficacy to mediate the association between

attachment anxiety and less problem-focused coping

(Hypothesis 3b). Conversely, as negative perceptions of others

are the core feature of attachment avoidance, we expected

perceived lack of support from others to mediate the links of

avoidance with more emotion-focused and less problem-

focused coping (Hypothesis 3c). See Figure 1 for a summary

of the proposed mediation model.

As noted, coping resources were expected to play a media-

ting role in the association between attachment insecurities

and coping strategies. However, for completeness, we also

investigated possible moderated (interactive) effects of

attachment dimensions and coping resources in predicting

emotion-focused and problem-focused coping.

414 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

Method

Participants

A community sample was recruited by 22 students

enrolled in a fourth-year psychology course at a large Aus-

tralian university. To obtain a more representative sample,

each student was asked to recruit a subsample of partici-

pants that varied widely in age, and contained similar

numbers of males and females. A total of 229 participants

(113 male, 115 female; 1 did not indicate gender) com-

pleted the online survey. Participants ranged in age from

17 to 58 years, with a mean age of 32 years (SD 5 11.16).

Approximately 50% of participants held a bachelor

degree; 27% had a high school certificate as their highest

educational qualification; 11% had a diploma or associate

degree; and 6% had an industry or trade certificate. In

terms of work status, 56% were in full-time employment

and an additional 11% and 15% were working on a part-

time or casual basis, respectively. Participants not cur-

rently working were either students (13%); homemakers

(2%); or unemployed (2%). The occupational groups of

professional (32%), manager (13.5%), sales worker

(10%), and clerical/administrative (8%) comprised the

largest categories of paid workers, with the remainder

involved in laboring, trade or technical, or community

work.

Stimulus material: vignette

As part of a larger study of attachment, stress and cop-

ing, participants were presented with the following

vignette depicting a workplace stressor (Karantzas,

2010).

Imagine that your boss has made the decision to re-

organize the workplace. Until now, you have been

doing work which is very familiar to you and which

you have mastered. In its place, you will have to take

on other tasks, which are as yet undefined and prob-

ably not so easy for you to do. You will miss your pre-

vious work very much. You commence a trial period

during which you and your boss will assess your pro-

gress in this new role. The new tasks you have under-

taken are rather difficult for you and don’t satisfy you.

You are really missing your previous work.

Immediately following the vignette, participants answered a

single-item manipulation check designed to ensure that the

vignette was perceived as sufficiently stressful. Specifically,

they rated the extent to which the situation would be stressful

for them on a 10-point Likert scale from 1 (not at all stress-

ful) to 10 (extremely stressful). Responses indicated that, on

average, participants found the vignette quite stressful

(M 5 6.48, SD 5 1.93).

Questionnaire measures

Attachment

Attachment orientations were assessed by the Adult Attach-

ment Questionnaire (AAQ), a 17-item measure that asks

individuals to indicate how they relate to romantic partners

in general (Simpson et al., 1996). The AAQ measures two

dimensions of attachment: avoidance and anxiety (some-

times referred to as ambivalence). Attachment avoidance

(eight items) assesses the degree to which individuals exhibit

Figure 1 Proposed mediation model between the independent variables of attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance, the mediators of threat,

self-efficacy and perceived social support, and the dependent variables of emotion-focused and problem-focused coping.

Johnstone and Feeney 415

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

avoidance or withdrawal from intimacy in relationships, and

the extent to which they have negative views of others. A

sample item is, “I don’t like people getting too close to me,”

with responses keyed so that higher scores indicate greater

avoidance. The nine items measuring anxiety tap the extent

to which individuals are excessively preoccupied with issues

of abandonment, loss, and partners’ level of commitment,

and possess negative self-views. Items include, “I often worry

that my partner(s) don’t really love me.” Each item was

answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (totally dis-

agree) to 7 (totally agree).

A large number of studies have supported avoidance and

anxiety as the two major dimensions of attachment security,

and have also established the reliability and validity of the

AAQ scales (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review). In

the present sample, reliability was high for both dimensions

(alpha 5 .82 for avoidance, and .79 for anxiety).

Threat

Four items from the threat scale of the Stress Appraisal Mea-

sure (Peacock & Wong, 1990) were used to assess participants’

perceptions of how threatening they would find the situation

described in the vignette. Sample items include, “How threat-

ening would you feel the situation was?” and “How anxious

would you feel in the situation?” with responses rated on a 5-

point Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Inter-

nal consistency of the items was high (alpha 5 .85).

Self-efficacy

The 8-item General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully, & Eden,

2001) was used to measure overall self-efficacy. For instance,

participants were asked, “I believe I can succeed at most any

endeavour to which I set my mind.” Responses were

recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 5 (strongly agree). Scores were averaged across items, and

showed good internal reliability (alpha 5 .92).

Social support

Social support was measured through an adapted version of

the Social Provision Scale developed by Russell and Cutrona

(as described in Cutrona, 1984). The original measure assessed

the six relational provisions identified by Weiss (1974; also see

Russell, Cutrona, Rose, & Yurko, 1984), and included two

items for each provision. The opportunity for nurturance sub-

scale was not used in the current study because it differs con-

ceptually from the other five scales (social integration,

reassurance of worth, attachment, reliable alliance, and guid-

ance), in that it pertains to giving support rather than to

receiving it (Holahan & Holahan, 1987). Given the high inter-

nal consistency of previous versions of the measure, and the

need to keep the length of the overall survey manageable, we

used a single item for each provision. Sample items include,

“There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need

it” (reliable alliance), and “There are people who enjoy the

same social activities I do” (social integration). A 7-point Lik-

ert scale was used from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (completely

true). Items were averaged to create a global social support

score, which showed high reliability (alpha 5 .82).

Coping

A 24-item measure of coping was used to assess the extent to

which participants thought they would engage in emotion-

focused coping and problem-focused coping in response to

the situation described in the vignette. The items were drawn

from the Ways of Coping Checklist (Folkman & Lazarus,

1980). Given concerns about the length, structure, and reli-

ability of the original measure, the shorter version was devel-

oped within an ongoing research program investigating

attachment and coping (Karantzas, 2010). Emotion-focused

coping was assessed with 16 items, for example, “I wished

that the situation would go away or somehow be over with.”

Six items measured problem-focused coping, including

“Came up with a couple of different solutions to the prob-

lem.” (The remaining two items were not used because the

content did not conform clearly to either emotion-focused

or problem-focused coping.) Items were rated on a 4-point

Likert scale from 1 (not used) to 4 (used a great deal). The

two scales had adequate reliability (alpha 5 .69 for emotion-

focused coping and .72 for problem-focused coping).

Results

The distributions of the variables were first examined; see Table

1 for means and standard deviations. All variables showed

adequate variability, but the social support scale was highly

negatively skewed. Data transformations were attempted but

were not successful in normalising the variable; hence the anal-

yses reported are based on the untransformed data.

Table 1 also presents the intercorrelations between varia-

bles, which offer preliminary support for the hypothesized

relationships. As expected, attachment anxiety was correlated

positively with threat appraisal and emotion-focused coping,

and negatively with self-efficacy, perceived social support and

problem-focused coping. Attachment avoidance showed a

similar pattern of correlates. However, tests of the signifi-

cance of the difference between the correlations for the two

attachment dimensions were consistent with attachment

theory. Specifically, attachment anxiety (conceptually linked

to negative model of self) showed stronger correlations

than attachment avoidance with appraisals of threat,

t (218) 5 1.86, p< .05, and low self-efficacy t (218) 5 1.87,

p< .05, while attachment avoidance (conceptually linked to

416 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

model of others) was more strongly correlated than attach-

ment anxiety with negative perceptions of social support

t (218) 5 22.05, p< .05.

Tests of mediators between attachment andcoping strategies

The direct and indirect effects of attachment, threat and cop-

ing resources on emotion- and problem-focused coping were

tested using the recommended 95% bias-corrected bootstrap

procedure (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). This procedure pro-

vides information about the “causal steps” for mediation

outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), but offers important

advantages. Specifically, the bootstrapping approach has

more power to find indirect effects, quantifies those indirect

effects, does not assume normal distributions, and can test

multiple indirect effects within the one model. The unstan-

dardized coefficients are reported in Table 2.

The findings showed direct paths (Path C) from attach-

ment to coping strategies. Specifically, controlling for other

variables in the model, both attachment scales predicted

more emotion-focused coping, and attachment anxiety also

predicted less problem-focused coping. These results largely

support Hypothesis 1, although the link between avoidance

and problem-focused coping became nonsignificant after

controlling for the other variables. Direct paths from attach-

ment to stress appraisal and coping resources (Path A) also

emerged: anxiety was linked positively to threat and nega-

tively to self-efficacy, whereas avoidance was linked negatively

to perceived social support. These results generally support

Hypothesis 2, although attachment anxiety was not a unique

predictor of social support.

The mediating role of threat, social support and self-

efficacy was tested for significance in accordance with the

bootstrapping procedures recommended by Hayes (2009). To

establish mediation, it is necessary to show a significant path

between the independent variable and mediator, and between

the mediator and the dependent variable; in addition, the

upper and lower confidence intervals for the indirect effect

(shown in the lower section of Table 2) should not include

zero. Using these criteria, the results showed four indirect

effects across the two dependent variables.

� Attachment anxiety had a significant indirect effect on

a) emotion-focused coping and b) problem-focused

coping, via threat appraisal. Specifically, consistent

with Hypothesis 3a, those higher in attachment anxiety

engaged in more emotion-focused coping and less

problem-focused coping, via higher perceived threat.

� Attachment anxiety had a significant indirect effect

on problem-focused coping through self-efficacy; in

line with Hypothesis 3b, higher anxiety predicted less

problem-focused coping through low self-efficacy.

� Attachment avoidance predicted emotion-focused

(but not problem-focused) coping through social

support; that is, in partial support of Hypothesis 3c,

those high in avoidance perceived less support and

hence engaged in more emotion-focused coping.

Interactive effects of attachment andcoping resources

As noted earlier, we also tested moderated effects of attach-

ment dimensions and coping resources in predicting

emotion-focused and problem-focused coping. This research

question was investigated using two hierarchical (moderated)

regression analyses, one for each coping strategy. Scores on

the two attachment scales and the two coping resources

(mean-centered) were entered at Step 1, and the four interac-

tion terms (the product term of each attachment dimension

with each coping resource) were added at Step 2. The find-

ings from these analyses are presented in Table 3.

Consistent with the results already presented, both attach-

ment dimensions predicted more emotion-focused coping at

Step 1, F(4, 210) 5 12.12, p< .001, R2 5 .19. Further, a signif-

icant amount of variance in the dependent variable was

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Intercorrelations Between Variables

Mean (SD)

Attachment

anxiety

Attachment

avoidance Threat Self-efficacy

Social

support

Emotion-focused

coping

Problem-focused

coping

Attachment anxiety 3.03 (1.06) 1 .33** .28** 2.31** 2.21** .37** 2.22**

Attachment

avoidance

3.30 (1.05) 1 .14* 2.17** 2.36** .30** 2.20**

Threat 3.17 (0.79) 1 2.24** .01 .22** .04

Self-efficacy 4.02 (0.65) 1 .31** 2.17* .41**

Social Support 6.23 (0.87) 1 2.24** .18**

Emotion-focused

coping

2.19 (0.37) 1 2.21**

Problem-focused

coping

2.91 (0.54) 1

* p< .05; ** p< .01.

Johnstone and Feeney 417

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

accounted for by the full model, F(8, 206) 5 7.08, p< .001,

R2 5 .22. Although the overall increase in explained variance

at Step 2 was not significant (Fch(4, 206) 5 1.85, p 5 .12,

R2ch 5 :03), the interaction between attachment avoidance

and social support reached significance. Follow-up simple

slopes analysis showed that although the positive association

between avoidance and emotion-focused coping was signifi-

cant at high levels of social support, b 5 .216, t 5 2.52,

p 5 .012, it was even stronger at low levels of social support,

b 5 .29, t 5 3.08, p 5 .002 (see Figure 2).

In predicting problem-focused coping, a significant

amount of variance was explained at Step 1, F(4,

212) 5 11.94, p< .001, R2 5 .18. Self-efficacy was a signifi-

cant predictor, with higher self-efficacy predicting more

problem-focused coping. At Step 2, the full model was signif-

icant, F(8, 208) 5 7.04, p< .001, R2 5 .21. Although the over-

all increase in explained variance was not significant (Fch(4,

208) 5 1.93, p 5 .11, R2ch 5 :03), the interactions of attach-

ment anxiety with self-efficacy and with social support both

attained significance.

These interactions were again followed up with simple

slopes analyses (see Figures 3 and 4). Attachment anxiety was

a significant, negative predictor of problem-focused coping

when self-efficacy was low, b 5 2.23, t 5 22.52, p 5 .012,

but not when self-efficacy was high, b 5 2.01, t 5 .15,

p 5 .881; hence the use of problem-focused coping decreased

Table 2 Unstandardized Coefficients for Regression Analysis with Attachment Avoidance and Anxiety as Independent Variables; Threat, Social Sup-

port, and Self-efficacy as Mediators; and Coping Strategies as Dependent Variables

Emotion-focused coping Problem-focused coping

B SE (B) t p B SE (B) t p

Path A: Attachment to mediators

Threat

Attachment avoidance 0.04 0.05 0.76 .4486 0.04 0.05 0.80 .4262

Attachment anxiety 0.19 0.05 3.58 .0004 0.20 0.05 3.70 .0003

Social support

Attachment avoidance 20.26 0.06 24.63 .0000 20.23 0.05 24.33 .0000

Attachment anxiety 20.06 0.06 21.00 .3171 20.08 0.05 21.44 .1517

Self-efficacy

Attachment avoidance 20.06 0.04 21.36 .1738 20.05 0.04 21.16 .2455

Attachment anxiety 20.16 0.04 23.91 .0001 20.15 0.04 23.67 .0003

Path B: Mediators to coping

Threat 0.06 0.03 2.05 .0420 0.12 0.04 2.65 .0085

Social support 20.07 0.03 22.21 .0279 20.01 0.04 20.20 .8383

Self-efficacy 20.01 0.04 20.30 .7665 0.33 0.06 5.81 .0000

Path C: Attachment to coping (WITHOUT mediators)

Attachment avoidance 0.08 0.02 3.26 .0013 20.06 0.04 21.76 .0805

Attachment anxiety 0.11 0.02 4.92 .0000 20.08 0.04 22.32 .0213

Attachment to coping (WITH mediators)

Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.02 2.31 .0218 20.05 0.04 21.55 .1233

Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.02 4.01 .0001 20.06 0.04 21.59 .1136

Indirect effect(s) through: Effect SE(boot) LLCI ULCI Effect SE(boot) LLCI ULCI

Threat

Attachment avoidance 0.00 0.00 2.0044 .0123 0.01 0.01 2.0094 .0203

Attachment anxiety 0.01 0.01 .0009 .0252 0.02 0.01 .0037 .0508

Social support

Attachment avoidance 0.02 0.01 .0008 .0402 0.00 0.01 2.0214 .0258

Attachment anxiety 0.00 0.00 2.0039 .0119 0.00 0.00 2.0077 .0119

Self-efficacy

Attachment avoidance 0.00 0.00 2.0056 .0071 20.02 0.01 2.0475 .0100

Attachment anxiety 0.00 0.01 2.0128 .0156 20.05 0.02 2.0884 2.0207

418 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

as attachment anxiety increased, for individuals reporting

low self-efficacy.

Further, when social support was high, attachment anxiety

negatively predicted problem-focused coping, b 5 2.23,

t 5 22.61, p 5 .010, such that respondents perceiving high

levels of support were more likely to use problem-focused

coping when attachment anxiety was low rather than high.

However, attachment anxiety was unrelated to problem-

focused coping when social support was low, b 5 2.13,

t 5 21.34, p 5 .180.

Discussion

This study investigated the mediating role of threat appraisals

in the association between attachment insecurities and cop-

ing strategies, together with the mediating and moderating

role of key coping resources (general self-efficacy and per-

ceived social support). The results highlight the pervasive

effects of attachment insecurities, which predicted all core

components of the transactional model of stress and coping:

stress appraisal, perceptions of coping resources, and reports

of coping strategies. The findings provide strong support for

the relevance of attachment theory to the study of workplace

stress. Importantly, the results support the proposition that

secure attachment not only promotes effective functioning

within couple and family relationships but also facilitates

adults’ successful negotiation of work-related stressors and

demands (Hazan & Shaver, 1990; Vasquez et al., 2002).

Consistent with the first hypothesis, both attachment

dimensions showed bivariate correlations with emotion-

focused (positive) and problem-focused coping (negative).

Table 3 Moderated Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Emotion-Focused Coping, and Problem-Focused Coping

Emotion-focused coping Problem-focused coping

b SE (b) B B SE (b) B

Step 1

Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.03 0.16 20.05 0.04 20.10

Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.02 0.29*** 20.04 0.04 20.07

Support 20.06 0.03 20.12 0.01 0.04 0.01

Self-efficacy 20.02 0.04 20.03 0.31 0.06 0.37***

Step 2

Attachment avoidance 0.06 0.03 0.17* 20.04 0.04 20.08

Attachment anxiety 0.10 0.03 0.29*** 20.03 0.04 20.07

Support 20.03 0.04 20.06 0.01 0.05 0.01

Self-efficacy 20.04 0.04 20.07 0.28 0.06 0.34***

Attachment avoidance x support 20.06 0.03 20.17* 0.03 0.04 0.06

Attachment avoidance x self-efficacy 0.03 0.04 0.06 20.02 0.06 20.03

Attachment anxiety x support 0.03 0.03 0.08 20.09 0.04 20.16*

Attachment anxiety x self-efficacy 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.17*

* p< .05; ** p< .01; *** p< .001.

Figure 2 Mean scores on emotion-focused coping according to attach-

ment avoidance and social support. Figure 3 Mean scores on problem-focused coping according to attach-

ment anxiety and self-efficacy.

Johnstone and Feeney 419

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

Controlling for other variables in the model, the strongest

association was between attachment anxiety and more

emotion-focused coping. As noted earlier, emotion-

focused coping can be a constructive response in situa-

tions that are beyond the individual’s control. However,

in most stressful situations, reliance on emotion-focused

coping is not adaptive, as it fails to deal with the stressor.

Indeed, over-reliance on emotion-focused coping in the

context of workplace stress leads to poor physical and

emotional well-being (e.g., Regehr, LeBlanc, Barath,

Balch, & Birze, 2012).

In terms of stress appraisal, both attachment dimensions

showed positive bivariate associations with perceptions of the

threat (danger and negativity) associated with the workplace

stressor. However, the association was significantly stronger

for the anxiety dimension of attachment, which (consistent

with Hypothesis 2a) remained a highly significant predictor

of threat appraisal when other variables in the model were

statistically controlled. This finding fits with a growing num-

ber of studies linking adults’ attachment anxiety to percep-

tions of stressors as overwhelming and catastrophic, both in

the workplace (Schirmer & Lopez, 2001) and more generally

(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013).

With regard to coping resources, bivariate correlations

again linked both attachment dimensions to reports of

low self-efficacy and social support. However, the correla-

tion with self-efficacy was stronger for the anxiety dimen-

sion, whereas the correlation with perceived social

support was stronger for the avoidance dimension. These

findings are consistent with attachment theory, which

emphasises negative working models of self as a core fea-

ture of attachment anxiety, and negative working models

of others as a core feature of attachment avoidance. When

other variables in the model were statistically controlled,

significant relations between attachment dimensions and

coping resources emerged for anxiety and self-efficacy

(supporting H2b), and for avoidance and social support

(in partial support of H2c).

Importantly, the bootstrapping analyses identified four

indirect effects of attachment on coping strategies. Consistent

with Hypothesis 3a, attachment anxiety predicted higher

appraisals of threat, which in turn predicted more emotion-

focused coping and less problem-focused coping. In addi-

tion, there were significant indirect paths from attachment

anxiety to less problem-focused coping via low self-efficacy

(H3b), and from avoidance to more emotion-focused coping

via perceptions of low social support (H3c). When the medi-

ators were included in the model, the paths from the attach-

ment measures to emotion-focused coping remained

significant, indicating only partial mediation. In contrast, the

path from attachment anxiety to less problem-focused cop-

ing was no longer significant, indicating full mediation via

high threat and low self-efficacy. These mediation findings

are important, as they point to mechanisms and processes

that underlie the associations between attachment insecur-

ities and less adaptive coping. As discussed later, these mech-

anisms suggest possible points of intervention for those

facing workplace stress.

There was also evidence, however, of interactive effects of

attachment and coping resources on coping strategies. These

effects highlight the need to consider combinations of risk

factors for less adaptive coping. For example, reports of

emotion-focused coping were particularly high for avoidant

individuals who perceived members of their social network

as unsupportive. Further, the combination of high anxiety

and low self-efficacy was associated with particularly low lev-

els of problem-focused coping. These findings suggest that

negative perceptions of coping resources may increase inse-

cure individuals’ tendency to rely on less adaptive forms of

coping, whereas positive perceptions of resources generally

buffer against this tendency (Seiffge-Krenke, 2011). However,

the final interaction (Figure 4) revealed that levels of

problem-focused coping were particularly high for low-

anxious individuals who perceived high support, but quite

low for anxious individuals who perceived high support. Per-

haps when highly anxious individuals face stressors, members

of the support network are relied on primarily for emotional

venting, rather than as a resource for problem-solving.

Implications of the findings

The current findings have implications for interventions

designed to reduce the effects of workplace stress. Given the

pervasive effects of attachment insecurities on aspects of

stress and coping, there should be clear benefits from assist-

ing insecure individuals to cope with potential stressors. In

line with this assertion, recent decades have witnessed a rapid

growth in interventions directly targeting adults’ negative

working models of attachment (Fonagy, Gergely, & Target,

2008; Slade, 2008). At the same time, it is important to

acknowledge that working models are most malleable during

Figure 4 Mean scores on problem-focused coping according to attach-

ment anxiety and social support.

420 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

the formative years of childhood and adolescence; once con-

solidated, they are more resistant to change (Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007). Hence, although changing working models

remains possible, it can be an intensive process that is beyond

the responsibility of the work environment. However, target-

ing variables that mediate or moderate attachment-related

effects offers a fruitful avenue for promoting positive change.

In terms of primary appraisal, helping anxious individuals

to appraise potential stressors as less threatening and over-

whelming should promote constructive coping behaviors.

Further, anxious individuals are particularly sensitive to

stressful situations that may be seen as signaling rejection or

criticism (Feeney, 1998), and are highly concerned about

evaluations by coworkers (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If supervi-

sors are aware of these concerns and strive to promote a col-

legial environment, anxious individuals may perceive

workplace stressors—and the workplace environment more

generally—as less threatening.

Regarding secondary appraisal, the current study assessed

coping resources (social support and self-efficacy) in terms of

global perceptions, which are likely to reflect adults’ experi-

ences both within and beyond the workplace. However, both

these coping resources can be targeted in occupational set-

tings. For example, workers’ perceptions of their ability to

deal with major change or job uncertainty are crucial to cop-

ing with workplace stress (Houghton, Wu, Godwin, Neck, &

Manz, 2012). Although the present study assessed general

self-efficacy, this measure has been shown to predict specific

self-efficacy for a range of tasks and contexts (Chen et al.,

2001). We have seen that for anxious persons, low self-

efficacy inhibits problem-focused coping. In this context,

self-efficacy may be enhanced by providing clear information

about impending changes, and helping workers acquire skills

that can be applied directly to new tasks. By introducing

change in manageable stages and providing positive feedback

on task mastery, supervisors may ensure that potentially

stressful tasks do not overwhelm anxious individuals or exac-

erbate their sense of personal inadequacy.

In addition, both peers and supervisors can be valuable

sources of support in the workplace (Linnan, Fisher, & Hood,

2013; Mesmer-Magnus & Glew, 2012). In this regard, it is cru-

cial to note that attachment research has identified two inter-

related components to attachment-related differences in

reports of social support. First, secure individuals develop

stronger and more supportive networks than insecure individ-

uals, as a function of their more open and positive interperso-

nal style. Second, even when the amount and type of available

support are controlled, secure individuals appraise that sup-

port more positively (Gosnell & Gable, 2013; Mikulincer &

Shaver, 2007). Hence, a key contribution of attachment theory

is to highlight the role not only of actual supportive interac-

tions but also of the perceptual biases that drive insecure indi-

viduals to be critical of the support that is offered.

In fostering a sense of support in the workplace, support

provision may need to be salient and consistent to be

appraised as adequate by those who are less secure. In partic-

ular, since avoidant adults are often reluctant to seek and uti-

lize support, supervisors and colleagues should be tactful in

their support efforts, and may need to show continued inter-

est despite initial rejections of support (Halpern, Maunder,

Schwartz, & Gurevich, 2012). Further, support efforts may be

more effective when they focus on issues reflecting avoidant

persons’ goals and concerns, such as enhancing achievement,

rather than on distress per se. This notion is consistent with

recent conceptualizations of secure base support, which focus

on personal growth and exploration (Feeney, Collins, van

Vleet, & Tomlinson, 2013).

Enhancing workers’ sense of security, support and self-

efficacy may seem difficult tasks. However, another contribu-

tion of the integrative model tested in this study is to high-

light the inter-related effects of attachment dimensions and

coping resources throughout the coping process; thus even

relatively small changes in these variables may be beneficial.

We have seen that coping resources act as both mediators

and moderators of attachment-related effects; further,

researchers have noted that perceptions of coping resources

feed back into appraisals of stress (Lazarus & Folkman,

1984). Hence, for example, boosting anxious individuals’

sense of self-efficacy should not only reduce the level of threat

attributed to workplace stressors but also buffer against the

tendency to avoid tackling these stressors.

Limitations, strengths, and future directions

In considering the present findings, it is important to

acknowledge the limitations of the research. A major limita-

tion concerns the cross-sectional design, which precludes

definitive conclusions about causal associations. However, it

should be noted that both attachment theory and empirical

findings support the conceptualisation of attachment inse-

curity as a relatively stable individual-difference variable that

shapes responses to diverse situations, particularly those per-

ceived as stressful (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2013). Another

potential limitation of the study is the reliance on self-

reports. For example, the measure of social support assessed

subjective perceptions of available support, rather than objec-

tive characteristics of the support network. On the other

hand, there is considerable consensus that subjective percep-

tions of support are better predictors of health and well-

being than are objective indicators (Hobfoll, 1996). Another

limitation with regard to measurement was the skewed distri-

bution for social support. However, the associated truncation

of range is likely to under-estimate (rather than over-state)

the strength of associations with other variables.

The study also had noteworthy strengths. These include

the strong theoretical framework, which integrated

Johnstone and Feeney 421

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

attachment principles with the transactional model of stress

and coping; as noted earlier, attachment theory is well suited

to this endeavour, given its focus on individual differences in

response to stress and challenge. Further, use of the struc-

tured vignette ensured that all participants were responding

to the same stressor, which was designed to reflect key ele-

ments in the experience of workplace stress (change, chal-

lenge, and uncertainty). Finally, the sampling procedure was

effective in providing a broad community sample in which

different ages, genders, and occupational groups were well

represented.

In evaluating the specific contribution of attachment

theory, it is worth noting that Semmer and Meier (2009) dis-

cussed potential overlap among constructs employed in the

study of stress (e.g., threat, neuroticism or negative affectivity

and emotion-focused coping), and argued the need to clarify

patterns of association. In the present study, neither item

content nor high intercorrelations suggested redundancy

among the focal variables. Further, although attachment

measures tap relatively enduring individual differences, they

are not redundant with alternative constructs such as neurot-

icism or negative affectivity. Neuroticism shows a more

robust link with attachment anxiety than with avoidance

(e.g., Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011;

Wijngaards-de Meij et al., 2007); even so, this association is

modest in size. Finally, although constructs such as neuroti-

cism and negative affectivity may contribute to the associa-

tions of attachment anxiety with such diverse outcomes as

caregiving, relationship satisfaction, and symptom-reporting,

both cross-sectional and longitudinal research support the

unique predictive utility of attachment measures (Mikulincer

& Shaver, 2007). The finding that each indirect effect in this

study was specific to a particular attachment dimension fur-

ther supports the utility of these scales.

In terms of directions for future research, a clear impera-

tive is the use of longitudinal and/or intervention studies,

which would provide more compelling evidence of the pro-

posed causal associations. Another important initiative

would be the development of new measures of coping,

designed to capture the differing styles of emotional regula-

tion that characterise anxious and avoidant individuals. The

category of “emotion-focused coping” is very broad and

encompasses diverse strategies, some of which seem more

characteristic of attachment anxiety (e.g., wishful thinking),

and some of which seem more applicable to attachment

avoidance (e.g., trying to keep one’s feelings to oneself). Con-

struction of new measures designed specifically to assess

these different approaches to coping is likely to assist profes-

sionals to develop more targeted interventions for anxious

and avoidant individuals.

Summary and conclusions

While work stress is a major cause of physical and psychologi-

cal distress for many individuals, the results of this study sup-

port the role of individual differences in attachment security

in shaping responses to workplace stress. Attachment insecur-

ities are associated with the appraisal of stressors as more

threatening, and with negative perceptions of one’s internal

and external coping resources. In turn, these negative apprais-

als and perceptions are linked to less adaptive coping strat-

egies. Given the pervasive effects of attachment insecurities,

together with the personal and social costs of workplace

stress, the findings highlight the likely benefits of actively sup-

porting individuals who are facing workplace stress. Further,

although informational support is important in the context

of job change and uncertainty, it is equally important to pro-

vide the emotional support that may help counter insecure

individuals’ negative biases in evaluations of self and others.

References

Abraham, C., Conner, M., Jones, F., &

O’Connor, D. (2008). Health psychology

topics in applied psychology. London:

Hodder Education.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The

job demands-resources model: State of

the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

22, 309–328.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986).

The moderator–mediator variable dis-

tinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic, and

statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51,

1173–1182.

Bowlby, J. (1984). Attachment and loss:

Vol.1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Harmonds-

worth, England: Penguin.

Chen, C., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001).

Validation of a new general self-efficacy

scale. Organizational Research Methods,

4, 62–83.

Cicognani, E. (2011). Coping strategies

with minor stressors in adolescence:

Relationships with social support, self-

efficacy, and psychological well-being.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41,

559–578.

Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social support and

stress in the transition to parenthood.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93,

378–390.

Econtech. (2008). The cost of workplace

stress in Australia. Commissioned by

Medibank Private. Canberra, ACT.

Feeney, B. C., Collins, N. L., van Vleet,

M., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2013). Moti-

vations for providing a secure base:

Links with attachment orientation

and secure base support behavior.

Attachment and Human Development,

15, 261–280.

Feeney, J. A. (1998). Adult attachment and

relationship-centered anxiety: Responses

to physical and emotional distancing. In

J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships

(pp. 189–218). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

422 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

Ferguson, M. (2012). You cannot leave it at

the office: Spillover and crossover of

coworker incivility. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 33, 571–588.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An

analysis of coping in a middle-aged com-

munity sample. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 21, 219–239.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it

changes it must be a process: Study of

emotion and coping during three stages

of a college examination. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 48, 150.

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M.

(2008). Psychoanalytic constructs and

attachment theory and research. In J.

Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook

of attachment: Theory, research, and clini-

cal applications (2nd ed., pp. 783–810).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A.

M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The

experiences in close relationships—Rela-

tionship structures questionnaire: A

method for assessing attachment orienta-

tions across relationships. Psychological

Assessment, 23, 615–625.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult

attachment and the suppression of

unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 73, 1080–1091.

Gosnell, C. L., & Gable, S. L. (2013).

Attachment and capitalizing on positive

events. Attachment & Human Develop-

ment, 15, 281–302.

Halpern, J., Maunder, R. G., Schwartz, B., &

Gurevich, M. (2012). Attachment inse-

curity, responses to critical incident dis-

tress, and current emotional symptoms

in ambulance workers. Stress and Health:

Journal of the International Society for the

Investigation of Stress, 28, 51–60.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and

Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in

the new millennium. Communication

Monographs, 76, 408–420.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statis-

tical mediation analysis with a multicate-

gorical independent variable. British

Journal of Mathematical and Statistical

Psychology, 67, 451–470.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic

love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 511.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and

work: An attachment-theoretical per-

spective. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 59, 270.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1996). Social support: Will

you be there when I need you? In N.

Vanzetti & S. Duck (Eds.), A lifetime of

relationships (pp. 47–74). Pacific Grove,

CA: Brooks/Cole.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., & Bonin, L.

(1997). Social support, coping, and psy-

chological adjustment: A resource model.

In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, &

B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social

support and personality (pp. 169–186).

New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C.

K., & Cronkite, R. C. (1999). Resource

loss, resource gain, and depressive symp-

toms: A 10-year model. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 77,

620–629.

Holahan, C. K., & Holahan, C. J. (1987).

Self-efficacy, social support, and depres-

sion in aging: A longitudinal analysis.

Journal of Gerontology, 42, 65–68.

Houghton, J. D., Wu, J., Godwin, J. L.,

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2012). Effec-

tive stress management: A model of

emotional intelligence, self-leadership,

and student stress coping. Journal of

Management Education, 36, 220–238.

Karantzas, G. C. (2010). A re-examination

of coping from an attachment theory

perspective. Paper presented at the Inter-

national Association for Relationship

Research Biennial Conference, Herziliya,

Israel.

Landen, S. M., & Wang, C.-C. D. (2010).

Adult attachment, work cohesion, cop-

ing, and psychological well-being of fire-

fighters. Counselling Psychology

Quarterly, 23, 143–162.

Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., &

LaMontagne, A. D. (2014). Work

organization, job insecurity, and

occupational health disparities. Amer-

ican Journal of Industrial Medicine, 57,

495–515.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A

new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer

Publishing Company.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress,

appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:

Springer Publishing Company.

Leka, S., Griffiths, A., & Cox, T. (2004).

Work, organization and stress: Systematic

problem approaches for employers, manag-

ers and trade union representatives. Pro-

tecting Workers’ Health Series No. 3.

Geneva, Switzerland, World Health

Organization.

Linnan, L., Fisher, E. B., & Hood, S. (2013).

The power and potential of peer support

in workplace interventions. American

Journal of Health Promotion, 28,

TAHP2–10.

Mesmer-Magnus, J., & Glew, D. J. (2012).

Workplace predictors of family-facilitative

coworker support. Journal of Workplace

Behavioral Health, 27, 289–310.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The

relationship between adult attachment

styles and emotional and cognitive reac-

tions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson

& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory

and close relationships (pp. 143–165).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007).

Attachment in adulthood: Structure,

dynamics, and change. New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). An

attachment perspective on resilience to

stress and trauma. In M. Kent, M. C.

Davis & J. W. Reich (Eds.), The resilience

handbook: Approaches to stress and

trauma (pp. 156–168). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Moos, R. H., & Billings, A. G. (1982). Con-

ceptualizing and measuring coping

resources and processes. In L. Goldberger

& S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress:

Theoretical and clinical aspects (pp. 212–

230). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The

stress appraisal measure (SAM): A multi-

dimensional approach to cognitive

appraisal. Stress Medicine, 6, 227–236.

Pines, A. M. (2004). Adult attachment

styles and their relationship to burnout:

A preliminary, cross-cultural investiga-

tion. Work & Stress, 18, 66–80.

Regehr, C., LeBlanc, V. R., Barath, I., Balch,

J., & Birze, A. (2012). Predictors of physi-

ological stress and psychological distress

in police communicators. Police Practice

and Research, 14, 451–463.

Russell, D., Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko,

K. (1984). Social and emotional loneli-

Johnstone and Feeney 423

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424

ness: An examination of Weiss’s typology

of loneliness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 46, 1313–1321.

Schirmer, L. L., & Lopez, F. G. (2001). Prob-

ing the social support and work strain

relationship among adult workers: Con-

tributions of adult attachment orienta-

tions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59,

17–33.

Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2011). Coping with rela-

tionship stressors: A decade review. Jour-

nal of Research on Adolescence, 21,

196–210.

Semmer, N. K. (2003). Individual differen-

ces, work stress and health. In M. J.

Schabracq, J. A. M. Winnubst, & C. L.

Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of work

and health psychology (2nd ed., pp. 83–

120). Chichester, West Sussex, England:

Wiley.

Semmer, N. K., & Meier, L. L. (2009). Indi-

vidual differences, work stress, and health.

In C. L. Cooper, J. C. Quick, & M. J.

Schabracq (Eds.), International handbook

of work and health psychology (3rd ed., pp.

99–121). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2013).

Adult attachment and emotion regu-

lation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook

of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp.

237–250). New York, NY: The Guil-

ford Press.

Simmons, B. L., Gooty, J., Nelson, D. L., &

Little, L. M. (2009). Secure attachment:

Implications for hope, trust, burnout,

and performance. Journal of Organiza-

tional Behavior, 30, 233–247.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D.

(1996). Conflict in close relationships:

An attachment perspective. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 71,

899–914.

Slade, A. (2008). The implications of

attachment theory and research for adult

psychotherapy: Research and clinical per-

spectives. In J. C. P. R. Shaver (Ed.),

Handbook of attachment: Theory,

research, and clinical applications (2nd

ed., pp. 762–782). New York, NY: Guil-

ford Press.

Vasquez, K., Durik, A. M., & Hyde, J. S.

(2002). Family and work: Implica-

tions of adult attachment styles. Per-

sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

28, 874–886.

Weiss, R. S. (1974). The provisions of social

relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing

unto others (pp. 17–26). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Wijngaards-de Meij, L., Stroebe, M.,

Schut, H., Stroebe, W., van den Bout,

J., van der Heijden, P., et al. (2007).

Neuroticism and attachment insecur-

ity as predictors of bereavement out-

come. Journal of Research in

Personality, 41, 498–505.

424 The contribution of attachment theory

VC 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2015, 45, pp. 412–424