Limitations

Past studies suggest that the effects of attachment prime on intergroup biases may be a result of underlying conflict schema activations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010). Among other things, this study found that secure attachment priming can reduce the tendency to adopt a competitive schema. Given that secure individuals are more likely to resolve conflicts through positive, cooperative strategies, we wanted to explore if a secure attachment prime could

increase one’s likelihood of adopting a cooperative schema during perceived conflict situations.

The second goal was to explore if the activation of a cooperative or competitive schema

influence one’s cooperative, competitive, aggressive, or altruistic behaviors within an intergroup context. Finally, the effects of insecure prime on conflict schemas and subsequent behaviors within an intergroup context were unknown. It is possible that an insecure attachment prime activates a competitive schema and in turn increases the likelihood of competitive or aggressive behaviors. Similarly, an insecure attachment prime could suppress the activation of a cooperative schema reducing the likelihood of cooperative or altruistic behaviors. Study Two of this

dissertation tested the effects of secure, neutral, and insecure prime on competitive, neutral, and cooperative schemas and subsequent behaviors within an intergroup context.

Main hypotheses:

There were two main goals for Study Two: (1) test the effects of attachment primes on conflict schemas and (2) test the potential mediating effects of activated conflict schemas on subsequent intergroup behaviors. Regarding conflict schemas, it was expected that participants in the secure prime condition would be significantly more likely to adopt a cooperative schema and less likely to adopt a competitive schema compared to participants in the neutral and insecure conditions. Conversely, participants in the insecure prime condition would be significantly more

likely to adopt a competitive schema and less likely to adopt a cooperative schema compared to participants in the neutral and secure conditions.

Intergroup behavior assessed through an iterated prisoner’s dilemma task was expected to be partially mediated by the activation of cooperative or competitive schemas. First, it was expected that participants in the insecure, relative to neutral and secure, prime condition would choose more competitive and aggressive and fewer cooperative and altruistic options in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma task. Second, it was expected that this effect would be more likely to occur when interacting with an outgroup as opposed to an ingroup member. Third, this effect was expected to be partially mediated by the activation of a competitive schema. Conversely, it was expected that participants in the secure, relative to neutral and insecure, prime condition would choose more cooperative and altruistic and fewer competitive and aggressive options when interacting with ingroup and outgroup members. It was further predicted that this effect would be partially mediated by the activation of a cooperative schema. Based on previous research, the identity of the hypothetical partner (ingroup versus outgroup) was not expected to influence behavioral choice in the secure prime condition.

Ancillary Hypotheses

Other Dependent Variables of Interest: Beyond conflict schemas, several other conceptually important dependent variables were assessed to obtain a fuller understanding of attachment effects on interpersonal conflict. Given that intergroup and interpersonal conflicts are often influenced by individual variations in conflict handling style, two measures assessing conflict and negotiation beliefs were used – Conflict Management Styles (Kilmann & Thomas, 1977) and Social Values Orientation (adapted from Beersma & De Dreu, 2002). Regarding conflict management styles, it was expected that participants in the secure prime condition would

be significantly more likely to display a cooperative or collaborating style and less likely to display an avoiding or competitive style relative to participants in the neutral or insecure

conditions. Conversely, participants in the insecure prime condition would be significantly more likely to display an avoiding or competitive style and less likely to display a cooperative or collaborating style relative to participants in the neutral or secure conditions. Of course, these effects were expected to be mediated by the activation of cooperative or competitive schemas.

Regarding Social Values Orientation, it was expected that participants in the secure prime condition would be significantly more likely to display prosocial motivations and less likely to display pro-self motivations compared to participants in the neutral and insecure conditions.

Conversely, participants in the insecure prime condition would be significantly more likely to display pro-self motivations and less likely to display prosocial motivations compared to participants in the neutral and secure conditions. Finally, the effects of attachment prime on social values orientation was expected to be mediated by the activation of cooperative or competitive schemas.

A partner evaluation measure was used to assess attitudes towards ingroup and outgroup members. Overall, it was expected that participants in the secure prime condition would evaluate their partners more favorably than participants in the neutral and insecure prime conditions.

Conversely, participants in the insecure prime condition would evaluate their partners more unfavorably than participants in the neutral and secure prime conditions. However, these evaluations were expected to be influenced by the kind of choices a participant makes in the prisoner’s dilemma task.

Other Individual Difference Measures of Interest: Given that the main hypothesis predicts a significant relationship between attachment primes and intergroup conflict, variables

theoretically relevant to attachment or intergroup conflict were assessed and considered in analyses. Three measures-chronic relationship attachment styles, trait aggression, and trait prosocialness were assessed prior to the experimental manipulation.

First, similar to previous research (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010), it was predicted that chronic relationship insecurities, specifically attachment anxiety, would lead to greater likelihood of adopting competitive schemas. Participants with chronic attachment anxieties were also expected to choose more competitive and aggressive options in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma task. Previous research did not find a significant interaction between attachment primes and relationship attachment styles (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2010), thus no interaction between attachment prime manipulations and chronic relationship attachment style was expected.

Second, trait aggression (Buss & Perry, 1992) was expected to affect conflict schemas and competitive and aggressive behaviors. Specifically, participants high on trait aggression were expected to have a greater likelihood of adopting competitive schemas and lower likelihood of adopting cooperative schemas. Based on previous studies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b), these participants were also expected to choose more competitive and aggressive options in the prisoner’s dilemma task. It was unclear whether there would be an interaction between

attachment primes and trait aggression and thus no specific predictions were made.

Finally, trait prosocialness (Carlo & Randall, 2002) was expected to affect conflict schemas. Specifically, participants high on trait prosocialness were expected to have a greater likelihood of adopting cooperative schemas and lower likelihood of adopting competitive schemas. Participants with high trait prosocialness were also expected to choose more

cooperative and altruistic options in the iterated prisoner’s dilemma task. It was unclear whether

there would be an interaction between attachment primes and trait prosocialness and thus no specific hypotheses were formulated.

CHAPTER 14: METHODS OF STUDY TWO