Title |
Attachment Security Balances Perspectives: Effects of Security Priming on Highly Optimistic and Pessimistic Explanatory Styles
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01269 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Yanhe Deng, Mengge Yan, Henry Chen, Xin Sun, Peng Zhang, Xianglong Zeng, Xiangping Liu, Yue Lye |
Abstract |
Highly optimistic explanatory style (HOES) and highly pessimistic explanatory style (HPES) are two maladaptive ways to explain the world and may have roots in attachment insecurity. The current study aims to explore the effects of security priming - activating supportive representations of attachment security - on ameliorating these maladaptive explanatory styles. 57 participants with HOES and 57 participants with HPES were randomized into security priming and control conditions. Their scores of overall optimistic attribution were measured before and after priming. Security priming had a moderating effect: the security primed HOES group exhibited lower optimistic attribution, while the security primed HPES group evinced higher scores of optimistic attribution. Furthermore, the security primed HOES group attributed positive outcomes more externally, while the security primed HPES group attributed successful results more internally. The results support the application of security priming interventions on maladaptive explanatory styles. Its potential mechanism and directions for future study are also discussed. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 9 | 23% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
Researcher | 2 | 5% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 12 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 17 | 44% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
Engineering | 2 | 5% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 14 | 36% |