linda ottosson graduate thesis, 2015

ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 1

How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance,

Engagement and Motivation

Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin,

Tome Saidon, Victoria Shaw

Baruch College City University of New York

Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda

De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin, Tome Saidon, or Victoria Shaw,

Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch

Way, New York, N.Y. 10010

Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]


Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….….……..5

Literature Review …………………………………………………………………….…………...6

Attachment Theory………………………………………………….…………………………….6

Attachment Theory and Adult/Romantic Relationships…………………………………12

Attachment in the Workplace……………………………………………………….......,17

Perception …………………………………………………………………………………,……19

Perception and Leadership……………………………………………...…………….….19

Leadership and Performance……………………………………………………………..………22

Engagement……………………………………………………………………………..………..28

Attachment and Engagement…………………………………………………………….28

Leadership and Engagement……………………………………………………………..30

Hypotheses…………………………………………………………………………………….....31

Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………..32

Participants…………………………………………………………………………….....32

Measures………………………………………………………………………….……...33

Research Design and Procedures………………………………………………………...34

Results……………………………………………………………………………………..……..37

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….……….43

Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….49

Future Studies …………………………………………………………………………...50

References ………………………………………………………………………..……..……….46


Appendices…………………………………………………………………….…………...…….60

Appendix A: Consent Form ...……………………………………………………………….…60

Appendix B: Demographic Survey ………………………………………………………….......64

Appendix C: Email Proposal for Professors…….…………………………………………...…..67

Appendix D: Permission to Recruit Subjects…………………………………………………….68

Appendix 1: MANOVA…………………………………………………………………………71

Appendix 2: Pearson Correlation………………………………………………………………...72

Appendix 3: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Final Grade; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and

Final Grade)…………………………………………………………………………………..….73

Appendix 4: ANOVA (Model1: Final Grade and ECR; Model 2: Final Grade, ECR, and

MLQ)…………………………………………………………………………………………….74

Appendix 5: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Final Grade)……………………………...75

Appendix 6: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and

Boosters)…………………………………………………………………………………………76

Appendix 7: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)……77

Appendix 8: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Boosters)…………………………………78

Appendix 9: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; Model 2: ECR, MLQ,

and Guzzlers/Mufflers)…………………………………………………………………………..79

Appendix 10: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and

Guzzlers and Mufflers)…………………………………………………………………………..80

Appendix 11: Multiple Regression Coefficients (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and

Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)……………...……………………………….81

Appendix 12: Experiences in Close Relationships and Final Grades…………………………....82


Appendix 13: Leadership Styles and Students’ Final Grades…………………………...………83

Appendix 14: Attachment Style and Engagement Levels……………………………..………...84

Appendix 15: Engagement Levels and Leadership Style……………………………………..…85

Appendix 16: GuzzlerMuffler Scores and Attachment Style……....………………………..…..86

Appendix 17: GuzzlerMuffler Means and Leadership Style…………………………………....87

Appendix 18: Mean of Final Grades and ECR………………………………………………..…88

Appendix 19: Mean of Final Grades and MLQ……………….…………………………………89

Appendix 20: Mean of Boosters and ECR………………….……...…………………………….90

Appendix 21: Mean of Booster scores and MLQ………………………………………………..91

Appendix 22: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and ECR………………………………………..92

Appendix 23: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and MLQ…………………………………...…..93


Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect attachment style and perceptions of

leadership had on a student’s performance, motivation and engagement. Several analyses were

conducted after participants completed the Experience in Close Relationships (ECR) survey, the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Motivation and Engagement Scale (MES).

In addition, student’s final grades were used as a measure of performance. A MANOVA was

conducted to determine the effect of our two independent variables; attachment style and

perception of leadership, on our two dependent variables; final grade, and motivation and

engagement. Although there were no statistically significant results found in the MANOVA, a

Person’s Correlation was conducted to further examine the relationship between final grade,

Booster scores, Guzzler and Muffler scores, the MLQ, and the ECR). We used a Multiple

Regression to determine how much of the variance in grades could be explained by the ECR and

MLQ. Due to small sample sizes, not many statistically significant results were obtained;

however, patterns of relationships were identified and discussed for future research.


Literature Review

An increasingly common explanation for how one relates to others is one offered by

attachment theory. Attachment has been studied to help explain engagement, romantic

relationships, addiction, and leader-follower relationships (Fletcher, Nutton, & Brend, 2015;

Hart, Bizer, & Collins, 2015; Hudson, 2013). Attachment is defined as the need of an individual

to remain close to another who one deems better able to cope with world events, otherwise

known as a caregiver. Attachment behaviors are most obvious in highly stressful situations

where an individual experiences feelings such as fatigue, frightfulness, and pain. It is in these

moments that individuals look to the availability of a caregiver for comfort and security

(Bowlby, 1988 pg. 26-27; Hudson 2013). Attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby,

and has since gained recognition around the world as one of the most influential theories

explaining how individuals relate not only to one another but also to groups and the quality of

these relationships (Hudson, 2013). In his earlier works, Bowlby observed patterns of responses

of young children temporarily separated from their mothers. Behavioral responses of these

children included detachment, protest, and despair. Detachment is defined as a defensive process

that occurs in children where the child temporarily becomes angry with a caregiver and pushes

them away for some interval of time, occurring during moments of stress as opposed to looking

to them for support (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 32-33). Furthermore, Bowlby observed similar patterns of

attachment responses across humans and animals, first in Konrad Lorenz’s work on goslings and

imprinting and later with Harry Harlow and his studies of infant monkeys (Bowlby & King,

2004; Bowlby, 1988 pg. 23). The argument of attachment as a biological component, innate


across different species, began to take shape as an influential factor that remains prominent

throughout the lifespan.

Bowlby theorized that parental behaviors are somewhat programmed like attachment

behaviors and play a significant role in the development of the dialogue and relationship between

the caregiver and child (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 4). This dialogue is established during infancy with

the caregiver’s responses to the infant- usually in the form facial expressions and vocalizations.

As a result, the infant will begin to kick and reach for the caregiver. These interactions continue

in cycles where factors such as the caregiver’s response time, the withdrawal and interaction

behaviors of the infant, and the ability of the caregiver to adjust to the infant’s needs, all play

significant roles in the development and efficiency of these dialogues (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 7). It

has been observed that an infant’s capacity to identify their caregiver and recognize when (s)he

is not present develops in the last 6 months of their first year. As a result, at 9 months of age it is

typical for a child to cry in the presence of a stranger when their mother is not present and to

reject the stranger (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 122). During this stage, internal working models of self

and other begin to develop as the infant becomes aware of the caregiver’s absence and return,

which continue to develop throughout their life (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 123).

Internal working models of attachment are based on experiences in the child’s life and

day to day interactions with their caregiver. The model of self and model of other develops as the

child experiences how the caregiver(s) feel towards and sees him/her and in turn how they feel

toward and see the caregiver(s) (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 129-130). These internal working models

become prototypes by which individuals view themselves and others in relationships later in life

(Bartholomew & Horovitz, 1991). A person’s model of self affects perceptions of self-worth and

self-acceptance. On the other hand, a person’s model of others affects perceptions of availability


and responsiveness of an attachment figure(s). If a child receives adequate and sensitive care

from an attachment figure, (s)he will develop a model of self as “worthy” with a view of others

as “predictable”. However, if a child receives inconsistent care or is rejected or neglected by

their attachment figure, (s)he will develop a model of self as “unworthy” with a view of others as

“unreliable.” Although these models of self and other form during childhood, attachment theory

proposes that they will continue to influence the individual in important ways throughout his or

her life (Hudson, 2013).

Mary Ainsworth, another leading theorist in attachment, expanded on Bowlby’s work and

tested his ideas empirically (Bretherton, 1992). Ainsworth focused her work around infancy in

Uganda, specifically the infant-mother relationship. It has been noted that a necessary first step

in the development of attachment is the ability of the infant to differentiate their mother from

other individuals. Ainsworth began identifying characteristics that helped define different

attachment styles such as differential crying, differential smiling, differential vocalization, crying

when the mother leaves, following, visual-motor orientation, greeting responses, burying of the

face, kissing and hugging, the use of the mother as a secure base, fleeing to the mother for safety,

and clinging (Salter Ainsworth, 1967, pg. 331-350). These characteristics were developed from

her continued observations of Ugandan infants and their mothers.

In the first quarter of the infant's life (birth to thirteen weeks) Ainsworth noted that

infants began to differentiate their mother from others through crying when the mother left the

room or when in the presence of a stranger. In the second quarter (fourteen to twenty-six weeks)

other differential patterns of behavior began to develop such as differential smiling and

differential vocalization. Towards the end of the second quarter the following behaviors emerged

as the infants began to crawl: greeting behaviors upon the mother's return, smiling, lifting the


arms, and vocalizations. Following the mother when she left the room became more prevalent in

the third quarter (twenty-seven to thirty-nine weeks). Greeting behaviors including approaching

the mother, clapping hands, and lifting of the arms occurred with more frequency in the third

quarter. Ainsworth noted that the extent to which initiative was taken by the infant was evidence

of how concrete the development of attachment behaviors was becoming. In addition, during the

third quarter infants began using their mothers as a secure base. In the fourth quarter and beyond

(forty to sixty weeks), behaviors displayed in the third quarter happened with more frequently in

the fourth quarter especially when approach responses were observed. Clinging and burying of

the face became more evident in the fourth quarter as well as increased negative responses to

strangers (Salter Ainsworth, 1967 pg. 351-385).

Through observations, Ainsworth and her colleagues determined that infants who

received more sensitive care from their mothers during their first year were less likely to cry

during the second half of their first year (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 9). Infants, once mobile, were more

likely to explore their surroundings during favorable conditions, while continuing to use their

mother as a secure base (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 45-46; Salter Ainsworth, 1967 pg. 373). Through her

observations of 12 month olds, Ainsworth classified infants into three categories based on

criteria which included (a) how often and how much the infant was willing to explore their

environment with or without their mother present and, (b) how they treated their mother when

she was present, when she departed, and when she returned. These three categories, once known

as the “non-attached” group, secure-attached group, and insecure-attached group, later developed

into secure, anxious-avoidant, and anxious resistant (Salter Ainsworth, 1967; Bowlby, 1988).

Secure attachment occurs when an individual has confidence in their parent to provide

needs such as responsiveness, availability, and comfort in adverse situations. These individuals


feel confident to explore their environment due to the sensitivity of the parent’s responsiveness

to the child’s needs. Secure children tend to be happier and less demanding which contributes to

healthy development. Low confidence in the responsiveness of a caregiver is a characteristic of

anxious-avoidant attachment. These children tend to teach themselves to be independent and to

distance themselves from love and support of others due to the expectation of being rejected by

their caregiver. Finally, anxious resistant children are unsure if their caregiver will respond to

their needs. These individuals tend to be clingy, develop separation anxiety, and are anxious

about exploring the world. This attachment develops due to the inconsistencies in responsiveness

of the caregiver and the threat of abandonment (Bowlby, 1988 pg. 124, 126, 166).

Mary Ainsworth’s and her colleagues’ Strange Situation experiment serves as a staple in

attachment research. They classified infants into one of the attachment categories based on the

interactions and behaviors displayed with their mothers and strangers. Situational conditions

decipher the intensity of these attachment behaviors once the attachment is formed (Ainsworth &

Bell, 1970; Bowlby, 1988 pg. 3). As noted earlier, it has been theorized that infants use their

mothers as a basis for security when exploring a strange environment. Fear of these new

surroundings is, in a sense, neutralized by the presence of the mother. In addition, attachment

behaviors become increasingly present when the mother is absent and when a stranger enters the

unfamiliar environment (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). In the strange situation reactions and

exploratory behaviors were recorded at each of the eight stages where infants were separated and

reunited with their mother (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Results showed that

infants identified as secure first experienced distress at their mother’s departure, avoided the

stranger when they were alone but were friendly when the mother was present, and happily

welcomed their mother upon reunion. These infants coped with their mother’s departure and,


upon her return, used her as a security basis while they explored their new environment. Anxious

resistant (later relabeled insecure-ambivalent) infants showed signs of intense distress upon their

mother’s departure, avoided the stranger and showed fear when in the presence of the stranger.

Upon reunion, these children approached the mother, however s(he) may have shown resistance

and ambivalence towards contact. These infants tended to cry more and were least likely to

explore their environment. Finally, infants identified as anxious-avoidant (later relabeled

insecure-avoidant) were not distressed when their mother left and continued to play normally in

the presence of the stranger. Upon their mother’s return, the infant showed little to no interest in

their mother and avoided contact with the parent (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

In a study conducted by L. Allan Sroufe (1983) also mentioned in Bowlby (A secure

base, pg127), attachment behaviors of 12 month old infants were observed and assessed. When

the child was placed in a nursery school setting at 3 and a half years old it was determined that

those behaviors that were assessed at 12 months of age were highly predictive of the behaviors

that were displayed at the present time. . As a result, secure children were more likely to be

described by the nursery staff as resourceful, resilient, and cooperative. Anxious avoidant

children were described as hostile, attention seeking, and “emotionally insulated,” where anxious

resistant children were described a tense, impulsive, and easily frustrated.

Mary Main and June Cassidy (1988) developed four category classification of attachment

based on unstructured reunions of 6 year olds with their parents. This four category model served

as the first model to explain those individuals with attachment behaviors that did not fall into the

three category model. Building on the original three classifications of Ainsworth, Main and

Cassidy organized participants in one of the following four categories: secure, insecure-avoidant,

insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-controlling. In a review conducted by Main and Solomon


(1986) of the Strange Situation, it was discovered that there were some infants who were unable

to be classified into one of the three attachment categories and displayed disorganized or

disoriented behaviors which lead to the creation of a fourth attachment style- insecure-

controlling. Results indicated that secure children were relaxed with their reunion and often told

their parent what they did when they were separated. They remained in close proximity to the

parent while maintaining positive conversations and interactions. Insecure-ambivalent children

tended to over exaggerate their interactions when reunited with the parent and although the child

seemed dependent on the parent, they tended to display avoidant and sometimes hostile

behaviors throughout their interactions. Insecure-avoidant children minimized their interactions

with their parents. They held only brief conversations before occupying themselves with their

toys. Finally, insecure-controlling children attempted to control their interactions with their

parents either through humiliation and embarrassment, or through extreme enthusiasm, in an

attempt to direct their parent’s behavior (Main & Cassidy, 1988). Based on these findings, there

is evidence to support how attachment styles affect an individual through the different stages of

their lives.

Attachment and Adult/ Romantic Relationships

As noted earlier, it has been determined that attachment style continues to affect an

individual’s relationships throughout their life, especially in romantic relationships (Bowlby,

1988). Hazan and Shaver (1987) determined that self-reports could be used in assessing one’s

attachment style when studying couples in romantic relationships. Bartholomew and Horowitz

(1991) used the self-report method proposed by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and developed a four-

group model of attachment behavior based on the two levels of internal working models, the

model of self and others. By splitting the two levels into positive or negative four combinations


were created. The first category is a positive model of self and positive model of other

relationship, labeled secure, which includes individuals who encompass a sense of worthiness.

Individuals with a negative model of self but a positive model of other are labeled preoccupied.

This group is comparable to those previously labeled ambivalent where they seek to gain

acceptance of others but feel unloved. Those with a negative model of self and a negative model

of other not only feel unloved but are untrustworthy of others. These individuals protect

themselves from rejection through avoiding involvement with others. This category, labeled

fearful, corresponds with the previous avoidant category. Finally, those with a positive model of

self and a negative model of others are known as dismissing. These individuals maintain their

independence and avoid disappointment by abstaining from forming close relationships with

others. This category corresponds with the previously used insecure-controlling label.

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) hypothesized that interview ratings and self-reports

made by the individual, would remain consistent with friend-report ratings of the four attachment

styles. Participants ranged in age from 18-22. Participant self-reports contained similar outcomes

as the friend reports about the participant. Participants who were categorized as having a secure

attachment style reported themselves to be well balanced and warm hearted, which was

corroborated by their friends. Dismissive avoidant individuals had high ratings of hostility and

introversion in both self-reports and friend-report ratings. Insecure-preoccupied subjects were

seen by their friends as overly expressive and very warm hearted since they valued relationships

so strongly. Fearful- avoidant individuals were often viewed as having lack of social inhibition

and assertiveness in their reports. This study provided evidence that one’s childhood attachment

style predicts the quality and character of future, adult relationships.


Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) expanded on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991)

model by maintaining the categories of attachment and incorporating them on a high/low

anxiety, high/low avoidance scale. They created the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale.

Previous research has indicated that attachment developed during childhood plays a significant

role in our romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver, 1987; Rholes & Steven, 2006). Su Ahn,

Smith and Levine (2002) examined what happens in romantic relationships when partners

discovered that they were lied to by their partner about a matter of some consequence with the

use of Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) three category model. The reactions were dependent on the

attachment needs of the participants. Those who were labeled as secure were least likely to lie in

a relationship and were more likely to talk about the issue when they discovered that they had

been lied to. They also opted to continue the relationship. Anxious/ambivalent individuals

avoided the issue and preferred to stay in the relationship. Avoidant individuals on the other

hand, were most likely to lie in a relationship and were more likely to avoid their partner and not

talk to them at all. They were also more likely to terminate the relationship after deception was

discovered (Su Ahn, Smith and Levine, 2002).

Additional research looked deeper into the link between attachment style and its effect on

romantic relationships, focusing on the relationship to the internal working models of

attachment. Nancy Collins (1996) assessed the effects attachment styles have on social

perceptions and hypothesized a model that linked these working models of attachment to

behavioral, cognitive, and emotional response patterns. In the first study, participants were asked

to complete the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) to assess the individual’s attachment style.

Additionally, participants were asked to provide open-ended explanations to six relationship

events deemed negative. Participants were then asked to think about how they would feel if these


events occurred today and to describe in detail what they would say to their hypothetical partner

in response to these behaviors.

Collins (1996) drew three conclusions based on attachment styles.. First, the observed

attachment style in childhood is useful in predicting individual differences in adult attachment.

Second, different styles of attachment seem to be ingrained in cognitive models of others and

self. Third, adults that have different attachment styles also differ greatly in the quality of their

love relationships. As a result, it has been understood that the style of attachment one has directly

contributes to the quality of their relationship and is not simply a reflection of said relationship.

Therefore, in response to attachment-relevant events, working models of attachment are

automatically activated during these events.

Results showed that when an attachment-relevant event was present, participants were

much more likely to mention an attachment theme in their open-ended responses. It was

determined that participants who comfortably depended on others were less likely to mention an

attachment theme, whereas those who were worried about rejection were more likely to mention

an attachment theme. Working models of attachment played a significant role in a participant’s

negative or positive reactions to attachment-relevant events (Collins, 1996).

In a second study conducted by Collins (1996), participants were asked to respond to the

same assessments, and a relationship quality assessment, but in relation to their current partner

instead of a hypothetical partner. Those in secure relationships interpreted the behaviors of their

partner less negatively than those who felt unloved and anxious. In fact, the fear of rejection

consistently predicted the presence of attachment themes that were negative. As predicted, the

results suggest that the activation of attachment models contributed to responses to attachment-

relevant events (Collins, 1996). Only two significant outcomes were obtained. First, those who


were in committed, better quality relationships were less likely to attribute their partner's

response to dimensions of the relationship and were less likely to worry about rejection. Second,

those who felt unloved attributed their partner’s response to many factors of the relationship and

that these events were unlikely to change (Collins, 1996).

Collins & Feeney (2004) conducted a study where the social support participants received

during a stressful task was either manipulated or observed. In the study, one member of a

romantic couple was told that they would be giving a speech that would be videotaped and then

evaluated. Participating couples were instructed to complete questionnaires that measured

attachment style and relationship satisfaction. During the experiment notes were given to the

"support recipient" two times which were classified as two supportive notes or two relatively

unsupportive notes. In their analysis, the researchers determined there was a significant

relationship between the quality of the relationship and attachment-related anxiety. In contrast to

those in the high support group, those in the low support group who were identified as insecure

were more likely to report that their partner's note made them feel upset and angry, was

disappointing, made them feel bad, and was inconsiderate. Those who were identified as

preoccupied and dismissing reported the lowest levels of support. The researchers concluded that

models of attachment may influence perceptions only when their partner’s behavior is left open

to interpretation and is unclear (Collins & Feeney, 2004).

It has been determined that the identification of one’s attachment style remains constant

across self-reports and reports from others. Researchers have noted that the intensity with which

an attachment behavior is present is dependent attachment related events. These events serve as

triggers to the individual, therefore allowing the researchers to differentiate between the different

attachment styles. Overall, those who were secure in their relationships were less likely to


attribute their partner’s behavior to themselves and were least likely to lie in their relationships.

On the other hand, insecure individuals were more likely to lie in their relationships and

attributed their partner’s behavior to themselves or to some aspect of the relationship. in addition

to romantic relationships, attachment may play a significant role in other aspects of life such as

work relationships.

Attachment in the Workplace

Although many studies have focused on attachment and romantic relationships,

attachment in the workplace is an area where relatively less work has been published. Some

research has developed around the concepts of adult attachment and its role in the relationship

between attachment, leadership, and the leader-follower dynamic. VanSloten & Henderson’s

(2011) study used attachment and leadership measures to identify the causal relationship between

attachment orientations and subsequent leadership styles. The researchers hypothesized that

those individuals with an avoidant attachment style would be less likely to support strategies to

build relationships than those with a secure, neutral, or anxious attachment style. As predicted,

participants with avoidant attachment styles were less likely to develop relational or intellectual

relationships than those with secure, anxious or neutral attachment styles. Specifically, securely

attached individuals found higher satisfaction from relationships that were meaningful and

interpersonal, while avoidant individuals refrained from such relationships and were focused

instead on successful task performance. As a consequence, securely attached individuals were

drawn towards an engaging and relationship-based leadership style, while individuals with

avoidant attachment styles cherished task-oriented leadership styles, focused on rewards and

recognitions (VanSloten & Henderson, 2011). Individuals classified as anxious-insecure

displayed similar preferences as secure individuals where they were attracted to relational,


intellectual and interactive leadership styles. However, they become preoccupied with

maintaining these relationships for fear of being abandoned.

Researchers have identified factors that impact the workplace setting such as work-

related well-being, job satisfaction, and job involvement. Lanciano & Zammuner (2014) studied

the effect of attachment style on predicting work related well-being. Past research in this area has

identified the role of internal working models on building relationships within the workplace and

how this affects the individual’s perceptions, abilities, motivation, and overall organizational

commitment. Lanciano & Zammuner (2014) predicted that securely attached individuals will

positively associate with positive emotional traits, work-related traits, and work related well-

being otherwise known as job-involvement and job satisfaction. On the other hand, it was

predicted that those with anxious or avoidant attachment styles would positively associate with

negative emotional traits and negative work-related traits. Results confirmed both of these

hypotheses- secure attachment was positively correlated with positive work related traits and

positive emotional traits; insecure attachment styles (anxious and avoidant) were negatively

associated with these traits. The lower levels of job satisfaction were reported by both avoidant

and anxious attachment styles. This may be due to the individual distancing themselves from

others because they view others as unavailable or unresponsive as is a pattern seen in the

avoidant attachment style. Avoidant individuals are more independent and have a difficult time

trusting individuals. The researchers speculate that supervisor support plays a mediating role in

the well-being of insecurely attached individuals (Harms, 2011). Overall, this study identified

how interpersonal relationships affect well-being and the role attachment plays in this dynamic.

It suggests that future research should consider these individual differences when studying work

related behaviors and factors such as the effect on perception.


For the purpose of this study, we will be focused on the educational setting. In a meta-

analysis conducted by Poropat (2009) it was argued that school becomes more like work as the

student progresses through their educational career. In addition, from the perspective of the

educator, educational settings serve as a place of work, serving as an influential figure in a

student’s life. As is true for any workplace, factors such as satisfaction, engagement, and work

relationships can affect an individual’s performance along with other aspects of the job.

Additionally, we are interested in the role that perception of the leadership of a teacher plays in a

student’s performance and engagement.

Perception

Perception and Leadership

Perception can be defined as the complex process by which people select and organize

sensory stimulation into a meaningful and rational picture of the world. It is the way in which an

individual interprets his/her experiences. External influences as well as internal feelings and

emotions play a significant role in how one views the outside world and others (Otara 2011). In

organizations, perceptions affect how one views leaders and managers. Otara (2011) talked about

the role that perception plays in influencing how employees view their managers and leaders in

the organization, and how that perception impacts the climate and effectiveness of the workplace

environment. Perceptions can differ greatly from leader to follower which is dependent on

differentiating interpretations. Communication is crucial in all organizations especially when

perceptions are identified through the communication process. Therefore, Otara (2011) suggested

that communication be used as a tool for leaders in order to remain sensitive to different

perceptions.


Is it possible that different styles of leadership affect perception? Bass & Hater (1988)

replicated a previous research where a subordinate’s interpretation and perception of

transformational leadership added to individual ratings of satisfaction and effectiveness. The

researchers hypothesized that transformational leadership would influence subordinate’s ratings

of satisfaction, effectiveness, overall managerial performance, specific managerial performance,

work-group performance, and categorization of management over transactional. In addition, it

was predicted that managers who exhibit “top performance” would be rated higher on

transformational factors than “ordinary” performers. Results showed that subordinates ratings of

managers indicated that transformational leadership added to prediction of ratings of leader

effectiveness and satisfaction over transactional leadership. In addition, those managers

identified as “top” performers were rated higher on transformational leadership. Due to small

sample sizes, obtaining conclusive evidence concerning the remaining hypotheses was

unattainable but patterns indicated overall higher ratings for transformational leadership over

transactional. What role does attachment have in influencing leadership perceptions?

To date, little research has examined how experiences in childhood affect leadership

expectations (Keller, 2003). Therefore, interactions between leaders and followers in the

workplace can be influenced by differences in perceptions especially when considering the

complexity of human being’s perceptions. When employees are new to an organization they

often discover that there is a discrepancy between what they expect from their leader and the

behaviors that the leader displays. As a result, depending on one’s attachment style, it may be

difficult for the new employee to interpret and adapt to their leader’s style (Keller, 2003).

Ainsworth (1991) noted that in order for an attachment theme to be activated between leader and

follower an “affectional bond” must be present. This involves such circumstances as the leader


providing security, sharing experiences, providing a sense of worth, nurturing, and mentorship.

Therefore, leadership perceptions may be influenced by a follower’s attachment and attachment

needs as was discussed by Hansbrough (2012).

Hansborough (2012) focused on follower attachment and perceived transformational

leadership showing how follower’s attachment needs may influence leadership perceptions.

Previous research concentrated on leader attachment and transformational leadership as well as

follower attachment in relation to team membership. Hansborough (2012) noted that individuals

high in attachment anxiety are often preoccupied with identifying with individuals who can serve

as a secure safe haven. As a result, this can distort perceptions of leadership identifying

transformational leadership when it is not present. On the other hand, those high in attachment

avoidance do not trust others and do not like to depend on others. Therefore, the researcher

hypothesized that there will be a positive relationship between attachment anxiety and

perceptions of transformational leadership. Findings indicated that those high in attachment

anxiety perceive leaders as capable of fulfilling their attachment needs and therefore may

identify the leader as transformational. These results were not shared by those high in attachment

avoidance, demonstrating the effect attachment has on perception.

Overall, the current researchers believe that one's attachment style will affect one’s

perceptions of leadership. Past research has suggested that individuals may view their leader as

transformational when they meet certain attachment needs, however, the accuracy of this

interpretation may be skewed when these needs are met. These leadership perceptions may also

affect other factors of the workplace or work environment such as performance. Therefore, we

ask what role leadership plays in performance and engagement when considering attachment as

an active player in this dynamic.


Leadership and Performance

For the purpose of this paper we will be concentrating on transformational, transactional,

and laissez-faire styles of leadership because they have been most researched throughout the

literature. James MacGregor Burns, as mentioned by Bass & Bass (2008), introduced the concept

of transformational and transactional leadership throughout his research concerning political

leaders. In his concept of transforming leadership Burns noted that leaders and followers work

together to achieve a higher level of motivation and morale. Burns described a transformational

leader as one who creates a change within people and the organization. That change is significant

and outlines a vision of future outcomes that can be shared among subordinates and peers. In

addition, a transforming leader is able to stimulate subordinates intellectually and can identify

individual differences among people (Transformational Leadership, n.d.). Burns identified

transactional leaders’ approach as being dependent on the personality and traits of the leader and

his/her ability to lead by example. Although they create a stimulating vision and challenging

goals, exchanges of rewards are contingent upon the displays of these desired behaviors by the

follower as outlined by the transactional leader. Within this theory of transforming leadership,

Burns identified that transformational and transactional styles of leadership were polarized

concepts. These forms of leadership were two opposite entities and did not overlap (Lowe et. al,

1996). However, Bernard M. Bass (2008) noted that transformational and transactional

leadership were related entities; transformational leadership actually built upon the established

behaviors of a transactional leader. On the other hand, there are times where an individual is

identified as laissez faire or the this kind of leader who waits until the last moment to make a

decision or will sometimes wait to make a decision at all (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Laissez-faire

leaders occupy a leadership position but are poor leaders. They are unable to meet subordinate


and organizational expectations. Laissez-faire leadership results in poor job satisfaction, reduced

productivity, and poor group performance. It has been shown that laissez-faire leadership lack

constructive leadership which can lead to role ambiguity which negatively impacts the work

environment (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007). Therefore, the quality

of the exchange between a subordinate and a leader, referred to as the leader-member exchange,

can be severely affected by the type of management practiced.

The leader-member exchange (LMX) is defined as the process by which an informal

leadership role is created through the interactions of leaders and subordinates. The subordinate’s

role is defined by the expectations that a leader puts forth about what they want the subordinate

to do (Bass & Bass, 2008). LMX is a process that has been recognized as beginning as a

transactional exchange which later has the potential of positively correlating with

transformational leadership. Dansereau (1995) as discussed in Bass (2008) argued that leaders

who support subordinates needs, such as self-worth, were confident in the subordinates’ abilities,

motivation, and integrity defining the quality of the LMX. Research has also looked at other

factors that may affect this exchange, such as environmental factors and type of leadership

assessment used.

Lowe’s et. al. (1996) meta-analytic review of leadership behaviors, concentrated on

several factors that affect leadership behaviors and success including type of organizations

(private vs. public), the level of the leader within the organization, and the type of criterion used

to measure leader effectiveness (subordinate perceptions vs. organizational measures). The

findings suggest, in regards to type of organization, that transformational leadership was more

likely to emerge in less constructive, or organic, environments and transactional leadership was

more likely to prevail in mechanistic organizations. Organic organizations are decentralized and


are built around horizontal communication and interactions where mechanistic organizations are

classified as having a hierarchal structure with centralized authority and formal procedures

("Organic Organization," 2014; "Mechanistic Organization," 2014). Furthermore,

transformational leadership has been identified more so within leaders who held higher positions

in the organization. On the other hand, those leaders in lower levels of management were more

likely to be identified as transactional leaders.

Finally, the meta-analysis suggested that subordinate perceptions play an important role

in the outcomes of scored leadership behaviors and that there is often a gap between

organizational measures of the leader and subordinate scores. These findings further support

Bass’ statement that the degree to which transformational leadership results in the effectiveness

of the organization is dependent upon environmental and organizational characteristics as will be

acknowledged in our study through the utilization of different classrooms within the same

organization (Lowe et. al, 1996). Our study will utilize several different undergraduate level

classrooms where teachers and class subject differentiate. Factors such as time of day and type of

class may influence not only leadership perceptions but also the degree of performance and

engagement.

Haber (2012) examined how college students defined the concept of leadership. Research

has examined how college experiences affect student leadership and continues to grow in

popularity, however, there is very little research conducted to examine student perceptions and

the role this may ultimately play in effective student leadership. In this study themes of

leadership were identified by independent raters through the assessment of participants’ free

response definitions. Three broad categories of themes were identified: (a) leader-follower

relationship, (b) leader characteristics and behaviors, and (c) leadership outcomes. Subcategories


of themes were also derived from the definitions given by the students. The leader-follower

relationship themes included collaborative, inspiring, influential, and direct. Themes of

leadership characteristics and behavior discussed three subcategories labeled as supportive,

modeling, and personal qualities. Finally, leadership outcomes identified themes of positive

differences, sharing of goals, and task. An overall finding derived from the statistical analyses

showed that students strongly focused on shared goals and task themes, when defining

leadership. However, the findings suggested that students’ perceptions of leadership were in

many of the cases contradictory; the student’s definition of leadership did not match their

behavior expectations of a leader. It has been noted that there is a disconnect between students’

understanding of leadership and how it is portrayed and taught by educators (Haber,

2012).Gaining insight into how college students perceive leadership and their expectations of

leadership may assist in the creation of leadership programs into college programs. These

programs may allow students to correctly identify different types of leadership and understand

the effect it has on subordinates and the organization as a whole.

Research conducted in 89 schools in Singapore examined the influence of

transformational behaviors of school principals on factors such as organizational commitment,

student academic performance, teacher satisfaction with the leader, and organizational

citizenship behavior. Although there was no direct impact on student performance,

transformational leadership of principals did play a role in enhancing organizational

commitment, teacher satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. However, the

researchers suggest that there may be an indirect impact on student performance through the

influence of transformational leadership on the teachers (Koh, Steers & Terborg, 1995). Davis

(2003) researched the nature and influence of relationships between students and their teachers


through meta-analytic procedures. The dynamic of this relationship was looked at from

attachment perspectives, motivation perspectives, as well as sociocultural perspectives. It has

been argued that the teacher-child relationship is an extension of the parent-child relationship

where the teacher provides the support a child needs to be motivated and to explore. In addition,

there is the argument that children may separate teachers as a different group from their parents,

creating a new opportunity for the child to build a secure attachment. Skinner and Belmont

(1993) as referenced in Davis (2003) noted that a teacher’s level of involvement with their

students influenced the student’s motivation and engagement in school.

Additional research discovered that secure attachment with a teacher partially

compensated for insecure child-mother attachment relationship. Students who reported more

positive bonds with their teachers obtained higher scores on self- and teacher-reported social and

emotional adjustment outcomes (Frederickson & Rhodes, 2004). Students who were more

motivated to seek approval from their teacher often exhibit achievement related behaviors to gain

this approval. Furthermore, Moss and St-Laurent (2001) investigated the relationship between

attachment style and school-related performance. Their study proposed that individuals with

secure attachment had higher academic performance. The study was conducted in Canada with

108 subjects who were part of an ongoing longitudinal study lasting two years. Child attachment

was assessed through “separation-reunion behavior” at age six and later on their performance at

age eight. Performance was measured through self-assessment and collection of year-end school

grades collected from each class teacher. Verbal IQ was also assessed at each age. In previous

studies of children, secure attachment was linked to higher level of sophisticated symbolic play,

more active exploration-play engagement and stronger task persistence (Moss & St-Laurent,


2001). As predicted, secure attachment was related to higher levels of academic success than

insecure attachment.

These findings were further investigated through a study conducted in Canada which

measured performance in relation to attachment state of mind of students during the transition

from high school to college (Larose et al, 2005). The study hypothesized that performance

among students with secure attachment styles would be higher than students with preoccupied or

dismissive attachment styles. Previous studies on the subject suggest that higher academic

performance at various developmental periods of life is consistently related to secure attachment.

In order to conduct the study, the research team used a random sample of 62 students, between

the ages of 16 to 17. The first measure was taken at the last year of high school where the “Test

of Reaction and Adaptation to College” (TRAC) study was conducted. The second meeting was

held during their first semester of college, during which they completed TRAC again as well as

Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). In addition, academic records were collected at the end of

high school and at the end of the first three semesters of college. The two goals of this study

included having the relationship between college students’ attachment style and cognitive,

behavioral, and emotional disposition towards learning investigated and the second was to test

whether the presumed relation between attachment and performance can be accounted for by

students’ learning dispositions during the college transition. The transition between high school

and college imposes greater responsibility, separation from parents and friends, and other

challenges on the students, and will act as a source of instability. With that in mind one might

classify the college transition as a context, likely to activate the students’ attachment system,

imposing a negative impact on students with insecure dismissing and preoccupied attachments


styles (Larose et al, 2005). Based on this study it is evident that attachment styles are consistent

patterns of behavior that can be observed from childhood through adulthood.

Our particular study aims to focus on the influence that attachment styles have on how a

student perceives their teacher. We are choosing this particular population because a student-

teacher relationship represents and can be compared to the dynamic of a relationship that an

employee has to their supervisor and the relationship a follower has to their leader, as has been

argued in previous research (Keller, 2003; Frederickson & Rhodes, 2004).

Engagement

Engagement can be defined as the behaviors that result from the drive and energy to

achieve a goal or one’s full potential (Martin, 2008b). For the purpose of this study engagement

is described in terms of adaptive cognitive and behavioral dimensions and maladaptive cognitive

and behavioral dimensions. As noted in Martin (2008a), past research has stressed that many

factors that contribute to motivation and engagement including factors such as self-efficacy,

anxiety, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and self-regulation. Several studies have shown how

domain specific the Motivation and Engagement Scale is across different settings such as school,

school level, school subject, sport, and music classes (Green et al., 2007; Martin, 2008a; Martin,

2008b). Therefore, the findings suggest that the construct for motivation and engagement are

factors that are common among different areas of interest such as school level and school

subject, creating reliability and validity within the measure.

Attachment and Engagement

To date there is little literature that examines the relationship between attachment and

engagement. Lin (2010) researched factors that directly influenced work engagement including

the four dimensions of perceived corporate citizenship: economic, legal, ethical, and


discretionary citizenship. The indirect effect of perceived corporate citizenship on work

engagement was also researched through the mediation of organizational trust. Work

engagement is defined as the expression of oneself through work and employee tasks. It is

imperative to identify those factors and situations that affect work engagement in order for a

business to continue to grow and retain their employees. Lin (2010) noted that previous research

showed that developing high organizational trust stems from higher engagement in the

workplace. He explored the role attachment theory played in work engagement explaining that

an employee’s secure relationship with the organization is dependent on the fulfillment of an

employee’s needs. Lin (2010) found that, related to work engagement, perceived economic

citizenship, perceived legal citizenship, and perceived discretionary citizenship were positively

correlated with work engagement. In addition, he showed that organizational trust was positively

related to work engagement through the partial mediation of organizational trust. Our goal is to

further explore the role attachment plays in engagement as it relates to the educational

workplace.

Tziner & Tanami (2013) examined the association between attachment style,

perfectionism, and the potential of job motivation with workaholism and job engagement. As

noted in the article, previous research has stressed the importance of creating congruence

between the needs of employees and the needs of the organization which will lead to a more

successful organization. Multiple factors influence worker satisfaction and productivity and it is

important to understand which patterns are beneficial to the employee and organization. Tziner

& Tanami (2013) separated workaholism into three categories: obsessive-compulsive,

perfectionist, and achievement-oriented. In addition, it has been acknowledged that not only has

engagement been defined in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption, but also in terms of


characteristic, psychological state, and behavior. In our study, we will focus on the later

definition of engagement. Furthermore, attachment has been defined in two categories: secure

and non-secure. Results indicated there was no correlation between safe attachment and job

engagement; non-safe attachment was positively correlated with workaholism, job engagement

was positively correlated with general motivation potential, and although job engagement and

workaholism were positively correlated, workaholism and motivation potential were not. In our

study, we predict that those who are labeled fearful avoidant and dismissive avoidant will have

similar results as the non-safe and workaholism relationship with a teacher who is transactional.

We theorize fearful avoidant and dismissive avoidant individuals will have higher performance

with transactional leaders. In conclusion, if the link between attachment theory and workplace

engagement is better understood, organizations can shape their engagement programs to

encourage and support the employee's use of more productive behaviors.

Leadership and Engagement

Breevaart et al (2014) examined the role transformational and transactional leadership

plays in employee work engagement through daily interactions. As noted in the article, only a

small amount of research has been concentrated on the effect leadership has on work

engagement. Engaged employees are intrinsically motivated and are therefore more likely to

enjoy their work. Breevaart et al (2014) additionally considered the role transactional leadership

has on employee engagement and argued that contingent reward, which is often displayed by

transactional leaders, has motivational power. Results showed that when transactional leadership

was controlled for, daily work engagement and transformational leadership were positively

related. When transformational and management by exception was controlled for, daily

contingent reward and engagement were positively related. Furthermore, transformational


leadership and contingent reward were positively related to social support and autonomy. Finally

when engagement from the previous day was controlled for, social support and autonomy were

positively related to work engagement (Breevaart et al., 2014). In our study we are interested in

how a student’s engagement is affected by a teacher whose leadership style is identified as

transformational, transactional, or laissez faire.

In another study, Wilson et al. (2012) examined the relationship between

transformational teaching and a student’s engagement, psychological needs satisfaction, and

motivation in an elementary physical education class setting. The researchers noted that past

research has provided consistent evidence of improved performance with a transformational

leader. Two models were proposed, from the individual level and from the class level. As it

relates to the individual level, perceived transformational teaching was positively associated with

psychological needs satisfaction and motivation. Perceptions of transformational leadership and

psychological needs satisfaction positively predicted student engagement. Psychological needs

satisfaction also served as a mediator between transformational teaching and engagement.

Therefore, in our study we are interested in determining if a student’s level of attachment affects

perceptions of leadership and how they view their immediate educator and what effect this has

on a student’s engagement. We predict:

H1: Individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.

H2: Individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.

H3: Individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.

H4: Individuals with a fearful attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.


Method

Participants

The participants in the study consisted of undergraduate students attending Baruch

College, CUNY. There were originally a total of 164 participants in the study, however after

examining the questionnaires and consent forms there were a final number of 100 participants

who qualified as a research subject, 61 females and 39 males. Participants were disqualified on

premises based on either incomplete data or unreturned consent. Out of the 64 disqualified

participants, 6 students had neglected to record their name either in Day One or Day Two

packets resulting in the loss of completed data. While 12 participants completed in entirety the

questionnaires in the study, they did not complete their consent forms. 8 participants were

eliminated from the study due to only consenting to the use of their grade and failing to complete

the section of the consent form pertaining to the use of their questionnaires. The remaining 38

participants either did not complete the Experiences in Close Relationships Survey or the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which were two of the essential surveys. All of the

participants were above the age of 18 and fell anywhere within the range from freshmen,

sophomore juniors, and seniors. All participants were enrolled in the winter session at Baruch

College, where each class averaged about 20 students. Participation in the study was completely

voluntary where participants were informed they would be enrolled in a raffle conducted by the

researchers offering compensation to 10 winners. Confidentiality was highly stressed to the

participants, informing them that their professors would not have access to the questionnaires.

Finally, they were instructed that if any of the questions on the survey made them feel


uncomfortable they were allowed to bypass the question or drop out from the study at any given

time.

Measures

Each participant was given a manila envelope containing the consent forms (Appendix A)

and questionnaires. The Day One envelop consisted of the demographic survey (Appendix B)

which contained eight items in regards to the participants, age gender, and class year for

instance, the Experiences in Close Relationships -Revised (ECR) survey which measured

attachment style, and two copies of the consent form, one for the student’s record and one for the

researchers. The ECR survey was created by Fraley, Waller, & Brennan (2000). The 36 item

survey included questions regarding personal relationships in which the participants rated how

strongly each statement related to them. When scored, the ECR contains subscales that measure

avoidance and anxiety. Scores result from a sum of all ratings; therefore, the higher the

participants rated the statements the higher the level of attachment avoidance and anxiety.

Examples of items in the ECR include “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people

away” and “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.”

Day Two envelops contained two additional copies of the consent form as well as the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Motivation and Engagement Scale-

University/College Survey (MES). The MLQ was designed to assess perceptions of leadership

style. Respondents rate the degree to which the leader possesses the qualities of a

transformational, transactional, or laissez faire leader. Transformational leaders are known to

influence positive change and motivate their followers to perform better whereas transactional

leaders believe in a give and take relationship, where the followers must put in effort for them to


be rewarded. Laissez faire leaders are not constructive leaders in comparison to the other two

styles. They tend to be passive in their approach which can lead to decreased performance and

commitment. Scores are computed for the different dimensions in the measure and are compared

to a percentile table in order to obtain a score for the different items. Examples of items in the

MLQ include “Is absent when needed,” “Spends time teaching and coaching,” and “Expresses

confidence that goals will be achieved.” The Motivation and Engagement Scale-

University/College Survey (MES), developed by Martin (2009), assesses positive and negative

thoughts in terms of planning, task management, anxiety, disengagement, and control. Booster

scores represent higher levels of motivation and engagement where Guzzler and Muffler scores

are associated with lower levels of motivation and engagement. Booster thoughts and behaviors

include self-belief, valuing, learning focus, planning, task management, and persistence. The

dimensions that make up negative thoughts include self-sabotage and disengagement (Guzzlers),

where negative behaviors such as anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control comprise

Muffler scores.

Research Design and Procedures

Multivariate Analysis of Variance, MANOVA, was used for the within subjects design.

Participants for this study were recruited via email and in person through approaching professors

at Baruch College, where they were provided with a full description of the research procedures

and goals (Appendix C). A list of Winter 2015 Session classes, which ran from January 2, 2015

until January 23, 2015, was compiled. The professors were not being asked to participate in

research activities themselves but rather for access to their classroom and students. Email

addresses were obtained through Baruch College’s faculty directory. Those professors who

agreed to participate were sent a Participation Recruitment form (Appendix D) stating they were


granting the researchers access to their classroom where student participants would be recruited

for the study. The professors also agreed to leave the classroom once the researchers arrived to

ensure the confidentiality of the students participating in the study.

Upon entering the classroom, the students were read a script that explained the outline of

the study, the purpose of each survey, the consent form, and time duration of the study. We

explained that end of term grades would be collected as a measure of performance. All students

were assured that their professor would have no knowledge of who participated until the

semester had officially ended and grades were submitted to the Registrar's' office, indicating that

their participation in the study would have no impact on their final grade. The students were also

notified that by participating they were automatically enrolled into a raffle where they had the

opportunity to win a $10.00 gift card.

Once the students confirmed they fully understood the purpose of the study, as well as

their responsibilities, the researchers distributed the packets. On Day One, the students received

the two consent forms including the Permission for Access to Educational Records form from the

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well consent to participate in the study,

the demographic questionnaire, and lastly the ECR survey which measured their attachment

style. Then one week later on Day Two, the students received the MLQ and the MES. Once all

materials were distributed, participants were informed to leave their completed items in the

sealed envelope on the front desk. The researchers then exited the classroom to avoid undue

influence. After the last student left the classroom, the researchers collected the packets After all

data was collected, we compiled a list of all incomplete surveys, any participants who may have

completed Day One but not Day two and vice versa, as well as any incomplete consent forms.

The participants falling in any of these categories were then contacted via email with a request to


complete any missing information. The last step in the data collection process was to email the

professors an Microsoft Excel sheet containing a list of student’s names who consented to submit

their final grades in the study. The professors then emailed back the Excel within two business

days with the student’s final grade listed next to their names. Finally, we notified the winners of

the raffle on February 23, 2015. Any participant who did not fill out necessary information was

then disqualified from the study and their responses were not included in the analysis.


Results

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted in order to determine

the effect of our two independent variables; attachment style and perception of leadership, on our

tw0 dependent variables; final grade, and motivation and engagement. The Wilks’ Lambda row

indicated that the dependent variables do not indicate a statistically significant effect on Booster

scores (high motivation and engagement), F (8, 36)=2.12 p>.05. There was no statistical

significant effect of attachment style and perception on Guzzler and Muffler scores (low

motivation & engagement) F (6/ 36)= 1.96 p>.05 (Appendix 1). There was no statistically

significant difference found between attachment style and perception of leader on final grades, F

(2, 18)=3.09 p>.05 (Appendix 1). Overall, we did not find statistically significant results in the

MANOVA, as a result a Person’s correlation and Multiple Regression were conducted.

A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between

final grade, Booster scores, Guzzler and Muffler scores, the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Experience in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR). There

was a strong statistically significant, negative correlation between Booster scores and Guzzler

and Muffler scores, (r= -.218, n=100, p=-.22) (Appendix 2). Guzzler and Muffler scores show a

positive association with the MLQ (r=.246, n=97, p=.25) (Appendix 2). There was strong

positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and final grade (r=.289, n=79, p=.29)

(Appendix 2), showing the strong relationship between low motivation and final grade. There

was a strong positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and the ECR (r=.227,

n=99, p<.05) (Appendix 2), which shows the statistical validity of the Motivation and

Engagement Scale.


We used a Multiple Regression to determine how much of the variance in grades could be

explained by the ECR and MLQ. When the ECR was isolated as the sole predictor of grades, a

positive correlation of .56 was obtained. For the first model its value is 0.003, which means that

attachment style accounts for .3% of the variation in final grades; however, when the MLQ was

included (model 2), this value increased to 0.036 or 3.6% of the variance in final grades

(Appendix 3). For model 1, we obtained an F ratio is of 0.241 and for model 2 the F ratio is

1.399. The table indicates that the independent variables, ECR and MLQ, are not significantly

predictive of the dependent variables, final grades and motivation and engagement, F (1,76) =

.241 p>.01 and F (2,75) = 1.39 p>.01(Appendix 4).In the estimated model coefficients, the

general form of the equation to predict final grade from the ECR (model 1) is predicted, Grade =

1.114 + (.023 x Experience in Close Relationships) (Appendix 5).In the estimated model

coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict final grades from the ECR and MLQ

(model 2) is predicted, Grade = .973 + (.019 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.088 x

MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire).These equations were obtained from the Coefficients

Table (Appendix 5). For complete display of means see (Appendix 18 and Appendix 19).

Attachment style (b=0.019): This value indicates that the more secure a student, the student’s

grade will increase by 0.019. This is only true if the effects of the student’s perception of

leadership are held constant. MLQ (b=0.088): This value indicates that as a student’s perception

of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to transformational, the student’s final grade increased by

0.088. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held constant. The

correlations are small thus given these coefficients we do not see evidence that the analysis

revealed significant association between variables.


The regression model is not a good fit of our data, thus ECR and MLQ scores did not

predict final grade In conclusion, these variables in model 1 did not predict grade, F (1,76) =

.241 p> .005 R2 =.003 (Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). Experience in Close Relationships variable

in model 1 did not predict grade, p>.05 . The variables Experience in Close Relationships and

Multi-Factor Leadership in model 2 did not predict grade, F ( 2, 75) = 1.399 R2 = .036 p>.05

(Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). The ECR and the MLQ were not predictive of grade.

An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with ECR and MLQ and Booster

scores. When only the ECR is used as a predictor, the correlation between how secure a student’s

attachment style is and their Booster scores is 0.01. When the MLQ is included, the R value

remains at 0.01. For the first model the value is 0.000; attachment style accounts for 0% of the

variation in grades. When the other predictor, MLQ (model 2), was accounted for, the value still

remains at 0% of the variance in grades. Ultimately, our findings do not support our

hypothesized relationships (Appendix 6).

The ANOVA table shows that for model 1, the F ratio is 0.012 and for model 2 the F

ratio is 0.009. This means that the initial model did not significantly improve our ability to

predict Booster scores. The table shows that the independent variables (ECR and MLQ)

statistically are not significantly predictive of the dependent variable (Booster scores), F (1,97) =

.012 p>.05 and F (2,96) = .009 p>.05 (Appendix 7). The regression model is not good fit of the

data. For complete display of means (Appendix 12).For complete display of means see

(Appendix 15 and Appendix 16).

In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster

scores from the ECR (model 1) is, Booster scores = 81.938 - (.136 x Experience in Close

Relationships). ECR does not predict Booster scores (Appendix 8). In the estimated model


coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster scores from the ECR and the

MLQ (model 2) is, Booster scores = 81.710 - (.149 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.148

x MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire). ECR and MLQ do not predict Booster scores

(Appendix 8). The b-values in the table show both a negative and positive relationship

exists. The b-value for attachment style is -0.149, which indicates that there is a negative

relationship between a student’s attachment style and their booster scores. However, the b-value

for MLQ is 0.148, which indicates that the greater a student’s perception of leadership, the

higher their Booster scores. Attachment style (b=-0.149): This value indicates that as the

dependent variable (Booster score) decreases, the less secure is a student’s attachment style will

be when holding all the other independent variables constant. MLQ (b=0.148): this value

indicates that as a student’s perception of leadership increases, the student’s Booster score

increases by 0.149. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held

constant. Another multiple regression was run to predict Booster Scores from the ECR and

MLQ. These variables in model 1 statistically did not predict Booster Scores, F (1,97) = .012 p>

.005 R2 =.000. The ECR variable in model 1 did not add statistical significance to the prediction

p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The variables ECR and MLQ in model 2, statistically did not predict

Booster Scores, F ( 2, 96) = .009 R2 = .000 p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The ECR and MLQ were

not predictive of Booster scores.

An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with the ECR and MLQ and our dependent

variables: Guzzlers and Mufflers. When only the ECR was used as a predictor, the simple

correlation between a student’s attachment style and their guzzlers and mufflers scores equals

0.227 (Appendix 9).


When MLQ is included, the R value increased to 0.31 (Appendix 9), for the first model

(R2) is 0.05, which means that attachment style accounts for 5.2% of the variation in guzzlers and

mufflers score. When the other predictor is included (model 2), the value increases to 10% of the

variance in guzzlers and mufflers score (Appendix 9).

The ANOVA table shows that the ECR and the MLQ are significantly predictive of

Guzzlers and Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 and F (2,96) = 5.304. This means that the initial model

significantly improve our ability to predict the outcome. For complete display of means see

Appendix 17 and 18. In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to

predict Guzzlers and Mufflers from ECR (model 1) is predicted, Guzzlers/Mufflers = 40.191 +

(2.843 x Experience in Close Relationships). Describing the model 1 equation is as such, for

every incremental increase in the ECR there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.843

(Appendix 10). In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict

Guzzlers and Mufflers from the ECR and the MLQ (model 2) is, GuzzlersMufflers = 34.260 +

(2.495 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (3.865 x Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire)

(Appendix 10). Describing the model 2 equation is as such, for every incremental increase in the

ECR, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 and for every incremental increase

in MLQ scores, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 (Appendix 10). When

predicting Guzzlers and Mufflers scores from ECR and MLQ. In model 1, ECR statistically

predicted Guzzlers/Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 p=.02 R2 =.052 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and

MLQ in model 2 statistically predicted Guzzlers and Mufflers, F ( 2, 96) = 5.304 R2 = .100 p=.04

and p=.03 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and MLQ predicted Guzzler and Muffler scores.

The b -values in the table indicates a positive relationship exists for both predictors. The

b-value for attachment style 2.495 which indicates that the less secure a student’s attachment


style and the higher Guzzler and Muffler scores. In addition, the b-value obtained for the MLQ

was 3.865. This shows that as a student’s perception of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to

transformational, they will obtain lower Guzzler and Muffler scores. Attachment style has a b-

value of 2.495, indicating that as a student becomes less secure, their Guzzler and Muffler scores

with decrease by 2.495. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held

constant (Appendix 9).


Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine if a student’s academic performance and level

of motivation and engagement is influenced by their perception of leadership in relation to their

attachment style. In the current study we predicted that students who reported having a secure or

preoccupied attachment style would have a high level of motivation and engagement as well as

positive perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor they perceive as being

transformational. For dismissive or fearful students, we predicted they would have positive

perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor that they perceived to be

transactional. These students would illustrate greater motivation and engagement with a leader

they perceived as transactional (compared with laissez-faire and transformational). While our

study did not show any meaningful significance in terms of our hypothesis, we did find several

patterns within our analysis that supported our predictions.

We used Mary Main and June Cassidy (1988)’s model of attachment style classification.

The model includes four levels of attachment style; secure, insecure dismissive, insecure fearful,

and insecure preoccupied. We proposed that attachment style affects one’s perception of

leadership style. Leadership style could be perceived to be either transformational, transactional,

or laissez faire. This perception of leadership was theorized to have an effect on midterm grades,

i.e., performance, and engagement in the class. Our analyses revealed results that were not

statistically significant. However, the results did show patterns that supported our predictions.

The Multiple Regressions and One-way ANOVAs were used to reveal the patterns that

existed between student’s attachment style, performance, and motivation and engagement.

Patterns were identified between a student’s performance and their perception of leadership.

Therefore, as a student’s grade shifted from A to B, their perception of the professor shifted


transformational to transactional to laissez faire. In addition, a pattern was found between a

student’s attachment styles and student performance. Thus, though our results were not

statistically significant, they are consistent with prior work. For example, Gore and Rogers

(2010) found that secure attachment style was positively associated with GPA scores.

In addition, we found a pattern between Booster scores, which is a measure of high

motivation and engagement, and attachment style. The results showed that secure and

preoccupied attachment styles scored higher Booster scores. These scores decreased as

attachment styles shifted towards dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we found a pattern

between Booster scores and perception of leadership. Students with high Booster scores were

more likely to perceive their professor as more transformational. However, Booster scores

decreased as attachment style shifted towards transactional and increased again when shifted to

laissez-faire.

Moreover, a pattern was observed between Guzzlers and Mufflers scores, which is a

measure for low motivation and engagement, attachment style, as well as perception of

leadership. The results show that students with a secure and preoccupied attachment styles

received lower Guzzlers and Mufflers score. As attachment styles shifted from dismissive to

fearful, Guzzlers and Mufflers score increased, indicating less motivation and engagement.

Additionally, the perception of the students’ professors shifted from transformational to

transactional as Guzzler and Muffler scores decreased. However, when Guzzlers and Muffler

scores increased, perceptions shifted from transactional to laissez-faire.

As previously mentioned, though our results were not statistically significant, we were

able to identify patterns that were consistent with our hypotheses. We will proceed to explain

these patterns found by discussing various attachment styles beginning with secure, preoccupied,


dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we will discuss the patterns found with the various

perceptions of leadership.

Secure Attachment

Our first hypothesis stated individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive

perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational

leader. The researchers found that students with a secure attachment style earned the second

highest final grade scores. Though the results in this study were not statistically significant, the

pattern is consistent with other studies such as Pashaeia (2014), which showed a positive

correlation between secure attachment styles and academic performance of students. Their

results showed that as a student’s score increases on the secure attachment scale, this leads to an

increase in academic performance (Pashaeia, 2014). Participant grades ranged from A’s to B

minus’. This may provide an explanation as to why the researchers were unable to find

significance in the relationship between the student’s attachment style and their performance. In

addition, it is theorized that those students who consented to the release of their final grade were,

in general, high performers and were confident in the final grade they would obtain.

With regards to the Motivation and Engagement Scale, the average Booster score earned

by the students was 81.68, which means that all the students who participated in the study were

highly motivated and engaged in their class; this score is based out of a total high score of 100.

Therefore, the students displayed positive thoughts in self-belief, valuing and learning focus and

positive behaviors in planning, task management and persistence. Students identified as having a

secure attachment style scored the second highest in Booster scores. On the other hand,

secured students scored the lowest in the Guzzler and Muffler scores on the Motivation and

Engagement Scale. This pattern was expected as we anticipated that the student’s with a secure


attachment style would not display negative thoughts in anxiety, failure avoidance and uncertain

control and negative behaviors in self-sabotage and disengagement. In addition, it has been

suggested that those students enrolled in winter courses tend to be more motivated and higher

performers due to the average student neglecting to enroll in extra courses during intersession.

Preoccupied Attachment

Our third hypothesis states that individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have

positive perceptions, high levels of motivation & engagement, and high performance with a

transformational leader. Based upon the Experiences in Close Relationships and Performance

graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in performance;

therefore, students with a preoccupied attachment style had the highest grades in comparison to

secure, dismissive, and fearful students. In the Booster Scale versus Experiences in Close

Relationships graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in

their Booster scores indicating the highest levels of motivation and engagement. Finally, when

analyzing the Guzzler and Muffler scores in comparison to Experiences in Close Relationships

graph, we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked second lowest in their

Guzzler and Muffler scores. This means that preoccupied students had the second lowest levels

of self-destructive or anxious behavior. It was unexpected to find that students with a

preoccupied attachment style obtained the highest final grades and the highest Booster scores

since the researchers predicted that the secure students would be the top performers.

This prediction was made in reason that secure individuals tend to be more confident and

have higher self-efficacy beliefs. However, according to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)’s

classification of the different attachment styles, preoccupied students have a very low view of

self but have a high regard of relationships with others. Building off of this theory, preoccupied


individuals’ are consumed with gratifying and acting in accordance with other’s wishes in order

to maintain the relationship. It is their priority to please others before pursuing acts related to the

self. With that being said high levels of attentiveness as well as high performance in a classroom

will prove to be in accordance with the leader’s desire. Preoccupied students ultimately have a

higher desire to please than secure individuals do, and will therefore put more effort in their

behavior in the classroom.

Dismissive Attachment

Our third hypothesis stated that individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have

positive perceptions, high performance, and high motivation and engagement with a

transactional leader. Although there was unsupported evidence concerning the impact of type of

leadership, based on our findings, dismissive individuals scored the highest on Guzzler and

Muffler scores, indicating the lowest motivation and engagement. Furthermore, when comparing

Booster scores, dismissive individuals fell in between the highest (pre-occupied) and lowest

(fearful) scores. Research has found that individuals high in avoidance are more likely to inhibit

group cohesion and engage in counterproductive work behaviors, further supporting our patterns

(Rom and Mikulincer, 2003; Richards and Schat, 2007; as reported in Harms, 2011). Although

all participants obtained relatively high final grades, dismissive participants scored the lowest

grades. Gore and Rogers (2010) argued that attachment style describes an individual's

relationships more so than their personal interests. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that those

individuals classified as secure are motivated to perform for reasons such as for their family

more so than those whom are classified as avoidant. These findings semi-support the results we

obtained which determined that dismissive-avoidant individuals had the lowest performance

when compared to the other attachment styles.


Fearful Attachment

Our fourth hypothesis states that individuals with a fearful attachment style will have

positive perceptions, high performance and high levels of Motivation and Engagement with a

transactional leader. We found that students with fearful attachment had the second to lowest

performance, lowest Booster scores, and second to highest Guzzler and Mufflers scores

indicating low motivation and engagement. Although no findings showed statistically significant

results, the pattern of the findings does support the predictions of our hypothesis.

Previous studies by Nancy Collins and Steven Read (1990) support that fearful-avoidant

attachment styles are more likely to perform worse under pressure and stress, supporting the

observed patterns in our study. Samantha Reis and Brin Grenyer (2004) wrote in their study that

a fearful-avoidant person carries a deep distrust in their perception of others and a low regarded

view of self. Further on, such negative perceptions of others and of self could result in

motivational dysfunction, which supports the pattern of both our predictions and findings.

Perception scores

Results found that students who perceived their professor as being a transactional leader

were those who had lower Booster scores compared to those who perceived their leaders

identified as transformational or laissez-faire. These students were not as highly motivated and

engaged as those students who perceived their professors as being transformational or laissez-

faire. The students who perceived their professors as being laissez-faire leaders were reported to

have the highest Booster scores, meaning they were more highly motivated and engaged than

students who perceived their professors as being transformational or transactional.

In terms of a student’s perception of leadership in relation to their Guzzlers and Mufflers

scores, we found that students who perceived their professor as being laissez-faire scored the


highest compared to those students who perceived their professor as being transactional or

transformational. This means that these students who perceived their professor to be a laissez-

faire leader tended to be less motivated and engaged compared to students who perceived their

professors to be transactional or transformational.

In terms of a student’s perception of leadership and how well students performed, we

were not able to find a meaningful significance between perception and performance, however

we found that within our study, perception was a good predictor of performance. Research has

identified mixed results concerning leadership perceptions and performance (Hope, 2002). Our

study found that those students who perceived their leader as being transformational were the

students who scored the highest in terms of final grades. Students who perceived their leaders as

being transactional also performed well, but their final grades were not as high compared to

those who perceived their leader as transformational. These patterns supported our hypothesis to

some degree in stating that a student’s perception of leadership contributes to their performance.

Limitations

Although the researchers had sufficient data to test many of our predictions, the study

design and unrelated time constraints limited the overall number of participants. The researchers

visited the classes twice for approximately twenty minutes each at the end of their session

resulting in some students being less inclined to stay and participate. Furthermore, entering the

classroom at two different points during the semester increased the likelihood of participant

dropout. Participants also found the questionnaires to be time consuming and excused

themselves from participating. The researchers found this especially true for the evening classes

that ended approximately 8:30 PM resulting in an increased dropout rate. Nevertheless, though


the winter session limited the amount of classes being offered, it did allow for the students to

develop a stronger relationship with their professor due to the increased frequency of meetings.

Another challenge the researchers encountered during this process was time

constraints. The timeframe between gaining approval to conduct the study and the beginning of

the winter session was very narrow. The researchers had very limited time to reach out to

professors to obtain permission to utilize their classroom for participant recruitment. Due to this

time constraint, professors were unable to provide the allotted time necessary to conduct the

study, indicating that had they been informed sooner of the research, they would have made the

necessary provisions in include time for the study in their syllabus.

Finally, as previously mentioned the measure of collecting data included three surveys

each consisting over thirty questions. Though the surveys were an integral part of our study, the

length might have discouraged the students from fully completing all three in addition to the

supporting documents. Moreover, the Motivation and Engagement scale has not been utilized

extensively in the United States; therefore, perhaps a different and less time consuming scale

should have been used to measure motivation and engagement.

Future Studies

This study has highlighted a few areas for further research. While our focus was on the

possible link between an individual’s attachment style and their academic performance, future

studies might investigate the relationship of attachment style to other performance domains, such

as in the workplace. We chose to conduct our research in an academic setting by measuring

students’ attachment styles and how they perceive their professor as a leader figure. Such studies


in a workplace environment and other performance environments like a sports teams would add

to our understanding of the relationship between attachment style and performance.

Future research might also examine how a student’s perception of their professor’s

leadership compares to the professor’s perception of their own leadership style. This would be

beneficial because a professor might believe that they have a certain leadership style but in

reality their students perceive them as something else. This can help professors become aware of

students perceptions and help them adjust their teaching style to be more beneficial to their

students learning. The next step would be to analyze this relationship in other performance

domains such as between an employee and a supervisor.

Finally, an experiment could be conducted in order to observe how individuals perform

with a specific leadership style and a specific attachment style. For example, a group of

individuals with a secure attachment style will have a leader that exhibits the characteristics of a

transformational leader. The interaction between the transformational leader and secure group

would be observed along with how they perform in given tasks. This experiment would be

carried out for each leadership style and attachment style in order for the researcher to determine

which combination yields the best level of performance. This would allow researchers to explore

each of these scenarios to see what combinations would produce greater results when being

exposed to different variables. For instance, we would expect that someone with a secure

attachment style would work well with any type of leader. Whereas, someone with an insecure

attachment style who isolates themselves and are harder to connect with may work better with a

transactional leader. This may also depend in the environment in which the experiment is being

carried out, the industry, the level of position, the company culture and the various attachment


triggering events. An experiment like this would be beneficial for both companies and

individuals in order to help them see if they are a fit candidate for specific positions.

In conclusion, although our research did not show significant results in how a student’s

perception of their professor’s leadership style affects their grades and their level of motivation

and engagement, we were able to show patterns that were aligned with our hypothesis. Though

the results were not statistically significant, we also established that there was a relationship

between student’s grade and their attachment style. Nevertheless, we conclude that a student’s

perception of leadership was a better predictor of grades and their level of motivation and

engagement than attachment style. This helped us in understanding that the way students

perceive their professors’ impacts their grades and how motivated and engaged they are in the

class. Furthermore, this can assist professors in understanding their style of teaching and how

this affects their student’s needs and performance. This opens the possibility for professors to

partake in training and development in leadership as they strive to cater to their student’s

learning needs and produce highly motivated and engaged students with greater academic

performance.


References

Ainsworth, M. D. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M.

Parks, J.Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Morris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle ( pp. 22–

51). London, UK: Tavistock/Routledge.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. ( 1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated

by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (3rd ed.). Mind

Garden Inc.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a

four-category model. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: theory, research, and

managerial applications (Fourth ed.). New York, NY: The free press. (Original work

published 1974)

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human

development. New York, NY: Basic Books Inc.

Bowlby, S., & King, P. (2004). Fifty Years Attachment Theory : The Donald Winnicott

Memorial Lecture. London, GBR: Karnac Books. Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com

Breevaart, K., Bakker, A., Hetland, J., Demerouti, E., Olsen, O. K., & Espevik, R. (2014). Daily


transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. Journal

Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 138-157.

doi:10.1111/joop.12041

Brennan, K.; Clark, C.; Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report measures of adult romantic attachment. In

J. Simpson and W. Rholes, Attachment Theory and Close Relationships. New York:

Guilford Press.

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth.

Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and

behavior. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 71(4), 810-832.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working Models of Attachment Shape Perceptions of

Social Support: Evidence From Experimental and Observational Studies. Journal Of

Personality And Social Psychology, 87(3), 363-383. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.3.363

Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the Role and Influence of Student-Teacher Relationships

on Children's Social and Cognitive Development. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved October

27, 2014, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S153

Fletcher, K., Nutton, J., & Brend, D. (2015). Attachment, a matter of substance: The potential of

attachment theory in the treatment of addictions. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1),

109-117. doi:10.1007/s10615-014-0502-5

Fredrikesen, K., & Rhodes, J. (n.d.). The Role of Teacher Relationships in the Lives of Students.

Pearweb. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from

http://www.pearweb.org/ndyd/pdfs/samplecha


Gore, J. S., & Rogers, M. J. (2010). Why Do I Study? The Moderating Effect of

Attachment Style on Academic Motivation. Journal Of Social Psychology, 150(5), 560-

578. doi:10.1080/00224540903365448

Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and Engagement in English,

Mathematics and Science High School Subjects: Towards an Understanding of

Multidimensional Domain Specificity. Learning And Individual Differences, 17(3), 269-

279.

Haber, P. (2012). Perceptions of Leadership: An Examination of College Students'

Understandings of the Concept of Leadership. Journal Of Leadership Education, 11(2),

26-51.

Hansbrough, T. (2012). The Construction of a Transformational Leader: Follower

Attachment and Leadership Perceptions. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6),

1533-1549. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00913.x

Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management

Review, 21(4), 285-296. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006

Hart, J., Nailling, E., Bizer, G. Y., & Collins, C. K. (2015). Attachment theory as a framework

for explaining engagement with Facebook. Personality And Individual Differences, 7733-

40. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.016

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superior's Evaluations and Subordinates' Perceptions of

Transformational and Transactional Leadership. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 73(4),

695-702.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process.

Journal Of Personality & Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.


Hope, S. R. (2002). Employee Perceptions of Leadership and Performance Management in the

Botswana Public Service. Public Personnel Management, 31(4), 531.

Hudson, D. L. (2013). Attachment theory and leader-follower relationships. The Psychologist-

Manager Journal, 16(3), 147-159. doi:10.1037/mgr0000003

Keller, Tiffany (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: an attachment

perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly

Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 141–160. DOI: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9

Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on

teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal Of Organizational

Behavior, 16(4), 319-333.

Lanciano, T., & Zammuner, V. L. (2014). Individual Differences in Work-Related Well-Being:

The Role of Attachment Style. Europe's Journal Of Psychology, 10(4), 694-711.

doi:10.5964/ejop.v10i4.814

Larose, S., Bernier, A., & Tarabulsy, G. M. (2005). Attachment State of Mind, Learning

Dispositions, and Academic Performance During the College Transition. Developmental

Psychology, 41(1), 281-289. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.281

Lin, C. (2010). Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust, and Work Engagement

Based on Attachment Theory. Journal Of Business Ethics, 94(4), 517-531.

doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0279-6

Lowe, K. B., & Galen Kroeck, K. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analytic.. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385.

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6:


Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.


Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment

pattern. In T. B. Brazelton, M. W. Yogman, T. B. Brazelton, M. W. Yogman (Eds.) ,

Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Westport, CT, US: Ablex Publishing

Martin, A.J. (2014). The Motivation and Engagement Scale (14th Edition). Sydney, Australia:

Lifelong Achievement Grou (www.lifelongachievement.com).

Martin, A. J. (2008a). How Domain Specific Is Motivation and Engagement across School,

Sport, and Music? A Substantive-Methodological Synergy Assessing Young

Sportspeople and Musicians. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 785-813

Martin, A. J. (2008b). Motivation and engagement in diverse performance settings: Testing their

generality across school, university/college, work, sport, music, and daily life. Journal Of

Research In Personality, 42(6), 1607-1612. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.05.003

Mechanistic organization. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/mechanistic-organization.html

Moss, E., & St-Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance.


Organic organization. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organic-organization.html

Otara, A. (2011). Perception: A Guide for Managers and Leaders. Journal of

Management and Strategy, 2, 1-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/jms.v2n3p21

Pashaeia, Z. (2014). The Relationship Between Attachment Styles and Academic


Performance of Secondary School Students. Reef Resources Assessment and

Management Technical Paper, 40, 5-5. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from

http://behaviorsciences.com/

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338. doi:10.1037/a0014996

Reis, S., & Grenyer, B. S. (2004). Fearful attachment, working alliance and treatment response

for individuals

with major depression. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 11(6), 414-424.

doi:10.1002/cpp.428

Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (Eds.). (1998). Attachment Theory and Close

Relationship (Illustrated ed.). Guilford Press.

Salter Ainsworth, M. D. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of

love. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M. S., & Hetland, H. (2007). The

destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal Of Occupational Health

Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80

Su Ahn, J., Smith, S. W., & Levine, T. R. (2002). To Stay or To Leave? The Role of Attachment

Styles in Communication Patterns and Potential Termination of Romantic Relationships

Following Discovery of Deception. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 236.

Transformational Leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2014, from Transformational

Leadership website: http://www.langston.edu/sites/default/files/basic-content-

files/TransformationalLeadership.pdf

Tziner, A., & Tanami, M. (2013). Examining the links between attachment, perfectionism, and


job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Revista De Psicologia

Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 29(2), 65-74. doi:10.5093/tr2013a10

VanSloten, J. A., & Henderson, M. (2011). Attachment Orientation and Leadership

Style: The Effect of Avoidant Attachment Priming on Relational Leadership.

Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.yale.edu/yrurp/issues/

VanSloten%20&%20Henderson%20%282011%29.pdf

Wilson, A. J., Liu, Y., Keith, S. E., Wilson, A. H., Kermer, L. E., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp,

M. R. (2012). Transformational teaching and child psychological needs satisfaction, motivation,

and engagement in elementary school physical education. Sport, Exercise, And Performance

Psychology, 1(4), 215-230. doi:10.1037/a0028635


Appendix A

BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department You are being asked to participate in this study because we are interested in the relationship between the attachment style of an individual and their perceptions of leadership. We are curious as to how this relationship will impact performance and self-engagement. Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if your perception of leadership is related your attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you volunteer to participate in this research study, we will ask you to do the following: The package you have received from the researchers includes a Demographic Questionnaire and the Experiences in Close Relationships Self-Report, which measures your attachment style. You will be asked to provide your name and e-mail address. Please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code. At no point prior to the completion of the semester will the professor have the knowledge of those students in their classroom that chose to participate in the study or not. Below you will be asked by the researchers to provide permission for the use of


your final grade for the study. The final grade will used as a measure of performance. Please note that the researchers will contact you at the closure of the semester to obtain your final grade. We will obtain your final grade strictly through self-reporting of which you may consent to below. Upon signing this consent form and completing the surveys in the package, we ask that you place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit. Secondly, we will meet with you for our second visit during the last week of this term. At that time, we will distribute another package in an envelope which will include another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures your perception of your professor’s leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures your level of engagement. Neither the researchers nor your professor will be present as you complete the questionnaire. Just as in time one, when the questionnaire is completed, we’ll ask you to place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit.

Please circle yes or no to the following: I approve to have my final grade disclosed to the researchers via self-report for the purpose of a performance measure for this study. Yes No Time Commitment: Your participation in this research study is expected to last for a total of one hour between the two sessions. We believe each session will require no more than 30 minutes. Potential Risks or Discomforts: Though procedures are in place to prevent brief of confidentiality, risk still exists. We will convert the names of all the participants into a numerical code in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided for the purpose of this study. All original forms aside from the Consent Form will be shredded in February 2018, three years after the study has been completed. All Consent Forms will be stored in a locked file cabinet of a faculty member. Compensation for Participation: As a token of appreciation, all participants will be entered into a raffle where each person has 5% chance of winning. At the completion of the semester/study and through the use of the numerical identification number assigned to you, ten participants will be selected randomly via the Excel random number generator. All winners will be contacted via e-mail on February 23, 2015, and given a $10.00 Visa gift card. Confidentiality:


We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect your confidentiality by inputting all of the completed survey and questionnaire scores and the final grades to a password-protected external hard drive. We will also be locking all hard copies in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In February of 2018, we will shred the original documents twice to ensure it is destroyed and delete the Excel file with your identifying information. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Participants’ Rights: Your participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You can decide to withdraw your consent and stop participating in the research at any time, without any penalty. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017


Signature of Participant: If you agree to participate in this research study, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.

_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Participant

_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Participant

____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Participant Date

_____________________________________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent

_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Consent

____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent Date


Appendix B

Demographic Questionnaire Please circle the answer that applies to you. All questions must be answered. 1. Please provide your full name below: *Your name will be converted into a numerical code upon completing the study to protect your identity and your information. ____________________________ 2. What is your age range? *If you are under 18, unfortunately you are ineligible to participate in this study. Under 18 18 – 23

24 – 29 30 – 35 Above 35

3. Gender:

Male Female Prefer not to disclose

4. Marital Status:

Single In a relationship Married Divorced

5. What is your race/ethnicity?

Asian or Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino American Indian/Native American

White/Caucasian More than one race


6. What is your classification in college?

Freshman (First Year) Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Unclassified

7. What range reflects your cumulative GPA?

4.0 - 3.7 3.6 - 2.7 2.5 - 1.7 1.5 - 0

8. What is your major at Baruch College?

Accountancy Ad Hoc Major Actuarial Science Art History and Theatre (Ad Hoc) Arts Administration (Ad Hoc) Asian & Asian American Studies (Ad Hoc) Biological Sciences Business Journalism Business Writing Communication Studies Computer Information Systems Corporate Communication Economics English Finance Graphic Communication History Industrial/Organizational Psychology International Business Journalism Management Management of Musical Enterprises Marketing Management Mathematics Modern Languages & Comparative Literature (Ad Hoc) Music


Natural Sciences (Ad Hoc) Philosophy Political Science Psychology Public Affairs Real Estate Religion and Culture (Ad Hoc) Sociology Spanish Statistics Statistics & Quantitative Modeling Undecided

Thank you for participating in our research study.


Appendix C

Email Proposal for Professors

Subject: Research Participation Proposal

Date: Dear Professor, My name is ________________ and I am a Masters student at Baruch College in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program. My colleagues and I are conducting a study under the supervision of Dr. Daniel Benkendorf an adjunct professor at Baruch College. Our study is about how attachment style and leadership perception impacts a students overall performance, engagement and motivation. Our intention is to contribute to the current literature available on the four adult attachment styles and on transformational and transactional leadership. We are currently seeking the participation of faculty who will be teaching during the Winter Session of 2015. We are asking faculty members to allow us to survey their students to obtain information on their attachment styles, leadership perceptions and of level of self-engagement. Please note that our study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Baruch College. Overall, this study will involve two visits to your class during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your allotted classroom time. The first visit would be during the first week of the term. In order to ensure the privacy of your students, we will kindly ask for you to leave the classroom for the day. Then we will distribute two surveys and two copies of the consent form in an envelope. The second meeting would take place in the final week of the Winter Session during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your classroom time. As the students complete both packages, we would wait outside the classroom until all students who wished to participate have placed the completed the questionnaires on the front desk and had left the classroom. Finally, students will consent (or not) to self-report their grades reported to us via e-mail. The final grade would be used as a measure of the students’ performance. As a token of our appreciation for the students’ participation, ten students will be randomly and given a $10 gift card after data have been collected. If you agree to work with us, you will be asked to sign a permission form which will be e-mailed to you. In addition, we would like to schedule a meeting either in-person or by phone to review the details of this study and address any questions or concerns you might have. We would greatly appreciate your participation in our study. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.


Appendix D

BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department

PERMISSION TO RECRUIT SUBJECTS

Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts

Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department

Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if students’ perception of leadership are related to their attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you grant us access to conduct the research study in your classroom, we will ask you to do the following: Allow us to access your classroom at the end of your lesson for two separate 30 minute sessions where we will be distributing questionnaires to your students. The first package, distributed on our first visit will include consent forms, a Demographic Questionnaire, and the Experiences in Close Relationship Self-Report, which measures attachment. During a second visit, we will


distribute another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures the student’s perception of your leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures the student’s overall level of engagement in college. We ask that you not be present in the classroom while the surveys are being completed to ensure that students feel free to participate or not without any perceived coercion. Students will be asked to provide their names and e-mail addresses but please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code to protect confidentiality. You will not be aware of which students in your classroom chose to participate in the study. Students will be asked to self-report their final grade via e-mail only after they consented to self -repot. The final grade will used as a measure of performance for the research study. Confidentiality: We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study, and that can identify you and/or your students. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect student’s confidentiality by inputting all the completed surveys and test scores to a password protected external hard drive. Upon entering the data into an electronic file, we will shred the original documents, aside from the consent form, twice to ensure it is destroyed. This will occur in February 2018. All consent forms will be stored in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect their identity and the information they have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Professors’ Rights: Your involvement in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to allow your class to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected]


If you have questions about your involvement or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Signature of Professor: If you agree to allow the researchers to use your class in this research study during the Winter 2015 session, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this permission form to keep.

_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Professor

_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Professor

_____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Professor Date

Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent ______________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Permission

______________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Permission Date


Appendix 1: MANOVA


Appendix 2: Pearson Correlation


Appendix 3: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Final Grade; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Final Grade)


Appendix 4: ANOVA (Model1: Final Grade and ECR; Model 2: Final Grade, ECR, and MLQ)


Appendix 5: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Final Grade)


Appendix 6: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)


Appendix 7: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)


Appendix 8: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Boosters)


Appendix 9: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Guzzlers/Mufflers)


Appendix 10: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)


Appendix 11: Multiple Regression Coefficients (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)


Appendix 12: Experiences in Close Relationships and Final Grades

Note. Final grades are displayed with an inverse relationship for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Preoccupied students had the highest means of final grades and were therefore the highest performers. Students with a Dismissive attachment style had the lowest means and therefore had the lowest final grades.


Appendix 13: Leadership Styles and Students’ Final Grades

Note: Final grade means are displayed with an inverse relationship to the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders to be Transformational had the highest final grades over students who labeled their professors to be laissez faire.


Appendix 14: Attachment Style and Engagement Levels

Note. Booster scores are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment style. Preoccupied participants had the highest levels of engagement in the classroom. Dismissive individuals displayed the lowest levels of engagement.


Appendix 15: Engagement Levels and Leadership Style

Note. Engagement scores are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership Style. Transformational leader are coded as 1, Transactional leaders are coded as 2, and Laissez faire leaders are coded as 3. Students who identified their leader as Laissez faire had the highest levels of engagement scores, whereas students who labeled their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest.


Appendix 16: GuzzlerMuffler Scores and Attachment Style

Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Secure individuals had the lowest means indicating they displayed the lowest levels of self-sabotage and anxiety. Dismissive students on the other hand, had the highest means indicating high levels of self-sabotage and stress in school.


Appendix 17: GuzzlerMuffler Means and Leadership Style

Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders as Laissez faire had the highest GuzzlerMuffler scores indicating highest levels of self-sabotage or anxiety in the classroom. Students who rated their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest levels of self-sabotage behaviors.


Appendix 18: Mean of Final Grades and ECR


Appendix 19: Mean of Final Grades and MLQ


Appendix 20: Mean of Boosters and ECR


Appendix 21: Mean of Booster scores and MLQ


Appendix 22: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and ECR


Appendix 23: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and MLQ

linda ottosson graduate thesis, 2015

Documents