Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1990 by the American Psychological Association, Ire.

1990, Vol. 59, No. 2, 270-280 0022-3514/90/S00.75

Love and Work: An Attachment-Theoretical Perspective

Cindy Hazan
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
Cornell University

Phillip R. Shaver
State University of New %rk at Buffalo

The possibility that love and work in adulthood are functionally similar to attachment and explora-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tion in infancy and early childhood was investigated. Key components of attachment theory—de-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

veloped by Bowlby, A insworth, and others to explain the role of attachment in exploratory behavior
—were translated into terms appropriate to adult love and work. The translation centered on the 3
major types of infant attachment and exploration identified by Ainsworth: secure, anxious/am-
bivalent, and avoidant. Two questionnaire studies indicated that relations between adult attach-
ment type and work orientation are similar to attachment/exploration dynamics in infancy and
early childhood, suggesting that the dynamics may be similar across the life span. Implications for
research on the link between love and work are discussed, as are measurement problems and other
issues related to future tests of an attachment-theoretical approach to the study of adults.

Tolstoy, in a letter to Valerya Aresenyev, November 9,1856, where and how love fits into the broader context of human
said, "One can live magnificently in this world if one knows functioning.
how to work and how to love. . ."(Troyat, 1967, p. 158). Freud Just as studies of love generally ignore its relation to work,
is purported to have said that the goal of psychotherapy is to studies of work tend to ignore its relation to love. Research on
allow the patient to love and to work (Erikson, 1963). The work has focused primarily on aspects of the work environment
themes of love and work are central to some of the most influen- that influence job satisfaction (e.g., Fiedler, 1967; Kohn &
tial theories of psychological well-being (e.g, Erikson, 1963; Schooler, 1973; Levinson, 1969; Parker, 1983), for the most part
Maslow, 1954; Rogers, 1961); their importance for healthy func- ignoring possible links between satisfaction with work and satis-
tioning has been empirically documented (e.g, Baruch, Bar- faction with relationships (see Piotrkowski, 1978, for an excep-
nett, & Rivers, 1983; Gurin, Veroff, & Feld, 1960; Lee & Ka- tion). Work lives and love lives have been treated largely as
nungo, 1984; Vaillant, 1977). Study after study has shown that nonoverlapping, a perspective Kanter (1977) called the "myth
satisfaction in one domain is associated with satisfaction in the of separate worlds."
other. But how are love and work related? What is the nature of In the present article, we suggest that attachment theory can
the connection? accommodate both love and work in a natural way We argue
We ask this question in the context of a program of research that work is functionally similar to what Bowlby calls "explora-
on love (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1987,1988; tion," that adult attachment supports work activity just as in-
Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988), which we have studied from fant attachment supports exploration, and that the balance be-
the perspective of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969,1973,1980, tween attachment and exploration associated with healthy
1988). As we have argued elsewhere (e.g, Shaver & Hazan, functioning early in life is, in important respects, similar to the
1988), attachment theory has several advantages over other con- love/work balance that marks healthy functioning in adult-
temporary approaches to love. Of particular interest here is the hood. By extending our research on adult attachment to include
fact that attachment theory is not limited to love. It explains exploration, we hope to elucidate the role of love in adult life, to
explain some of the links between love and work, and to further
demonstrate the explanatory and integrative power of attach-
The research reported here was part of Cindy Kazan's doctoral dis- ment theory.
sertation at the University of Denver, for which Phillip R. Shaver
served as adviser.
Attachment and Exploration
Preparation of this article was supported by National Science Foun-
dation Grant BSN-8808736 to Cindy Hazan and Phillip R. Shaver. We
According to Bowlby, attachment and exploration are linked
are grateful to Richard Canfield, Harry Gollob, Susan Harter, Howard
as follows: To learn about and become competent at interacting
Markman, Judith Schwartz, Robert Sternberg, and three anonymous
with the physical and social environment, one must explore.
reviewers for many useful suggestions.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to But exploration can be tiring and even dangerous, so it is desir-
Cindy Hazan, Department of Human Development and Family Stud- able to have a protector nearby, a haven of safety to which one
ies, Martha Van Rensselaer Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York can retreat. According to attachment theory, the tendency to
14853-4401. form an attachment to a protector and the tendency to explore

270
 LOVE, WORK, AND ATTACHMENT THEORY 271

the environment are innate tendencies regulated by interlock- love relationships, and to memories of childhood relationships
ing behavioral systems. The exploration system can function with parents. (For details, see Hazan & Shaver, 1987.)
optimally only when the attachment system is relatively quies- Adult work activity can be viewed as functionally parallel to
cent, namely, when an attachment figure feels sufficiently avail- what Bowlby calls exploration: For adults, work (like early
able and responsive (a state that Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & childhood play and exploration) is a major source of actual and
Wall, 1978, refer to as having a "secure base" and that Sroufe & perceived competence. Adults' tendencies to seek and maintain
Waters, 1977, call "felt security"). In other words, attachment proximity to an attachment figure and to move away from that
needs are primary; they must be met before exploration can figure in order to interact with and master the environment are
proceed normally. expressed, among other ways, in romantic love relationships
The theorized link between attachment and exploration was and in productive work. We are not claiming that all or even
initially tested by Ainsworth et al. (1978), who identified three most jobs are well suited for maintaining interest and compe-
patterns of infant attachment: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ tence, but at this point in human evolution and cultural organi-
ambivalent. Secure infants match Bowlby's conception of na- zation, work necessarily provides one of the major opportuni-
ties for exploration and mastery. Moreover, although today's
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ture's prototype in terms of both secure attachment to a care-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

giver and ability to use the caregiver as a secure base for explora- jobs may be far from ideal, they do offer important gratifica-
tion. Secure infants in Ainsworth et al.'s studies had mothers tions for adults, as evidenced by the high proportion of people
who were consistently sensitive and responsive to their signals holding both low- and high-prestige jobs who say they derive
and so could confidently explore their environment. (See Main, satisfaction and a sense of accomplishment from their work
1983, for further details concerning the secure toddler's explor- (Robinson, 1984).
atory behavior)
The typical mother of an anxious/ambivalent infant exhib-
Hypotheses
ited inconsistency in responding to her infant's signals, being
sometimes unavailable or unresponsive and at other times in- Just as attachments can be more or less healthy or secure, so
trusive. In the Ainsworth Strange Situation, these infants were can forms of work. In the same way that Ainsworth et al.'s
preoccupied with their mother^ availability, and this preoccu- (1978) avoidant infants appeared to explore to avoid seeking
pation precluded exploration. contact with their mothers, adults can approach their work
Mothers of avoidant infants appeared rejecting and tended to compulsively or use it as a distraction from relational deficien-
rebuff or deflect their infants' bids for proximity, especially for cies. For someone with anxious/ambivalent proclivities, work
close bodily contact. In the laboratory setting, these infants did can be viewed as an opportunity to satisfy attachment needs, a
not seek contact with their mothers at times when the attach- sideline that may interfere with job performance. On the basis
ment system would ordinarily be intensely activated. Instead, of the documented attachment/exploration links in infancy and
they kept their attention directed toward toys, apparently to early childhood and of attachment theory's predictions con-
suppress attachment behavior and avoid seeking contact with cerning the dynamics of these two behavioral systems, a num-
mother. According to Ainsworth et al. (1978), they "turn to the ber of hypotheses can be derived, concerning the likely rela-
neutral world of things, even though displacement exploratory tions between attachment and exploration in adulthood.
behavior is devoid of the true interest that is inherent in non-
anxious exploration" (pp. 319-320).
Hypothesis 1

Securely attached subjects will report a secure orientation to

Love and Work
work. This orientation will include high (relative to those of
In our preliminary studies of romantic love conceptualized insecurely attached subjects) ratings of work success and satis-
as an attachment process (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), we attempted faction, fewer work-related fears and worries concerning perfor-
to identify adult versions of the three patterns of attachment by mance and evaluation by co-workers, and work habits that do
translating Ainsworth et al.'s (1978) descriptions into terms ap- not jeopardize health or relationships. Secure explorers, at any
propriate for adult love. The proportions of the three types were age, should be able to reap the most rewards from exploratory
similar to those obtained in studies of American infants (sum- activity because they are not distracted by concerns over unmet
marized by Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, attachment needs and do not explore primarily for the sake of
1983) and similar across our own studies: Just over half of the pleasing or avoiding others.
subjects endorsed the secure attachment type; the rest split
fairly evenly between the two insecure categories, always with
Hypothesis 2
slightly more in the avoidant group. Similar proportions have
been obtained in studies by independent researchers using our Anxious/ambivalently attached youngsters are typically too
measures in the United States, Israel, and Australia (e.g, Feeney concerned with maintaining proximity to their caregivers to
& Noller, 1990; Levy & Davis, 1988; Mikulincer, Florian, & explore effectively. As these children develop, they may learn to
Tolmacz, 1990). use exploration as a means for achievement designed to attract
In general, our studies have supported an attachment-theoret- the caregivers attention and approval. Exploration then be-
ical approach to the study of adult love. Attachment types relate comes a means of satisfying unmet attachment needs. More-
in the manner predicted by theory to the way love is experi- over, exploring merely as a means to win others' praise leaves a
enced, to expectations (or internal working models) concerning person vulnerable to feeling underappreciated.
 272 CINDY HAZAN AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER

We predict, therefore, that anxious/ambivalent attachment ated college." Ninety-six percent were heterosexual, 3% homosexual,
will be associated with an orientation to work that includes a and 1% bisexual. Forty-nine percent were married at the time of the
preference for working with others rather than alone, a ten- survey (including those who were remarried); 27% were single; 25%
dency to become overobligated as a way of pleasing others com- were divorced or separated; 10% were "living with a lover"; and 3%
bined with feeling that one's own contribution is underappre- were widowed. (Some respondents checked more than one category)

ciated, daydreaming about success and praise, and fearing fail- Measures and procedure. The survey questionnaire, mentioned on
the front page of the magazine, was titled "Loving/Working: Are they
ure and loss of esteem. Beyond affecting these social aspects of
related? Tell psychologists your insights."
work, preoccupation with attachment concerns should be dis-
The measure of attachment type, described more fully by Hazan
tracting and associated with inability to finish work projects,
and Shaver (1987), offered respondents three answer alternatives, of
difficulty meeting deadlines, and poorer work performance.
which they were to choose the one that best described their feelings: (a)
"I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult
to trust them completely difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I
Hypothesis 3
am nervous when anyone gets too dose, and often, love partners want
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Like the avoidant infant, the avoidant adult will use explora- me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being" (the avoidant
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tion primarily as a means of keeping busy, avoiding uncomfort- type), (b) "I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I
often worry that my partner doesnt really love me or won't want to stay
able interactions with others, and avoiding anxiety associated
with me, I want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes
with unmet attachment needs. Because avoidant exploration is
scares people away" (the anxious/ambivalent type), (c) "I find it rela-
believed to reduce anxiety, avoidant people should be reluctant
tively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on
to stop working, to finish projects, or to take vacations (all
them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone
nonsocial manifestations of avoidance). Avoidant attachment getting too close to me" (the secure type). The attachment-type mea-
should be associated with exploratory behavior characterized sure appeared after a measure of "most important love experiences"
by a preference for working alone, using work as an excuse to described by Hazan and Shaver (1987). This placement was designed
avoid socializing, and a compulsive approach to tasks that in- to make love experiences salient before assessing attachment type.
cludes working during vacations, feeling nervous when not Next came 21 items adapted from the existing literature on job satis-
working, and working at the expense of health and relation- faction (e.g, Baruch et al, 1983; Crosby, 1984; Levinson, 1969; Paiker,
ships. 1983; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), covering such issues as job secu-
In addition to our interest in possible links between attach- rity, satisfaction with salary and co-workers, and opportunities for chal-
ment and work, we want to investigate the effect of attachment lenge. Subjects were asked to indicate, by circling 1,2,3, or 4 (indicat-
ing a range of responses from not at all to extremely the extent to which
on well-being more generally. We expect secure attachment, in
they felt satisfied (or dissatisfied, in the case of 10 of the items) with
relation to insecure attachment, to be associated with higher
each. This part of the questionnaire was followed by 8 individual ques-
levels of physical and psychological health.
tions concerning overall job satisfaction (response alternatives ranged
These hypotheses were tested in two related studies with from extremely satisfiedio extremely dissatisfied); subject's perception
overlapping subject samples. The first study examined the rela- of own work performance (excellent to not very good); judgment of
tion between attachment type and work orientation, assessed co-workers' perception of subject's work performance (excellent to not
with measures taken from the research literature on work. This very good); experience of romantic "crushes" on co-workers (no, never
study was conducted to relate our hypotheses to an already to yes, it happens often); experience of romantic affairs) with co-
existing body of work-related measures and findings. The sec- workers (no, never to yes, it happens often); the degree to which relation-
ond study was conducted in order to test our theory-based hy- ship concerns interfere with work performance <not at all to extremely);
the degree to which work concerns interfere with relationships (not at
potheses more precisely
all to extremely); and the degree to which subject and partner have
work-related arguments or disagreements (not at all to extremely).

Study 1 For the next six items, subjects were asked to circle either "my rela-
tionship" or "my work" in relation to the following: which is more
Study 1 involved publication of a love and work questionnaire important, which usually brings the most pleasure, which usually
in the Sunday magazine supplement of one of Colorado^ larg- brings the most pain, which has the greatest effect on overall life satis-
est circulation newspapers, the Denver Post. The overarching faction, which (if forced to) would the subject choose, and which is
goal was to see if attachment type was related to exploration, considered to be primary. Next was a 14-item checklist measure of
leisure activities, which was included in case such activities provided
here conceptualized as work orientation, in ways predicted by
major avenues of exploration for some people. For the first half, sub-
attachment theory.
jects were asked to indicate, by circling items on an activity list (e.g,
socializing, exercising, resting), how they spend their free time. For the
second hal f, they were asked to say what they get from leisure activities,
Method
again by circling one or more items from a list of seven (e.g., renewed
Subjects. Analyses reported here are based on the first 670 of over ties with others, improved health, relief from stress). This was followed
1,000 replies received within 1 week following publication of the ques- by a 22-item symptom checklist used by Rubenstein and Shaver (1982)
tionnaire. (The major findings were stable after the first few hundred, in a national study of loneliness.
so additional replies were not keypunched.) Of the 670 replies, 143 The final section of the questionnaire focused entirely on demo-
were from men, 522 were from women, and 5 were from respondents graphic issues, such as age, marital status, educational background,
who did not report their sex. The subjects ranged in age from 18 to 79, income, religious affiliation, and occupation. The survey ended with a
with a median age of 38 and a mean of 39 years. Average household request for additional comments (the majority of respondents attached
income was $30,000 to $40,000; average education level was "gradu- notes or letters) and an invitation to participate in a follow-up study, to
 LOVE, WORK, AND ATTACHMENT THEORY 273

which 58% responded by providing their name and telephone number. Table 1
Subjects were asked to mail their replies to the Denver Post within 1 Mean Scores for Items Concerning Satisfaction/
week. Disatisfaclion With Hbrk

Attachment type
Results and Discussion
Anxious/
Attachment type. Half (50%) of the subjects classified them-
Item Avoidant ambivalent Secure F(2,658)
selves as secure, 19% as anxious/ambivalent, and 30% as avoid-
ant. These proportions were similar to those obtained in three Happy with
previous studies (Kazan & Shaver, 1987, Studies 1 and 2; Shaver Job security 2.76* 2.56. 2.91b 6.79***
Recognition 2.49. 2.41. 2.65b 3.58»
& Hazan, 1987) in which the frequency of self-classification as
Co-workers 2.78. 2.88* 3.08b 9.34***
secure ranged from 51% to 56%; that of anxious/ambivalent Helping others 2.94. 3.01* 3.19b 6.47***
ranged from 19% to 21 %; and that of avoidant ranged from 23% Competence 3.11. 3.14. 3.28b 2.93
Variety 3.07. 2.87b 3.10. 3.02*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

to 28%.
Learning 2.93. 2.62b 3.00. 6.43***
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Sex differences. There were few sex differences. Men more

Working on own 3.36 3.39 3.45 0.88
often than women reported having romantic crushes (once or Income 2.59 2.42 2.53 1.00
twice vs. never) on co-workers, f(657) = 2.15, p < .05; men re- Advancement 2.10* 2.01. 2.27b 3.67*
ported having more frequent work-related arguments (often vs. Challenge 2.85* 2.67. 2.95b 3.42*
sometimes) with their partners, 7(655) = 2.35, p < .05; and on Unhappy with
average, women were less well educated (fomecollege vs. gradu- Too much work 2.01 1.86 .84 2.35
ated college, t(663) = 2.96, p < .01) and had lower income No challenge 1.97 1.97 .81 1.99
($10,000 to $20,000 vs. $20,000 to $30,000, t(652) = 6.95, Job security 1.83. 2.13, .64. 12.30***
Job conflicts 1.82 1.97 .75 2.54
p<.001).
Advancement 2.20. 2.32. .92. 8.61***
Feelings about work. Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 concerned the Recognition 2.18* 2.36. •99, 6.42***
link between attachment type and work-related feelings and Variety 1.80 1.89 .67 2.58
Income 2.07 2.32 2.07 2.91
experiences. We predicted that each attachment type would be
Advancement 2.22. 2.34. 2.08b 3.08*
associated with a particular orientation to work which, in turn,
Co-workers 1.77. 1.64* 1.53. 6.03**
would resemble the three patterns of exploration identified by
Ainsworth et al. (1978). As an initial test of this hypothesized Note. Multivariate analysis of variance results for items in this table are
link, subjects were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction reported in the text. Within each row, means with different subscripts
differ significantly at p = .05.
and dissatisfaction on a number of items adapted from the re-
V<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.
search literature on work. Table 1 contains the mean item scores
(each with a possible range of 1 to 4) for each attachment type,
along with the F ratio from a one-way analysis of variance (AN-
OVA) on scores for each item. (An overall Final was based on all were not derived from attachment theory but were taken di-
the items in the table was computed, using a multivariate analy- rectly from studies of work. The pattern of differences, there-
sis of variance procedure, or MANOVA, and proved to be highly fore, supports the claim that attachment type is related to feel-
significant: -F(42, 1218) = 2.05, p < .001. We report ordinary ings about work.
ANOVAS in the table, rather than univariate Fs that were based We predicted that the different attachment types would
on the MANOVA, so as not to reduce the JVs because of missing differ in overall job satisfaction and the balance between love
data) and work. Table 2 contains the mean item scores for each at-
In line with Hypothesis 1, securely attached respondents re- tachment type and the results of a one-way ANOVA on scores for
ported relatively high levels of work satisfaction in terms of job each item. (A MANOVA including all items in the table yielded a
security, co-workers, income, and opportunities for challenge highly significant overall effect of attachment type: F(28,
and advancement. In line with Hypothesis 2, anxious/ambiva- 1,130)= 3.84, p < .001) Secure respondents reported higher
lent attachment was associated with feelings of job insecurity, overall work satisfaction, felt that they were good workers, and
lack of appreciation and recognition by co-workers, and not were confident that co-workers evaluated them highly. In con-
getting desirable and deserved promotions. Compatible with trast, anxious/ambivalent respondents expected co-workers to
Hypothesis 3, avoidantly attached respondents reported dissat- undervalue them, and avoidant respondents gave themselves
isfaction with co-workers but were similar to secure respon- lower ratings on job performance and expected similarly low
dents in their satisfaction with job security and opportunities ratings from co-workers.
for learning. In terms of the balance between love and work, secure at-
The differences among the attachment types in work-related tachment was associated with placing a higher value on, and
feelings were generally small but in line with predictions. There deriving more pleasure from, relationships than work. Secure
is little in the descriptions of the attachment types that necessi- subjects were also most likely to say that if forced, they would
tates any particular pattern of responses on the work items, so choose relationship success over work success. This fits with the
the results are unlikely to be due to a mere semantic expansion notion that security is related to valuing and enjoying relation-
of the independent variable. In addition, these work items, un- ships. Anxious/ambivalent respondents were most likely to
like the ones to be discussed later in connection with Study 2, claim that love concerns interfere with work, perhaps referring
 274 CINDY HAZAN AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER

Table 2
Mean Scores and F Ratios for Items Concerning Work-Related Feelings and Experiences

Attachment type

Anxious/
Items Avoidant ambivalent Secure F(2, 658)

Overall work satisfaction (6-pt.) 4.19. 4.15. 4.53b 9.02"*

How good are you at work? (5-pt.) 4.26 4.40 4.40 3.91*
How good would co-workers say you are? (5-pt.) 4.28, 4.26, 4.42b 4.88**
Had crush on co-worker? (4-pt) 1.67 1.79 1.62 2.70
Had affair with co-worker? (4-pt.) 1.48 1.59 1.45 1.67
How much does love interfere with work?
(4-pt) 1.77. 1.86. 1.63,, 7.19***
How much does work interfere with love?
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(4-pt.) 1.98 1.94 1.92 0.50

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Argue with partner about work? (4-pt.) 1.51 1.55 1.50 0.22
Which is most important, work or relationship?
(2-pt.) 1.62. 1.67. 1.81,, 12.34"*
Which gives most pleasure, work or relationship?
(2-pt.) 1.64. 1.71. 1.82, 11.25***
Which causes most pain, work, or relationship?
(2-pt.) 1.47. 1.67b 1.37. 17.58***
Which has greatest effect on overall happiness?
(2-pO 1.59. 1.70,,, 1.77, 9.36"*
Which would you choose? (2-pt.) 1.75. 1.79.b 1.87b 6.59***
Which is more true, work supports love or
love supports work? (2-pt.) 1.29. 1.19* 1.16, 6.00"

Note. Multivariate analysis of variance results for items in this table are reported in the text. Within each
row, means with different subscripts differ significantly at p = .05. A high score on the 2-point scales
indicates the love relationship alternative, except for the last scale, in which a high score indicates agree-
ment with "work supports love."
*p<.05. **p<.01. "*p<.001.

to the kind of preoccupation with attachment needs that in- cant: F(28, 1290) = 2.54, p < .001. Although scores on the
hibits exploration. Attachment theory makes no predictions majority of the items were not related to attachment type, the
about the possible effects of exploration on attachment, and few that were are worth mentioning. Avoidant subjects were
interestingly, the three attachment types did not differ in rate of least likely to say they spent their free time socializing (42% vs.
reporting that concerns about work interfere with romantic re- 58% and 59% for the anxious/ambivalent and secure subjects,
lationships. Nor did the groups differ in their propensity to respectively) and least likely to say that leisure provided re-
argue with love partners about work. Anxious/ambivalent sub- newed social ties (34% vs. 54% and 57%). Anxious/ambivalent
jects were also slightly although not significantly, more likely to subjects were most likely to report that their leisure activities
report romantic interest in co-workers. In addition, this group provide excitement (47% vs. 32% and 39% for the avoidant and
reported experiencing more pain in relation to love than to secure types, respectively) and to report spending free time
work. Avoidant respondents were most likely to emphasize the shopping (42% vs. 33% and 29%). (Shopping may be a form of
importance of work over love. For example, they were more immediate self-gratification; Rubenstein & Shaver, 1982, found
likely to say they would choose work success over relationship that lonely people shop as one means of coping with negative
success, that work has a greater overall effect on their happiness feelings) Avoidant subjects were least likely to report gaining
than do relationships, and that work success supports relation- new knowledge during free time (46% vs. 62% and 59% for
ship success. Similar to avoidant infant explorers, avoidant anxious/ambivalent and secure subjects, respectively).
adult workers tend to focus on work activity instead of relation- Well-being. The well-being measure used here was a symp-
ships. In general, these findings lend additional support to the tom checklist previously used by Rubenstein and Shaver (1982)
hypotheses. in a national study of loneliness. A principal-components
Leisure activities. As stated earlier, not all jobs are well analysis followed by equamax rotation was performed on the
suited to provide the kind of challenge and stimulation typi- 22-item measure. Five factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0.
cally associated with the term exploration, so subjects were also Items loading above .40 on one of the factors were analyzed for
asked about activities outside of work (resting, socializing, exer- reliability, and the resulting coefficient alphas ranged from .52
cising, shopping, traveling, and hobbies) and about what bene- for the Physical Illness factor to .89 for the Loneliness and
fits they derive from leisure (improved health, relief from stress, Depression factor. Table 3 contains the results of a one-way
renewed social ties, excitement, new knowledge, and sense of ANOVA on the scale means for the three attachment types. Se-
mastery). A MANOVA on the entire set of items proved signifi- cure subjects were significantly less likely than insecure sub-
 LOVE, WORK, AND ATTACHMENT THEORY 275

Table 3
Information and Mean Scores on 4-Point Symptom Scales

Attachment type

No. Anxious/
Scale items Avoidant ambivalent Secure F(2,65S)

Loneliness and Depression

(crying easily, feeling hopeless) 8 2.02. 2.05. 1.49, 60.73*
Anxiety
(Feeling nervous, worrying) 6 2.23. 2.16. 1.77, 42.87*
Hostility
(Outbursts of temper, feeling irritable) 4 2.01. 1.94. 1.72, 16.64*
Psychosomatic Illness
(Muscle tension, intestinal problems) 5 1.63, 1.57. 1.39, 19.50*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Physical Illness
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(Cold, flu) 4 1.85. 1.83. 1.65, 10.40*

Note. Within each row; means with different subscripts differ significantly at p = .05.

jects were to report all five categories of symptoms. The results work (conceptualized as exploration). A principal-components
of Study 1 will be discussed more fully in the General Discus- analysis followed by equamax rotation was performed on the
sion section. 35-item measure. Nine factors had eigenvalues greater than 1.0
and appeared to the left of the elbow in a scree test. Of these
Study 2 nine factors, seven scales consisting of the items that loaded
above .40 on one of the factors were analyzed for reliability; and
The purpose of Study 2 was to pursue the effects of attach- items that reduced coefficient alpha were deleted from the
ment type on work orientation, using items that were based on scales. Table 4 contains the names of the seven factor-based
attachment theory and designed especially for this purpose. scales and sample items, the number of items retained, coeffi-
cient alpha for each, and the results of one-way ANOVAS on the
Method mean scale scores for the different attachment types. Some of
the shorter scales had relatively low coefficient alphas but
Subjects. Fifty-eight percent, or 387, of the 670 replies keypunched
for Study 1 included a name and a telephone number. A supplementary proved sufficiently reliable to reveal an association with attach-
questionnaire, to be described in the next paragraph, was mailed to ment type. A MANOVA on the entire set of scales proved signifi-
the 290 respondents who, in addition, supplied a return address. They cant, F(14, 456) = 4.32, p < .001.
did not differ significantly from the larger sample in the prevalence of The secure orientation to work. The securely attached re-
the three attachment types or in terms of sex, age, education, or aver- spondents reported a relatively positive approach to work. In
age income. line with Hypothesis 1, they are least likely to put off work,
Measures and procedure. A two-page love and work questionnaire least likely to have difficulty completing tasks, and least likely
was distributed by mail. It included one page of items concerning
to fear failure and rejection from co-workers. They report en-
sexuality and caregiving (designed to pilot test measures for another
joying their vacations and not allowing work to jeopardize
research project) in addition to 35 work-related items derived from
their relationships or health.
attachment theory and research. (These items are described in detail
in a later section.) Responses to the 35 items were indicated by circling The anxious/ambivalent orientation to work. Anxious/am-
SD, D, A, or SA on a strongly disagree to strongly agree continuum. bivalent respondents exhibited a different pattern of responses
Subjects were asked to complete the questionnaire and return it within on the work items. As predicted, they preferred to work with
a week. A stamped, preaddressed envelope was included. Of the 290 others, reported feeling misunderstood and underappreciated,
questionnaires distributed, 260 were returned within a week, another were motivated by approval, and worried that others would not
3 were returned by the post office for having an insufficient address, be impressed with their work performance or would reject
and 11 more arrived within a month, for a total return rate between them. As predicted, anxious/ambivalently attached subjects re-
90% and 94%. Only the first 260 were keypunched.
ported that interpersonal concerns interfered with productivity
It should be noted that these 260 subjects were not retested with the
Not shown in Table 4 is a significant mean difference on the
single-item attachment-type measure. Thus, the prediction of work
item "I dont like it when others try to become involved in my
items from attachment type extended over a period of more than 2
months. work." This item, which was not on any of the scales because it
produced its own factor, was included to see whether anxious/
ambivalent subjects, despite preferring to work with others,
Results and Discussion
might resent others' intrusions into their work. (Atnsworth et
The supplementary questionnaire items were designed to fur- al, 1978, characterized the mothers of anxious/ambivalent in-
ther test the predicted relationship between attachment and fants as intrusive) The means on the feelings-aboirt-intrusive-
 276 CINDY HAZAN AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER

Table 4
Mean Scores and Information on 5-Point Work Scales Derived
From Attachment Theory (N = 260)

Attachment type

No. Anxious/
Scale Alpha items Avoidant ambivalent Secure F(2,233)

Fears Failure/Disapproval .79 4 2.83. 2.88. 2.29b 10.98*"

Worries won't impress
Fears rejection for poor work
Prefers Working With Others .77 4 2.53* 2.73. 2.41b 5.68"
Hates working alone
Works better with others
Work Harms Health/Relationships .74 4 2.50. 2.25. 1.93b 12.31***
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Overwork harms self/others

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Work interferes with relationships

Distracted/Preoccupied .69 6 2.15* 2.36. 2.04t 5.43**
Puts off work
Difficulty finishing projects
Feels unappreciated .79 3 2.84* 3.20. 2.5 l b 8.54***
Work efforts misunderstood
Work efforts unappreciated
Needs/Desires to Keep Busy .48 3 2.55, 2.37* 2.13,, 5.79**
Vacations are pleasureless
Nervous when not working
Motivated by Approval .45 3 3.H., 3.25. 2.91, 3.55*
Imagines praise
Admiration is best reward

Note. Within each row, means with different subscripts differ significantly at p « .05.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

ness item were 2.67 for secure subjects, 3.05 for avoidant sub- criminant-function analyses were performed to assess
jects, and 3.20 for anxious/ambivalent subjects, F(2, 233) = predictability of membership in the three attachment catego-
6.20, p<.01). ries from work variables. Subjects with no missing data on any
The avoidant orientation to work. In line with Hypothesis 3, of the variables involved (Ar= 224) were included in the analy-
avoidant respondents were more likely to indicate that they feel ses. In the first analysis, both discriminant functions (two being
nervous when not working and that work interferes with their the maximum possible number, given three target groups) were
relationships and health. (Although the difference between statistically significant, with a combined x2(24, N = 224) =
avoidant and anxious/ambivalent subjects on the Work Harms 78.35, p < .001. After removal of the first function, x^l 1, AT =
Health/Relationships Scale was not quite significant, it was sig- 224) = 32.38, p < .001, for the second function. The first func-
nificant for two of the scaled individual items: "Work interferes tion accounted for 59.5% of the between-groups variability; the
with relationships" and "work leaves no time for friends.") On second accounted for a sizable 40.5%, indicating that the differ-
the single item "I prefer to work alone," which did not fit with ences between groups are not reducible to a single security-in-
any of the scales, avoidant subjects obtained the highest score: security dimension. As shown in Figure 1, the first discrimi-
3.37, versus 3.09 for anxious/ambivalent subjects and 2.80 for nant function separated secure subjects from insecure subjects.
secure subjects, F(2, 233) = 4.36, p < .05. Thus, according to The second function separated avoidant subjects from anxious/
avoidant subjects, work leaves little time for close relationships, ambivalent subjects. As can be seen in Table 5, 54.7% of the
and vacations are generally pleasureless. avoidant subjects were classified correctly, as were 55.8% of the
Discriminant analyses. A question remains as to whether anxious/ambivalent subjects and 64.0% of the secure subjects,
the differences are simply unidimensional, namely simply a for an overall correct classification percentage of 59.6% (in a
matter of security versus insecurity, rather than reflections of three-category system, chance accuracy is 33.3%).
two distinct insecure patterns. Of 16 individual work items Correlations of the 19 predictor variables with the two dis-
yielding significant differences among the three attachment criminant functions are shown in Table 6. Only correlations of
groups, only 2 ("work leaves no time for friends" and "difficulty .20 or above are shown. The items that best discriminated be-
finishing projects") significantly distinguish the avoidant group tween secure and insecure subjects included (a) work leaves no
from the anxious/ambivalent group. None of the multi-item time for friends, (b) work interferes with relationships, (c) fears
scales in Table 3 distinguish significantly between the two inse- work failure, (d) work efforts are misunderstood, (e) rejects
cure groups, although the two differ significantly from the se- others' involvement, (f) nervous when not working, (g) prefers
cure group in distinctive ways. To address this issue and summa- to work alone, and (h) work is useful for avoiding social events.
rize differences among the three groups, two hierarchical dis- Because the same items were used for both the discrimina-
 LOVE, WORK, AND ATTACHMENT THEORY 277

Table 6
Correlations Between Work Items and Discriminant Functions
Anxious/ Ambivalent for the Entire Study 2 Sample (N = 260)

Item Function 1 Function 2

Work leaves no time for friends .54 —.34

Work interferes with relationships .53 -.20
Fears work failure .52
Work efforts misunderstood .44 .43
Rejects others' involvement .43 .22
Nervous when not working .42
Prefers to work alone .42
Work useful for avoiding social events .40
Overwork damages self/significant others .35
Work efforts unappreciated .35 .34
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Worries about work performance .34

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Vacations are pleasureless .34 -.22

Worries others worft be impressed .32
Rejects advice for improving work .24
Fears rejection for poor work .24
fir*
Difficulty finishing projects .58
Figure 1. Plot of three group centroids on two discriminant functions Slacks off after praise .25
derived from work items (N = 260). Gets overinvolved in tasks .21 .25
Overobligates self at work .21

tion between secure and insecure types, on the one hand, and
the discrimination between the two insecure types, on the do not allow work to interfere with friendships or health and do
other hand, we conducted a second analysis to investigate more take enjoyable vacations from work. Anxious/ambivalent sub-
clearly the best discriminators between avoidant subjects and jects, in contrast, worry about their work performance, prefer
anxious/ambivalent subjects. The discriminant function was sig- to work with others but feel underappreciated and fear rejection
nificant, %2(35, JV= 113) = 26.56, p< .001, and correctly classi- for poor performance. They are also easily distracted, have trou-
fied 76.6% of the avoidant subjects and 63.5% of the anxious/ ble completing projects, and tend to slack off after receiving
ambivalents. Correlations of the 13 predictor variables (those praise. Avoidant subjects prefer to work alone, use work to avoid
with correlations of .20 or above) with the discriminant func- having friends or a social life, and do not take enjoyable vaca-
tion are shown in Table 7. The items that best discriminated tions from work.
between the avoidant and anxious/ambivalent types, with posi- Overall, the results of Study 2 support an attachment-theo-
tively correlated variables being those named more frequently retical approach to the study of love and work. There are three
by anxious/ambivalent subjects, included (a) difficulty finishing distinct patterns of feelings regarding work, and they are func-
work projects, (b) work leaves no time for friends, (c) work ef- tionally similar to the three patterns of exploration seen in in-
forts are misunderstood, (d) vacations are pleasureless, (e) work fancy and early childhood. Anxious/ambivalent attachment en-
efforts are unappreciated, (f) work interferes with relation- tails a preoccupation with attachment issues and an accom-
ships, (g) works better with others, (h) slacks off after praise, (i) panying inability to focus on tasks, except when performance is
uses work to avoid social events, (j) gets overinvolved in tasks,
(k) hates working alone, (1) prefers to work alone, and (m) day-
dreams about success. All of these findings were in line with
theory-based predictions. Table 7
Summary and comments. The results can be summarized Correlations Between Work Items and Discriminant Function
by saying that secure subjects generally do not worry about for Avoidant and Anxious/Ambivalent Subjects (n = 113)
work failure or feel unappreciated. In addition, they generally
Item Function 1

Difficulty finishing projects .55

Work leaves no time for friends -.43
Table 5 Work efforts misunderstood .34
Classification Results for the Discriminant Analysis Vacations are pleasureless -.29
Work efforts unappreciated .29
Predicted group membership Work interferes with relationships -.28
Works better with others .27
Anxious/ Slacks off after praise .25
Actual group Avoidant ambivalent Secure Work useful for avoiding social events -.24
Gets overinvolved in tasks .24
Avoidant 54.7% 17.2% 28.1% Hates working alone .21
Anxious/ambivalent 23.1% 55.8% 21.2% Prefers to work alone -.20
Secure 18.4% 17.5% 64.0% Daydreams about success .20
 278 CINDY KAZAN AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER

perceived as an opportunity to work closely with others or to not use work to satisfy unmet needs for love, nor do they use
gain love and respect. Such distraction and preoccupation may work to avoid social interaction.
be costly: Anxious/ambivalent subjects reported the lowest In support of Hypothesis 2, anxious/ambivalent respondents
average income of the three groups—$20,000 to $30,000 com- reported that love concerns often interfere with work perfor-
pared with $30,000 to $40,000 for both the secure and avoidant mance and that they frequently fear rejection for poor perfor-
subjects, F(2,644) = 24.83, p < .001. The income difference is mance. They also reported a tendency to slack off following
independent of the sex difference in income reported earlier, praise, which may indicate that their main motivation at work
and is not due simply to education. Attachment type was re- is to gain respect and admiration from others. Anxious/ambiva-
lated to educational level; the secure group reported a signifi- lent respondents have the lowest average income of the three
cantly higher level of education than did the two insecure groups, even when differences in education are controlled.
groups ("graduated college" vs. "some college"), F(2, 661) = Consistent with Hypothesis 3, avoidant respondents use
5.20, p < .01. However, a three-way (Sex X Education x Attach- work activity to avoid social interaction. They said that work
ment Type) ANOVA predicting income revealed no significant interferes with having friends and a social life. Although they
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

interaction between sex and attachment type, F(2,608) = 1.04, reported an average income equal to that of the secure group,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ns, or between education and attachment type, F(12, 608) = they are less satisfied with their jobs. Nevertheless, they are
1.39, us least likely to take enjoyable vacations.
The relatively low income reported by anxious/ambivalent
Secure attachment was also associated with greater overall
respondents may be interpreted in a number of ways. One possi-
well-being. In relation to insecure respondents, secure respon-
bility is that anxious/ambivalent people are more likely to hold
dents are less likely to report suffering from loneliness and
low-status jobs. However, only 2 of the 12 occupational catego-
depression, anxiety, or irritability or are less likely to report
ries were significantly related to attachment type: Teachers
having had colds or flu.
were more likely to endorse the secure attachment type, and
A number of limitations of our studies deserve discussion.
technicians-skilled workers were more likely to describe them-
First, the conceptualization of work as exploration may be too
selves as anxious/ambivalent. Attachment type was not related
simple. Although work is probably the major form of explor-
to occupational categories such as artist, housewife, manager,
atory behavior in adulthood, exploration could be manifested
or professional. Another possibility is that insufficient income
in other ways—for instance, in one's general approach to nov-
causes relationship dissatisfaction, which is reflected in the en-
elty and challenge in all domains of life. In addition, attach-
dorsement of an insecure attachment type. However, this inter-
ment type and orientation to work were treated more as traits
pretation does not explain why avoidant respondents had an
than as products of unique person/situation interactions. Surely
average income equal to that of the secure group. A third inter-
more objective features of the work environment, such as noise
pretation is that'anxious/ambivalent attachment actually inter-
feres with job performance and productivity, as predicted by levels, power hierarchies, and leave policies also affect peopled
attachment theory. attitudes toward and satisfaction with their work.
Avoidant attachment is associated with a compulsive ap- Second, the work measures designed for these studies were
proach to activity that serves as a way of avoiding other people. necessarily exploratory, some had insufficient reliability, and a
This approach to work is costly in terms of overall well-being, if few failed to show the predicted associations with attachment
not in terms of income. In contrast, secure attachment seems to type. Unfortunately, attachment theory in its present form does
support the healthiest and most satisfying approach to work: not make clear or precise predictions about adult exploration;
one that results in success but without the personal and social thus, the hypotheses, as well as the measures, were derived by
costs of the other two types. extrapolation from the theory and from the empirical literature
on infancy and early childhood. Further research is needed
before adult exploration can be measured more completely and
reliably Our aim in this parr of studies was to test the feasibility
General Discussion
of an important extension of attachment theory into research
Three hypotheses concerning the relation between attach- on adulthood; the pattern of findings was sufficiently support-
ment-love and exploration-work in adulthood were derived ive of the theory to indicate the feasibility and desirability of
from attachment theory and research. We assessed adult at- more extensive research efforts. Eventually, such efforts will
tachment type by using a single-item measure that asked sub- enable the formulation of a more powerful and complete theory
jects to choose the one description among three that best sum- of adult attachment.
marized their feelings and behavior in romantic love relation- Third, our single-item measure of attachment type also needs
ships. The descriptions were designed by translating into adult elaboration. Various alternatives have been proposed recently
terms the three patterns of attachment observed by Ainsworth by Levy and Davis (1988), Collins and Read (1990), and Bren-
etal. (1978). nan, Hazan, and Shaver (1989). Note, however, that the single-
In line with Hypothesis 1, secure respondents approach their item measure produced significant results in Study 2 despite
work with the confidence associated with secure attachment. more than a 2-month gap between its administration and the
They enjoy work activity and are relatively unburdened by fears administration of items assessing orientation to work.
of failure. And, although they value work, they tend to value Another important issue concerns continuity and change. It
relationships more and generally do not allow work to interfere is impossible to determine from the present studies whether
with those relationships. Securely attached people typically do there is continuity in attachment type or continuity only in the
 LOVE, WORK, AND ATTACHMENT THEORY 279

relationship between attachment and exploration. Eventually, Bowlby, !. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
longitudinal research will be needed to assess the stability of Basic Books.
attachment types and their effects on exploration. (See Kazan Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York:
and Hutt, 1989, for preliminary findings.) Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic
An important question that remains unanswered concerns
Books.
how attachment type relates to actual work performance. The
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy
finding that anxious/ambivalently attached respondents had human development. New *Vbrk: Basic Books.
lower incomes than the other two groups of respondents may Brennan, K. A, Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. R. (1989, April). Multi-item
indicate that attachment type does affect work performance. assessment of adult attachment type. Paper presented at the 60th
Part of anxious/ambivalent attachment is a preoccupation with annual convention of the Eastern Psychological Association, Bos-
unmet attachment needs. It is possible that such preoccupation ton, MA.
makes concentration on work more difficult and professional Campos, J. J, Barrett, K, Lamb, M. E, Goldsmith, H. H, & Stenberg,
advancement less probable. Another possibility is that anxious/ C. (1983). Socioemotional development. In M. M. Haith & J. J. Cam-
pos (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and psycho-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ambivalent respondents originally came disproportionately

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

biology (pp. 783-915). New York: Wiley.

from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, an association com-
Collins, N. L, & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,
patible with findings reported by Egeland and Farber (1984).
and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and
One possible criticism of our previous work on adult attach- Social Psychology. 58. 644-663.
ment (e.g, Hazan & Shaver, 1987) is that the measures of attach- Crosby, H (1984). Job satisfaction and domestic life. In M. D. Lee &
ment type, on the one hand, and of relationship experiences R. N. Kanungo (Eds), Management of work and personal life: Prob-
(e.g_ trust, jealousy, desire for reciprocation), on the other hand, lems and opportunities (pp. 41-60). New York: Praeger.
were part of a shared semantic network. The supposed depen- Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors
dent variables may have been logical extensions or elaborations related to its development and changes over time. Child Develop-
of the independent variable (as happens so often in personality ment, 55, 753-762.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed). New York: Nor-
research). We think the present studies begin to counter that
ton.
criticism. Little in the descriptions of the three attachment
Feeney, 1. A, & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of
types necessitates any particular pattern of responses on many
adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
of the work items. For instance, items such as feeling distrustful chology, 58, 281-291.
of others and being reluctant to take vacations from work (both Fiedler, E E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:
endorsed more frequently by avoidant respondents) are seman- McGraw-Hill.
tical ly dissimilar but closely connected through the theory. Gurin, G, Veroff, J, & Feld, J. (1960). Americans view their mental
Other items—such as an inability to finish tasks, slacking off health. New York: Basic Books.
after praise, or daydreaming about success—also go beyond a Hazan, C, & Hutt, M. J. (1989, October). Continuity and change in
mere semantic expansion of the anxious/ambivalent attach- inner working models of attachment. In Keith Davis (Chair), Adult
Attachment, Mental Models, and Relationship Formation. Sympo-
ment-type description. Note also that the same three attach-
sium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimen-
ment groups have been derived from subjects' descriptions of
tal Social Psychology, Santa Monica, CA,
childhood relationships with parents, features of adult love ex-
Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
periences (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), and now from orientation to attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
work. This is an indication of the broad integrative power of the 52,511-524.
theory and the validity of the three types. No other social-psy- Kanter, R. M. (1977). Work and family in the United Stales: A critical
chological theory of love offers this kind of integrative breadth review and agenda for research and policy. New Tiork: Sage.
(Shaver & Hazan, 1988). Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1973). Occupational experience and psy-
Scientists often treat love and work as two separate realms, chological functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. Ameri-
but being deeply social creatures, humans cannot easily sepa- can Sociological Review, 38, 97-118.
rate the two. Mental health, viewed as the abilities to love, to Lee, M. D, & Kanungo, R. N. (Eds). (1984). Management of work and
personal life: Problems and opportunities. New York: Praeger.
work, and to put the two in balance, is a coherent if complex
Levinson, H. (1969). Emotional toxicity of the work environment. Ar-
state, as Freud may have implied when he linked lichen und
chives of Environmental Health, 19, 239-243.
arbeiten in describing the goals of psychotherapy. Attachment
Levy, M. B, & Davis, K. E. (1988). Lovestyles and attachment styles
theory offers a way of explaining why love and work are so compared: Their relations to each other and to various relationship
closely intertwined. characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,439-
471.
Main, M. (1983). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning related
to infant-mother attachment. Infant Behavior and Development, 6,
References
167-174.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper &
Ainsworth, M. D. S, Blehar, M. C, Waters, E, & Wall, S. (1978). Pat- Row.
terns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Mikulincer, M, Florian, V, Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of
Baruch, G, Barnett, R, & Rivers, C. (1983). Lifeprints: New patterns of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 273-280.
love and work for today's women. New \brk: McGraw-Hill. Parker, S. (1983). Leisure and work. London: George Allen & Unwin.
 280 CINDY KAZAN AND PHILLIP R. SHAVER

Piotrkowski, C. S. (1978). Work and the family system: A naturalistic Shaver, P, Kazan, C, & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The
study of working-class and lower-middle-class families. New York: integration of three behavioral systems. In R. Sternberg& M. Barnes
Free Press. (Eds), The psychology of love (pp. 69-99). New Haven, CT: Yale
Robinson, J. R (1984). Work, free time, and the quality of life. In M. D. University Press.
Lee & R. N. Kanungo (Eds), Management of work and personal life Smith, P, Kendall, L. M, & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of
(pp. 67-91). New Ybrk: Praeger. satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of atti-
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton tudes. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Mifflin. Sroufe, L. A, & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational
Rubenstein, C, & Shaver, P (1982). In search of intimacy. New Tibrk: construct. Child Development, 48,1184-1199.
Delacorte. Troyat, H, (Ed.) (1967). Tolstoy. New York: Doubteday.
Shaver, P, & Kazan, C (1987). Being lonely, falling in love: Perspectives Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life: How the best and the brightest
from attachment theory. In M. Hojat & R. Crandall (Eds), Loneli- came of age. Boston: Little, Brown.
ness: Theory, research, and applications. [Special issue]. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 2,105-124. Received March 17,1989
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Shaver, P R, & Kazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of Revision received February 13,1990
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5,473-501. Accepted February 26,1990 •