AbstractThe aim of this study was to investigate happiness and willingness to communicate in three attachment styles on college students. using cluster sampling method, 400 students were selected as sample. Hazan and Shaver‘s Adult attachment styles scale, Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSCH) and willingness to communicate scale were used for collecting of data. Data analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc multiple comparison were performed. the results showed that there are significant difference among attachment styles on happiness. Students with secure attachment style than non-secure have a higher happiness and student with avoidant attachment style compared with ambivalent attachment have a higher happiness. Another result showed that there are significant differences among attachment styles on willingness to communicate. Students with secure attachment style than non-secure students have a higher willingness to communicate and also students with ambivalent attachment style compared with avoidant students have a higher willingness to communicate. these results suggest that secure attachment style is a main factor in happiness and willingness to communicate of individuals

Bayrami, Mansour

Gholamzadeh, Mojtaba

Hasanloo, Hosein Ostad

Heshmati, Rasoul

Mohammadpour, Vahhab

Moslemifar, Mahdi

Elsevier - Publisher Connector 

 Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  46 ( 2012 )  294 – 298 
1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.109 
WCES 2012 
Happiness and willingness to communicate in three attachment 
styles: a study on college students 
Mansour Bayramia, Rasoul Heshmatib*, Vahhab Mohammadpoura, Mojtaba 
Gholamzadeha, Hosein Ostad hasanloob, Mahdi Moslemifarc 
aFaculty of Psychology and Education, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran 
bFaculty of Psychology and Education, Tehran University,Tehran, Iran 
cFaculty of Human Scences, Islamic Azad University,Saveh Branch, Tehran, Iran 
Abstract 
The aim of this study was to investigate happiness and willingness to communicate in three attachment styles on college students. 
using cluster sampling method, 400 students were selected as sample. Hazan and Shaver`s Adult attachment styles scale, 
Memorial University of  Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSCH) and willingness to communicate scale were used for 
collecting of data. Data analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc multiple comparison were 
performed. the results showed that there are significant difference among attachment styles on happiness. Students with secure 
attachment style than non-secure have a higher happiness and student with avoidant attachment style compared with ambivalent 
attachment have a higher happiness.  Another result showed that there are significant differences among attachment styles on 
willingness to communicate. Students with secure attachment style than non-secure students have a higher willingness to 
communicate and also students with ambivalent attachment style compared with avoidant students have a higher willingness to 
communicate. these results suggest that secure attachment style is a main factor in happiness and willingness to communicate of 
individuals. 
 
Keywords: happiness; willingness to communicate; attachment style. 
1. Introduction  
According to Bowlby`s theory, primary relations of mother-child shapes the individual attachment style and 
theory, the effects of attachment quality in all periods of life continues and clarifies individual differences in coping 
with internal annoyance and managing interpersonal relations (Bowlby, 1973; 1977; 1980). 
 
a) Internal representations or patterns that leads interpersonal behavior and information processing. b) special 
ways and methods that people use for keeping their own safety (Hazan, & Shaver, 1987). 
 
 
* Corresponding author:  Rasoul Heshmati. Tel: +98-0919-826-0681; fax: +98-021-3388-2314. 
E-mail address: heshmatiras@ut.ac.ir 
 
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
295 Mansour Bayrami et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  46 ( 2012 )  294 – 298 
Secure people are comfortable in having friendly relationships, and are willing to be dependent on others for 
getting support and are sure that others like them. They describe their attachment faces as warm people, have 
positive image of themselves and have positive expectations from others. The people of ambivalent category have a 
lot of eagerness for having close relationship, but have a lot of  fear of expulsion. They think of being welcomed 
from others as a necessary requirement for having good feeling. These people have a negative image of themselves 
but have positive image for others. The main problem of avoidant people is self-reliance. When it is possible that 
they get shunned by others, try to keep their own positive image by denying attachment need. Avoidant people have 
negative image and expectations from others. Avoidant insecure attachment groups have high self-value feeling and 
underestimate having close relationship with others; but ambivalent people experience deep feeling of being 
worthless. Inappropriate self-revealing, inappropriate expression of emotions, recurrent cries in front of the 
be satisfied, they experience much irritation and being highly vulnerable have been seen in such group 
(Bartholomew, & Horowitz, 1991). 
 
Researchers define happiness as psychological well-
1992; Diener, 1999; Eysenck, 1990; Myers, 1992; &  Argyle, 2001). According to Argyle, Martin and Lu (1995) 
three fundamental bases of happiness are: Positive emotion, satisfaction of life and not having negative emotions as 
depression and anxiety. He and his colleagues found that positive relationship with others, having a goal in life, 
personal growth, loving other and nature are other parts of happiness (Argyle, Martin, & Lu. 1995). One of relevant 
matters to happiness is existence of support network, and because of that Mayers and Diener (1995) say that when 
people are asked that who is a happy person, in their replies they refer to a support network of relationship in a 
culture that leads to positive and optimist interpretation of life events. Therefore, one of the fundamental component 
of happiness is its cognitive component (Myers, & Diener, 1995). Schwartz and Strack (1991) believe that happy 
people are those who have bias in information processing, which means that they process and interpret information 
the way which ends in their happiness. Therefore, happiness in a concept that have many fundamental components. 
The first is emotional and mood component which causes the happy person always be happy and delight. The 
second is social support component that causes expanding social relationship and the third is cognitive component 
which causes the happy person have his own special thought and information processing and interprets daily events 
in a way which ends in being optimism (Schwartz, & Strack, 1991). 
Researches show that people with insecure attachment styles are more inclined to face emotional and spiritual 
difficulties, and the more they feel unable in their interpersonal relationship, the lower their degree of happiness 
(Janika, 1993). 
According to research findings, people with secure attachment are related to positive relationship characteristics 
including intimacy and happiness, people with avoidant attachment are related to low degree of intimacy and 
commitment and people with ambivalent attachment are related to excitement and concern about relationships with 
low happiness. Avoidant people show more eagerness to end the relationship as ambivalent people (Hazan, & 
Shaver, 1987; Feeney, & Noller, 1990). After ending previous relationships, reconstructing new relationship is 
 ending a relationship, have less anxiety 
and worry than ambivalent people (Simpson, 1990). The latter start to have a new relationship more quickly 
(Feeney, & Noller, 1990). Horowitz, Rosenberg, Brtholomew (1993), Horowitz, Locke, Morse, Waiker, Dryer, 
Tarnow, Ghannam. (1991) research findings showed that different patterns of interpersonal relationship was 
according to different attachment styles (Horowitz, 1991; Horowitz, Rosenberg, & Brtholomew, 1993). 
According to Kafetsios (2004) and Mc Carthy et.al (2001) it can be said that people with secure attachment styles, 
use effective methods in their relationship and capable to manage emotional relationship (Kafetsios, 2004; Mc, 
Carthy, Naomi, & Rachel, 2001). Therefore, in this research according to discussed literature and grounds, it has 
been tried to give more explicit examples for such demands according to comparison between happiness and 
willingness to communicate in three groups of  attachment styles of college students population.  
 
 
 
  
296   Mansour Bayrami et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  46 ( 2012 )  294 – 298 
2.Procedure  
2-1.Sample:  
This research had been done on 400 non-native student of Tabriz university in bachelor degree that had been 
selected by cluster sampling method. after selecting the cases and opening the goals and attracting their cooperation, 
questionnaires were distributed among the subjects appealing them to study the questions carefully and select the 
answers according to their personality traits and do not leave the questions unanswered as possible. The data were 
summarized through descriptive statistics of mean, standard deviation and are analyzed through ANOVA test. 
 
22.Instruments:  
In this research ,overall, three known scales used that are:  
 This scale has been made by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and is a self-reported scale 
that is made according to Ainsworth is three some attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and ambivalent) and with this 
includes three descriptive phrases of person`s feeling about interpersonal relationship that each of them refers to one 
attachment styles. This scale includes two parts that in the first part, subjects answer to three descriptive phrases on 
a nine degree continuum, ranging from 
second part, the person chooses one of the phrases as the most suitable description about their feelings.  
Baldwin and Feher (1383) have reported overall reliability of this scale 0.67; also alpha for secure, avoidant and 
ambivalent styles have been respectively 0.80, 0.57, and 0.32. In khavaninzadeh et al. study (1383) Cronbach alpha 
for this scale has been 0.64 (Hosseini,2004). 
Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSCH): This scale for measuring happiness have 
y using retest method 
after 18 months. In Babapoor et al. research (1382) internal consistency of this test is 0.71. In addition,  he reported 
validity coefficient as 0.84 according to reliability index (Babapour, et al. ,2002) 
Willingness  to Communicate Scale (WTC): This test has been made by James Mc Croskey (1992) and has 12 
and retest reliability has been reported as 0.79. In this research by using retest method, after 4 months, reliability 
 
 
3.Findings 
 
Results of one-way ANOVA on research variables show that there is a significant difference between average of 
scores of happiness and willingness to have relationship according to attachment styles. 
  
Table 1: Results of ANOVA on happiness and willingness to communicate in three attachment groups 
Variables  SS df MS F Sig. 
happiness Between group 5739/390 2 2869/695 33/642 0/000 
Within group 16804/130 397 85/300 
total 22543/520 399  
 
willingness to  
communicate 
Between group 93/253 2 46/627 11/378 0/000 
Within group 807/302 397 96/098 
total 900/555 399  
In order to know which one of dependent variables have significant difference, performing multiple comparisons 
for dependent variables is necessary and have been done. Result of multiple comparison show that between average 
297 Mansour Bayrami et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  46 ( 2012 )  294 – 298 
of happiness and willingness to have relationship scores in secure attachment style group, also in avoidant and 
ambivalent groups there is a significant relationship (table 2). 
 
Table 2: Least Significant Difference (LSD) test for comparing of happiness and willingness to communicate 
 in three attachment groups 
Variables MD SD Sig. 
happiness Secure Avoidant 8/819 1/546 0/000 
  Ambivalent  13/008 1/805 0/000 
willingness to 
 communicate 
Secure  Avoidant 1/616 0/339 0/000 
  Ambivalent  0/538 0/339 0/176 
4. Discussion and conclusion 
This research showed that there is a a significant relationship between attachment styles and happiness. In other 
words, people who have secure attachment style have higher happiness and people who have avoidant and 
ambivalent insecure attachment styles have lower happiness.  
This results are consistent with Greenberg et. al. (1983) and Feeney and Noller (1996) results. They came to this 
conclusion in their research on happiness and attachment that there is a significant relationship between secure 
attachment and happiness. Meaning that secure attached people have higher happiness, and the more insecure the 
attchment, the lower happiness they experience (Greenberg, Sigel, & Leith, 1993; Feeney, & Noller, 1996). 
The result are the same as the results coming out of Janika (1993) which showed insecure attachment style people 
are more apt to mental and spiritual problems and the more they feel unable they feel in interpersonal  relationship, 
the lower their degree of happiness (Janika, 1993). 
Another result of this research showed that there is a significant relationship between attachment style and 
willingness to have relationship, in other words, peole who have secure attachment style have more willingness to 
have relationship and people who have avoidant and ambivalent insecure attachment style have little willingness to 
have relationship. 
According to the results of the past findings it can be verified that secure attachment with positive relationship 
characteristic including intimacy and happiness, avoidant attachment with lower degree of intimacy and 
commitment and ambivalent attachment with excitement and concern about relationships with low happiness are 
related. Avoidant people are more willing to end the relationship than ambivalent people (Hazan, & Shaver, 1987; 
Feeney, & Noller, 1996). 
Aft
style. The avoidant people after ending a relationship get less anxious and stressed than the ambivalent. The latter 
start to have a new relationship quikly (Feeney, & Noller, 1996). 
Horowitz et.al. (1993) research findings and Horowitz et.al. (1991) also have shows that different ways of 
interpersonal relationship is in accordance with different attachment styles (Horowitz, 1991; Horowitz, Rosenberg, 
& Brtholomew, 1993). 
Also, according to Kafetsios (2004) and Mc Cartey et. al. (2001) it can be also said that people with secure 
attachment styles use more effective ways of relationship and are able to manage emotional and excitement 
relationship (Kafetsios, 2004; Mc, Carthy, Naomi, & Rachel, 2001).  
Overall, the results of this research verified the results of other researchers about relationship of happiness and 
secure attachment style. According to Bowlby`s theory, secure people interpret world as safe place and have lowest 
anxiety and tension. These characteristic cause the people with secure attachment style to have more happiness and 
willingness to communicate, but because people with ambivalent and avoidant attachment style have high distress 
and confusion, then have low happiness and willingness to communicate. these results suggest that secure 
attachment style is a main factor in happiness and willingness to communicate of individuals. 
298   Mansour Bayrami et al. /  Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences  46 ( 2012 )  294 – 298 
Reference 
 
Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness 2nd Ed. London: Routledge. 
Argyle, M. Martin, M., & Lu. (1995). Testing for stress and happiness: the role of social and cognitive factor. In. C.D. Spielberger, & I.G. 
Sarason (Eds.), stress and emotion. Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis. 173-187. 
Babapour, Kheyrodin, J.; Rasulzade Tabatabaei, Kazem Ezhei, J.; Fathi Ashtiani, A. (2002). Relationship between problem-solving techniques 
and psychological health of students. Psychology journal, 1; 13-18. 
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; 224-226. 
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: vol. 2, Separation, New York, Basic books. 
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional books, British. Journal of psychiatry. 130; 201-210. 
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: vol. 3, loss, sadness and depression, New York, Basic books. 
Cooper, M., Shaver, R. & Coling. (1998). Attachment styles emotion regulation and adjustment in adolescence. journal of personality and social 
psychology. 74-78. 
Diener, E. (1999). Subjective well-being: three decade of progress. Psychological Bulletin.125; 276-302. 
Eysenck, H.J. (1990). Happiness, fact and myths. London: Lawrence Erlbaom. 
Feeney, J.A. & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Stage publication. London, New Dehli. 
Feeney, J.A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationship. journal of personality and social psychology, 58; 
282-292. 
Greenberg, M.T., Sigel, J.M., & Leith, C.J., (1993). The nature and importance of attachment relationship to parents and peers during 
adolescence. Journal of youth and adolescence. 12; 373-386. 
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptional as an attachment process. journal of personality and social psychology. 42; 511-542. 
Horowitz, L.M., Locke, K.D., Morse, M.B., Waikar, S.V., Dryer, D.C., Tarnow, E., & Ghannam, J. (1991). Sel -derogation and the interpersonal 
theory. journal of personality and social psychology. 61; 68-79. 
Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., & Brtholomew, K. (1993). Interpersonal problem, attachment styles and outcome in brief dynamic psychology. 
Journal of counseling and clinical psychology. 61; 68-79. 
Hosseini, H. (2004). Relationship between cognitive styles and attachment styles. MSc thesis. Shahid Beheshti University. 
Hussain Chary, M. & Fadakar, M.M. (2005). Effect on university communication skills based on comparison of students and pupils. New course, 
special letter of educational sciences. 5; 21-32. 
Hussain Chary, M. (2004). They inhibit communication comparison adolescents and youth; glance at the role of university. Paper presented at the 
second congress of the family and its challenges in the contemporary world.  
Janika, I. (1993). Empathy and the level of a partners openness in qualitatively different types of married couples. Prezgiad psychology. 
Kafetsios, K. (2004). Attachment and emotional intelligence abilities across the life course. Personality and individual differences. 37; 129-145. 
Kozma, A., Stones, S. & Stones, M.J. (2000). Stability in components and predictors of subjective well-being SWB: (implication of SWB 
structure). Advanced in quality of life theory and research. 13-30. 
Mc Croskey, J.C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale. Communication Quarterly. 40; 25-26. 
Mc, Carthy, C.J., Naomi, P.M., & Rachel, T.F. (2001). Continued attachment to parents: its relationship regulation and perceived stress in college 
student.  Measurement and evaluation on counseling and development. 33; 198-213. 
Myers, D.G. (1992). The pursuit of happiness, New York: Avon books. 
Myers, D.G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological science. 6; 10-19. 
Schwartz, N & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one`s life: a judgment model of subjective well-being. In. 
Simpson, J.A., (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationship. journal of personality and social psychology.  59; 997-980. 
Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel publishing company. 
Veenhoven, R. (1992). Happiness in nation. Erasmus university, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 
 
       
 
 


Happiness and Willingness to Communicate in Three Attachment Styles: A Study on College Students 

file:///data/remote/core/dit/data/elsevier/pdf/6e4/aHR0cDovL2FwaS5lbHNldmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xlL3BpaS9zMTg3NzA0MjgxMjAxMjM4NA==.pdf

Happiness and Willingness to Communicate in Three Attachment Styles: A Study on College Students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Elsevier - Publisher Connector