Você está na página 1de 18

Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships
http://spr.sagepub.com

Attachment as a moderator of the effect of security in mentoring on


subsequent perceptions of mentoring and relationship quality with
college teachers
Simon Larose, Annie Bernier and Nathalie Soucy
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2005; 22; 399
DOI: 10.1177/0265407505052443
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/399

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
International Association for Relationship Research

Additional services and information for Journal of Social and Personal Relationships can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


Subscriptions: http://spr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://spr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/3/399

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 399

Attachment as a moderator of the


effect of security in mentoring on
subsequent perceptions of
mentoring and relationship
quality with college teachers
Simon Larose
Laval University

Annie Bernier & Nathalie Soucy


University of Montreal

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine if college students


attachment insecurity, as evaluated by the Adult Attachment
Interview, moderates the effect of affective security in mentoring on subsequent perceptions of the mentoring program and
relationship quality with other teachers. Academically at-risk
students were involved in a 10-hour mentoring program and
completed measures at three points in time. Security in
mentoring was associated with a subsequent positive perception of mentoring and with low conflict with teachers,
although not with supportive relationships with teachers. As
expected, these associations were moderated by attachment
insecurity. Security in mentoring was positively related to
subsequent perceptions of mentoring only for students
showing low preoccupation with attachment, and inversely
related to conflict with teachers only for students showing
high dismissing attachment tendencies.
KEY WORDS:

attachment mentor mentoring moderator


variables protg studentteacher relationships

The research described in this article was supported by grants from Le Fonds FCAR (99NC-1705) and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(410980892). All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Simon
Larose, Dpartement dtudes sur lenseignement et lapprentissage, Facult des Sciences
de lducation, Universit Laval, Qubec, G1K 7P4, Canada [e-mail: simon.larose
@fse.ulaval.ca]. Stanley O. Gaines was the Action Editor on this article.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships Copyright 2005 SAGE Publications
(www.sagepublications.com), Vol. 22(3): 399415. DOI: 10.1177/0265407505052443

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

400

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 400

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

Empirical research has shown that academic mentoring with a teacher has
a positive impact on college students adjustment (see Jacobi, 1991 for a
review). Very few studies, however, have examined the personal factors
that may explain or moderate the positive impact of mentoring. Identification of such factors would allow for a better understanding of individual
differences in students responses to mentoring, thus providing empirical
guidelines that could lead to further improvement of mentoring programs.
One possible moderator of the effect of mentoring on students adjustment is attachment dispositions. However, attachment researchers have
not paid much attention to academic mentoring relationships, despite some
functional similarities between mentoring and attachment relationships.
Academic mentoring involves interactions with an older adult who serves
as a facilitator of the students exploration of his or her social and academic
environment and as a source of support to cope with the stress of adjusting to a new school. These two functions parallel those of secure base and
haven of safety, which characterize an attachment relationship (Feeney &
Noller, 1996). Thus, although it does not constitute an attachment relationship, the studentmentor relationship might activate students attachment
dispositions and, indirectly, influence the benefits that they derive from this
relationship (Slade, 1999). The main goal of this study was to investigate,
among academically at-risk students, the role of attachment insecurity as a
moderator of the associations between affective security in academic
mentoring, subsequent perceptions of mentoring, and relationship quality
with college teachers.
Mentoring and students adjustment
Research has suggested that informal contacts (outside the classroom)
between college students and faculty have a positive impact on students
academic performance, satisfaction with college life, retention, and
educational and career goals (Lamport, 1993). Drawing from these
findings, several colleges have developed academic mentoring programs
(e.g., the Freshman Mentoring Program at Brewton-Parker College;
Wilson, 1994) in an effort to prevent the adjustment problems typically
associated with the transition from high school to college. These programs
generally match a college teacher with an at-risk freshman and are aimed
at providing the student with skills and strategies for dealing with the
typical stressful events of the transition (e.g., academic failure or social
network disruption). Studies have shown that this type of program
improves study skills, motivation, academic adjustment, and personal
adjustment (Jacobi, 1991). Factors proposed to explain this positive impact
include the feedback provided to students on their coping strategies and
the reinforcement of their personal value at a time when it may be severely
threatened (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resche, 2000).
Affective security in mentoring relationships
Another likely explanation for the capacity of mentoring to enhance
students adjustment is the degree of mutuality, trust, and empathy that

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 401

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

401

develops between the mentor and the student (Rhodes, 2002). Mentoring
research has shown that interpersonal factors closely related to these
constructs, such as trust and perceived support from mentor, are associated
with student adjustment (Jacobi, 1991; Talmi, 1997). Furthermore,
perceived security with the teacher mentor predicts college adjustment
above and beyond perceived security with mother and father (Soucy &
Larose, 2000). Perceptions of security developed during a mentoring
program may, therefore, be an important determinant of the students
subsequent adjustment.
Quality of relationships with college teachers
A unique aspect of the current study is its focus on the quality of relationships with college teachers as an outcome variable. Several studies have
shown that academically at-risk students have negative perceptions of
relationships with teachers. They more frequently perceive these relationships as conflictual (Long & Morse, 1996), more often report that they are
treated unfairly (Nelson, Epstein, Bursuck, Jayanthi, & Sawer, 1998), and
have more difficulty seeking help from teachers when they are in a situation of failure, compared with other students (Richman, Rosenfeld, &
Bowen, 1998). Academically at-risk students therefore appear to enter
mentoring relationships with rather negative histories of interactions with
teachers. From this perspective, improving students perceptions of
teacherstudent relationships becomes an important objective of mentoring, one that might favor students subsequent adjustment and academic
success. The first objective of this study was to examine the associations
between students perceived security in mentoring, on the one hand, and
their subsequent perceptions of their relationship with their mentor as well
as with other teachers, on the other hand. Five characteristics of students
interactions with teachers were examined: their perceptions of conflict and
unfairness, their comfort in disclosing personal information and in seeking
help, and their level of informal contacts with teachers outside the classroom. These characteristics were chosen because they capture the two
dimensions of support and conflict that are proposed to be central in understanding studentteacher interpersonal relationships (Wubbels & Levy,
1993).
The moderating role of students attachment insecurity
One of attachment theorys basic tenets is that an individuals attachment
history is progressively internalized through the development of working
models of attachment (WMA; Bowlby, 1988). In adolescence and adulthood, WMA appear as attachment styles (Bartholomew, 1990; Hazan &
Shaver, 1987) or states of mind regarding childhood experiences (Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), which reveal the behavioral and cognitive
strategies used by the individual to process attachment-relevant information. One secure (secure or autonomous) and three insecure (dismissing/avoidant, preoccupied/anxiousambivalent, and unresolved/fearful)
patterns of attachment have been identified by attachment researchers.

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

402

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 402

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

In this study, WMA were assessed using the Adult Attachment Interview
(AAI), which focuses specifically on the current integration of early experiences with parents. Based on this interview, four WMA are identified:
autonomous attachment (secure) is characterized by an open and coherent
discourse about childhood experiences with the parents. In contrast,
dismissing attachment (insecure) is recognized by the minimization of the
importance of attachment relationships, often combined with idealization
of the parents. Preoccupied attachment (insecure) is evidenced by current
enmeshment with the parents, indicated by an angry and confused, or
vague and rambling, style of discourse. Finally, unresolved attachment
(insecure) is characterized by lapses in reasoning or discourse while
recounting a loss or a trauma (Main & Goldwyn, 1998). Unresolved attachment is recognized in certain parts of the interview only, which can otherwise be identified as dismissing, preoccupied, or autonomous.
Attachment theory suggests that insecure attachments may have a
negative impact on the development of mentoring relationships (Bowlby,
1988). Bowlby (1988) proposes that insecure attachment leads to negative
relational expectations, characterized by mistrust or uncertainty as well as
by a negative evaluation bias for the appraisal of others attempts to offer
help. Such negative predispositions would interfere with the tendency to
turn to others for assistance, and the resulting distortions in the helpseeking process would take different forms depending on the nature of the
individuals insecurity (Slade, 1999). Specifically, individuals presenting a
preoccupied attachment pattern are believed to dwell on their own distress,
increasing their need for help to such an extent that they would perceive
support as unavailable or insufficient to meet their needs (Kobak & Sceery,
1988). Such perceptions might lead students in mentoring to seek the
mentors help in an overwhelming and inappropriate manner. In contrast,
individuals presenting a dismissing attachment pattern would be guided by
mechanisms that restrict acknowledgment of distress and limit the associated attempts to seek comfort and support. To resolve their problems, they
would revert to self-reliance patterns (Bowlby, 1988), which may lead
students in mentoring to disclose few personal issues and to hold back from
emotional involvement.
Consistent with these theoretical arguments, attachment insecurity,
assessed with the AAI, has been found to predict difficulties in establishing new relationships with teachers and counselors. Specifically, individuals
presenting high dismissing attachment tendencies reported difficulties in
seeking help from teachers and low levels of trust in potential supporters
(Larose & Bernier, 2001). They were evaluated by treatment providers as
disclosing few personal issues, as rejecting of the treatment (Dozier, 1990),
and as less committed than others (Korfmacher, Adam, Ogawa, & Egeland,
1997). Individuals presenting high preoccupied attachment tendencies
reported mistrust and dissatisfaction with potential supporters, and were
perceived by their peers as having difficulties seeking help from teachers
(Larose & Bernier, 2001). Other studies using self-reports of romantic
attachment styles have shown that among students who acknowledged high

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 403

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

403

problem levels in college, those harboring negative models of others (i.e.,


more avoidant) were less willing to seek counseling than those with positive
models (i.e., more secure) (Lopez, Melendez, Sauer, Berger, & Wyssmann,
1998). Similarly, people who expressed attachment-related distrust in the
availability and dependability of others (i.e., more anxiousambivalent)
were less likely to evaluate the early phase of a counseling relationship
positively (Satterfield & Lyddon, 1995). Finally, women with less secure
representations of their parents and who reported being more avoidantly
attached to romantic partners provided less support to their partners in
times of stress (Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002). These empirical
findings suggest that attachment insecurity may attenuate the benefits that
individuals gain from social support interactions. The second objective of
this study was to investigate whether the association between security in
mentoring and the expected positive outcomes differs according to the
students level and type of attachment insecurity.
Hypotheses
In sum, this study examined whether college freshmens perceived security
with a teacher mentor, as assessed at the end of an academic mentoring
program, predicts subsequent perceptions of mentoring and relationship
quality with other teachers. We hypothesized that security in mentoring
would be related to subsequent positive perceptions of mentoring, high
supportive relationships with teachers and low conflictual relationships
with teachers. The moderating role of attachment in these associations was
also examined, with the expectation that insecure attachments would
decrease the strength of the predicted associations.
Method
Participants
Colleges and academic mentoring programs. Participants were recruited from
three colleges that offered an academic mentoring program to their academically at-risk freshmen. These three colleges were selected over other colleges
offering academic mentoring because of core similarities in their mentoring
programs: (1) voluntary participation; (2) mentoring provided on an individual
basis by volunteer teachers; (3) a focus on the students integration into college
and on the prevention of academic, social and emotional adjustment problems;
and (4) the exclusion of support on specific academic matters. The programs
matched students with teachers whom they otherwise would not have known,
and were designed to help students deal more competently and responsibly
with the specific challenges of the college transition. The number of meetings
was the same for all participants (ten). The meetings ranged in length from 20
to 70 minutes.
At-risk students. The sample was composed of 102 students (31 men, 71
women; mean age 18.1 years), the majority of whom (74%) were from intact
two-parent households; 42% had to leave home to attend college. These

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

404

3:23 pm

Page 404

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

students high school grades were relatively poor, but sufficient to be admitted
to college. Forty-two percent of students attended a public college in a semirural area, 33% attended a private urban college and 25% attended a public
urban college. All participants were either native French speakers or
sufficiently fluent in French to attend a college where all classes are provided
in French.
Mentors. Five female and five male college teachers (M age = 39 years;
SD = 8.75) were paired with the 102 students. They had a range of teaching
experience from 3 to 37 years (M = 13 years; SD = 9.61), and a range of
academic mentoring experience from 30 to 450 hours (M = 150 hours). They
all received a 3-hour training session that consisted of an informal discussion
about the counselor functions (e.g., acceptance, encouragement, guidance, and
information) likely to improve students adjustment.
Measures
Perceived security in mentoring. The 25-item Inventory of Parent and Peer
Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1989) questionnaire evaluates a
constellation of emotional experiences with the partner such as trust, communication, and feelings of alienation. To assess the adolescents perceived security
in mentoring, we modified the instructions in the parental version slightly by
asking students to refer to their relationship with their mentor. Otherwise, the
items were exactly the same as those included in the parental version. This
adapted questionnaire was proved to be reliable and valid in an earlier study
(Soucy & Larose, 2000). The reliability and construct validity of the IPPA are
well established (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). A global relational quality
score was obtained by summing all items ( = .92).
Subsequent perceptions of mentoring. A 16-item questionnaire was developed,
aimed at assessing two dimensions of students perceptions of the mentoring
experience 5 months after the end of the program: Maintenance of the relationship (eight items, = .86) and Satisfaction with mentoring (eight items, = .84).
The Maintenance scale taps the extent and quality of current contacts with the
former mentor (e.g., When I experience difficulties, I tend to go and talk about
them with the mentor that I had last semester). The Satisfaction scale pertains
to the perceived usefulness of the previous semesters mentoring program (e.g.,
Mentoring was useful for me and I would recommend it to other students).
Because these two scales were strongly related (r = .74), these items were
summed as the first dependent variable (Subsequent Perceptions of Mentoring).
Quality of relationship with teachers. The Measure of Affective Relationships
with College Teacher (MARCT; Larose, Bernier, Soucy, & Duchesne, 1999) is
a 20-item questionnaire that taps students behaviors, feelings and beliefs about
their social and affective interactions with college teachers. Specifically, the
MARCT was used to assess the levels of perceived Self-Disclosure in the
studentteacher relationship (e.g., I spontaneously share information about
myself with my teachers: = .66 at Time 1 and .83 at Time 2), Conflict (e.g.,
My teachers and I always seem to be at odds: = .78 at both times), Feelings
of Unfairness (e.g., I feel that my teachers treat me unfairly: = .78 at both
times) and Informal Alliances (e.g., I often think about my teachers when not

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 405

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

405

at school: = .82 at Time 1 and .70 at Time 2)). Each subscale contains five
items that are answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Psychometric properties of the MARCT have been documented previously (Bernier, Larose, Soucy,
& Duchesne, 1997; Larose et al., 1999).
The Seeking Help from Teacher subscale of the Test of Reactions and
Adaptation in College (SHT/TRAC; Larose & Roy, 1995) was used to assess
adolescents help-seeking behaviors in their relationships with college teachers
(e.g., When I experience difficulty in understanding the classroom material, I
waste a lot of time before asking my teacher for help). The SHT/TRAC is part
of a 50-item questionnaire that measures students beliefs, emotional reactions
and social behaviors in learning situations. The SHT subscale contains five
items that are answered on a 7-point Likert-type scale. It has been shown to
have good psychometric properties, including high internal consistency and
good construct, concurrent and predictive validity (Larose & Roy, 1995). In
this study, Cronbachs alpha for the SHT/TRAC was .84 at Time 1 and .82 at
Time 2.
Because strong correlations were found between some of the above scales
(e.g., the correlations between Conflict and Feelings of Unfairness were .57 at
Time 1 and .68 at Time 2), and to avoid redundant analyses, a factor analysis
was performed on the five teacherstudent relationship scores at Time 1 (i.e.,
Self-Disclosure, Conflict, Feelings of Unfairness, Informal Alliances, and
Seeking Help from Teachers). Based on the model proposed by Wubbels and
Levy (1993), we expected to find the two dimensions of support and conflict
that are proposed to be central in understanding studentteacher interpersonal
relationships. Indeed, two orthogonal factors were derived. The first factor
explains 44.3% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 2.22), with positive loadings for
the Conflict (.87) and Feelings of Unfairness scores (.85), and a negative
loading for the Seeking Help from Teachers score (.51). The second factor
explains 27.2% of the variance (Eigenvalue = 1.36), with positive loadings for
the Self-Disclosure (.85), Informal Alliances (.90), and Seeking Help from
Teacher scores (.47). These findings were replicated with the Time 2
teacherstudent variables. Consequently, two teacherstudent factor scores
were derived at Time 1 and Time 2 (Conflictual and Supportive Relationships
with teachers) and used as two distinct dependent variables.
Students attachment. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George,
Kaplan, & Main, 1996) is a face-to-face semi-structured interview focusing on
childhood attachment experiences with parents. Participants are asked to
describe their relationships with their parents when they were young, to
substantiate descriptions with specific memories, to recall incidences of distress,
and to conceptualize relationship influences. The AAI has been shown to have
excellent reliability, discriminant validity and predictive validity (see Hesse,
1999 for a review).
Written transcripts are scored on a series of state of mind scales. The scoring
procedure yields classification of each transcript into one of three primary states
of mind: autonomous (F), dismissing (Ds) and preoccupied (E). The main indicators of an autonomous state of mind are high scores on the Coherence (of
Transcript/of Mind) scales, whereas a dismissing state of mind is indicated by
high scores on the Lack of Recall, Idealization (mother/father) or Derogation
scales, and a preoccupied state of mind, by high scores for Anger
(mother/father) or Passivity of Discourse (Main & Goldwyn, 1998). Written

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

406

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 406

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

transcripts were rated according to Main and Goldwyns (1998) system by the
second author, who has met all reliability criteria set by Mary Main. A second
judge, also certified by Mary Main, independently rated 30 interviews. Agreement on the classifications was 86.7% ( = .71).
In order to maximize statistical power, and in line with Furman (2001) and
Larose and Bernier (2001), we used a factor approach to AAI data analysis.
The state of mind scales were reduced in three steps. First, the Derogation,
Metacognition, Unresolved Loss and Unresolved Trauma scales were
removed because they had little variance in this sample (mean on a 9-point
scale = 1.41 Derogation, 1.16 Metacognition, 1.74 Unresolved Loss, and 1.44
Unresolved Trauma). This is in line with Main and Goldwyns (1998) argumentation that these indicators of state of mind can be rare in normative
samples. Eight scales were left: Idealization/mother, Idealization/father, Lack
of Recall, Anger/mother, Anger/father, Passivity, Coherence of Transcript and
Coherence of Mind. Main and Goldwyn argue for the existence of a general
state of mind with respect to attachment that integrates experiences with both
parents. Thus, the subscales Anger/mother and Anger/father (r = .61), Idealization/mother and Idealization/father (r = .71), and Coherence of Transcript
and Coherence of Mind (r = .98) were averaged. Third, the five remaining
scales (Anger, Idealization, Coherence, Passivity and Lack of Recall) were
submitted to a principal component analysis. Two factors emerged: the factor
loadings for Lack of Recall (.88), Idealization (.89) and Coherence (.92)
suggest that the first factor taps the dismissing pattern, whereas the second
factor measures preoccupied strategies (i.e., Passivity = .79; Anger = .82). No
cross-loadings were observed. This factor structure is consistent with that
found in previous independent samples (Furman, 2001; Larose & Bernier,
2001). Because of their theoretical soundness and empirical clarity, the resulting factor scores were used in the remainder of the analyses. Scores (z-scores)
on the dismissing dimension varied from 1.28 to 2.64, and those on the
preoccupied dimension, from 1.23 to 4.02. Intraclass correlations coefficients
(ICC) for the subscale scores ranged from .68 (Passivity) to .88 (Lack of
Recall) with a mean of .81. The ICC coefficients were .88 for the dismissing
factor and .79 for the preoccupied factor. The factor scores are systematically
related to attachment classifications. Participants classified as Autonomous
(n = 67) obtained low scores on both dimensions (M = .59 dismissing dimension and .01 preoccupied dimension), participants classified as Dismissing
(n = 28), elevated scores on the dismissing dimension (M = 1.33) and low
scores on the preoccupied dimension (M = .35), and participants classified as
Preoccupied (n = 7), low scores on the dismissing dimension (M = -0.09) and
elevated scores on the preoccupied dimension (M = 2.47). All differences are
significant (p < .001).
Procedure
Students completed the MARCT and the SHT/TRAC at the very beginning of
their first semester in college (Time 1). At this point, they were instructed to
refer to their experiences with high school teachers. Throughout the first
semester, they participated in a 10-hour academic mentoring program with a
volunteer teacher who addressed a range of affective, social and academic
issues. At the very end of the semester (Time 2), the IPPA-mentor version was
administered and the MARCT and SHT/TRAC were re-administered. Students
were instructed to complete these two latter questionnaires by referring to their

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 407

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

407

college teachers, and to exclude their mentor from their appreciation. Finally,
all students were met again 5 months following the end of the mentoring
program (Time 3), and were administered the questionnaire pertaining to
subsequent perceptions of mentoring as well as the AAI.

Results
The results are presented in three steps. First, we examine the correlations
between students attachment dispositions (i.e., dismissing and preoccupied
dimensions) and their perceptions of security in mentoring. Second, the
hypothesis linking perceived security in mentoring with subsequent perceptions
of mentoring and relationship quality with teachers (i.e., conflictual and
supportive relationships) is examined through multiple linear regressions.
Finally, the hypothesis of the moderating effect of attachment is tested by
adding two interaction terms to the same regressions: Dismissing Tendencies
by Security in Mentoring and Preoccupied Tendencies by Security in Mentoring. Any significant interaction is then broken down using the procedure
proposed by Aiken and West (1991).
Because student participants were nested within mentor, the question of
interdependence of scores was examined following the guidelines proposed by
Kashy and Kenny (2000). Intraclass correlations for group, with students
nested within each mentor treated as a group, were estimated on the three
dependent variables (Conflictual and Supportive Relationships with Teachers
and Subsequent Perception of Mentoring) and the independent variable
(Security in Mentoring). The four intraclass correlations were respectively .038,
.048, .021, and .016 (p values > .05), thus suggesting the absence of interdependence in our data.
Students attachment and their perceptions of security in mentoring
Attachment was weakly associated with perceived security in mentoring. The
correlations between the levels of dismissing and preoccupied tendencies in the
AAI and the levels of security in mentoring were respectively .21 (p < .05)
and .22 (p < .05).
Security in mentoring, subsequent perception of mentoring, and
relationship quality with teachers
Tables 1 and 2 present the results of the regression analyses. The pattern of
analysis is essentially the same for each dependent variable. We first entered
the initial score at Time 1 (when available) in order to predict the outcome at
Time 2 after controlling for initial levels of the same construct. The two attachment scores were entered in a second step, followed by the security in
mentoring score. This third step allowed us to test the hypothesis that the
perception of security in mentoring predicts subsequent perceptions of mentoring and of teacherstudent relationships. The last step included the Attachment Security in Mentoring interactions, and allowed us to examine the
moderating effect of attachment. For clarity purposes, these interaction effects
are discussed in a separate section.
Table 1 shows that security in mentoring predicts 6% of the variance of
subsequent perceptions of mentoring (see Step 2). Students who perceived
higher levels of security in mentoring were more satisfied with the mentoring

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 408

408

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

TABLE 1
Standardized regression coefficients for subsequent perception of mentoring:
moderating influences of students attachment insecurity
Predictor
1. AAI
3. Dismissiveness score (Ds)
3. Preoccupied score (Pr)
2. Security in mentoring (SM)
3. Interaction
3. Ds SM
3. Pr SM
Adjusted R2
F change

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

.19
.03

.13
.04
.29**

.12
.08
.26*

.08
7.54***

.07
.38***
.26
7.99**

.02
1.76

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

TABLE 2
Standardized regression coefficients for relationships with teachers:
moderating influences of students attachment insecurity
Predictor

Step 1

1. Conflictual relationships at Time 1


2. AAI
2. Dismissiveness score (Ds)
2. Preoccupied score (Pr)
3. Security in mentoring (SM)
4. Interaction
2. Ds SM
2. Pr SM
Adjusted R2
F change
1. Supportive relationships at Time 1
2. AAI
2. Dismissiveness score (Ds)
2. Preoccupied score (Pr)
3. Security in mentoring (SM)
4. Interaction
2. Ds SM
2. Pr SM
Adjusted R2
F change

.73***

Step 2
.72***
.02
.03

.52
101.51***
.61***

.52
.11
.61***
.03
.02

.36
54.47***

.36
.09

Step 3
.64***

Step 4
.63***

.05
.03
.29***

.07
.01
.23**

.58
15.03***

.17**
.07
.60
3.00*

.61***

.61***

.06
.01
.10

.06
.02
.11

.36
1.25

.01
.09
.35
.46

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

program and maintained more contacts with their mentor 5 months after the
end of the program. Table 2 indicates that high security in mentoring predicts
low levels of conflictual relationships with teachers, after controlling for
conflictual relationships at Time 1 (see Step 3). The variance explained was 6%.

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 409

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

409

The perception of security in mentoring does not predict supportive relationships with teachers (see bottom of Table 2, Step 3).
The moderating effect of attachment on mentoring
The moderating role of attachment in the links between security in mentoring,
subsequent perceptions of mentoring and relationship quality with teachers
was examined in Step 3 of Table 1 and Step 4 of Table 2. Table 1 shows that
the interaction effects are significant, explaining 18% of the variance in subsequent perception of mentoring scores. The beta scores show that the preoccupied dimension explains this variance.
Three simple regression analyses linking security in mentoring to the
outcome were conducted in order to decipher the interaction pattern (Aiken
& West, 1991). These analyses were performed on the basis of students standardized preoccupation score using the values suggested by Cohen and
Cohen (1983): one standard deviation below the mean, at the mean, and one
standard deviation above the mean. The relation between security in mentoring and subsequent perceptions of the relationship varied according to
students level of preoccupation with attachment. Among students showing
low preoccupied tendencies, security in mentoring was positively related to
subsequent perceptions of mentoring ( = .82, p < .001), whereas among
students showing high preoccupied attachment tendencies, the linear relation
between security in mentoring and subsequent perceptions was nonsignificant ( = .02, ns).
Table 2 shows that the attachment scores interact with security in mentoring to predict Conflictual Relationships with teachers. These interactions
explain only a small amount of variance (2%), which is nevertheless significant. The beta scores show that it is the dismissing dimension that contributes
to this variance. The relation between security in mentoring and conflictual
relationships with teachers varied according to students level of dismissing
tendencies. Among students showing high dismissing tendencies, high security
in mentoring predicted low levels of conflictual relationships with teachers at
Time 2 ( = .63, p < .000), after controlling for conflictual relationships at
Time 1, whereas among students showing low dismissing tendencies, the linear
relation between security in mentoring and conflictual relationships with
teachers was nonsignificant ( = .17, ns). This interaction effect is in sharp
contrast with our hypotheses. No Security by Attachment interaction effect
was found significant in predicting supportive relationships with teachers (see
bottom of Table 2, Step 4).
To summarize, the tendency to show a preoccupied attachment pattern in the
AAI decreases the strength of the positive link between perceived security in
mentoring and subsequent perceptions of mentoring, whereas the tendency
toward dismissing attachment increases the positive link between perceived
security in mentoring and quality of interactions with teachers (i.e., low
conflictual relationships). The findings involving the dismissing dimension are
counterintuitive and in fact, contradictory to our hypotheses.

Discussion
The first goal of this study was to examine the associations between college
students perceived security in mentoring, their subsequent perceptions of

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

410

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 410

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

the mentoring experience, and the quality of their relationships with other
teachers. The results showed that academically at-risk students who
perceived the relationship with their mentor as more secure were more
likely to maintain links with the mentor 5 months after the end of the
program, and to report being still satisfied with their experience. Moreover,
the degree of felt security was inversely related to perceptions of conflictual relationships with other teachers at the end of the mentoring program,
controlling for initial perceptions.
These results suggest that perceived security in mentoring can be transferred to a better appreciation and utilization of relationships with teachers
in general, which may help explain the beneficial effects of mentoring on
students academic and social adjustment (Darling, Hamilton, & Niego,
1994). These results are all the more important because it has been shown
that academically at-risk students perceive more conflicts and unfairness in
their relationships with teachers and seek their help less frequently when
they have problems (Richman et al., 1998). Many studies on academic
mentoring have been guided by the premise that simply pairing an
adolescent with a mentor from the college environment will help prevent
academic adjustment problems. The results of this study, however, suggest
that in the absence of relational security with the mentor, mentoring may
have little effect on students adjustment.
The second goal of this study was to examine the moderating role of
attachment in the links between the aforementioned variables. Given the
parameters of the mentoring relationship (duration, frequency, physical
setting, etc.), it appears very unlikely that the dyads developed attachment
relationships over the course of the mentoring program. Nonetheless, both
insecure attachment dimensions were found to play a role in the benefits
drawn from the program. First, more dismissing and preoccupied attachments were associated with lower perceptions of security in mentoring,
which supports the hypothesis that insecure WMA influence how students
develop mentoring relationships with teachers.
Second, preoccupation with attachment was found to moderate the
relation between felt security in mentoring and perceptions of the program
one semester later: the expected positive association was observed only
among students showing low preoccupation with attachment. It could be
that the development of a bond with the mentor (indicated by a high score
on perceived security) in the context of a students tendencies toward
preoccupation with attachment can activate his or her attachment system
and typical relational patterns. One might speculate that the activation of
preoccupied tendencies in the context of academic mentoring triggers
dependency on the mentor and an elevated need for support, thereby
leading the student to give an exaggerated importance to the mentoring
relationship. This, in turn, could result in the student feeling disappointed
when the program ends, leading him or her to report low satisfaction with
mentoring, and preventing him or her from trying to keep in touch with the
former mentor.
Finally, the moderating effect of dismissing attachment on the association

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 411

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

411

between perceived security in mentoring and conflictual relationships with


teachers was found to be significant, but in an unexpected direction. Felt
security in mentoring was negatively related to conflictual relationships with
teachers, but only for students showing high dismissing tendencies in the
AAI, suggesting that mentoring was more beneficial in this regard to dismissing students than to others. The presumed origins of dismissing attachment
should be considered in explaining the counterintuitive results obtained.
Adolescents with a dismissing attachment pattern tend to downplay the
importance of their relationship with their parents because their experiences
with them have presumably been marked by rejection and/or indifference
(Main & Goldwyn, 1998). Dismissing adolescents claim that they do not need
their parents to meet their emotional needs and often show a compulsive
self-reliance pattern in solving emotional problems (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998). The relationship of trust established with a mentor might
thus partly compensate for the difficulties that the adolescents parents have
in providing emotional support, thereby resulting in positive changes in the
adolescents perceptions of adults. Hence, a positive experience with an adult
mentor might be especially beneficial to dismissing adolescents because they
need it to a greater degree than those adolescents who already feel like they
can freely access support from their parents.
Strengths and limitations
This study has a number of theoretical and methodological strengths. First,
despite the empirical evidence that (i) academically at-risk students have
difficult relationships with their teachers, and (ii) mentoring has a beneficial
impact on at-risk students adjustment, this study is the first to test if mentoring relationships improve perceptions of studentteacher relationships. The
findings indicate that security in mentoring helps at-risk students develop
less conflictual relationships with teachers, which could be one mechanism
through which mentoring favors students adjustment. Second, previous
studies linking attachment to interpersonal functioning have mainly focused
on well-established, ongoing dyads (e.g., adolescentmother, best friends,
romantic partners), which already present a rich interpersonal history at the
onset of the study. Examining a relationship characterized by a clear beginning between individuals who did not know each other before has allowed
for isolation of the unique role of attachment insecurity, not confounded
with that of the dyads interpersonal history. Finally, this study has emphasized the importance of not solely examining the direct effect of attachment,
but also its moderating effect on interpersonal relationships. Because of
these two latter particularities, this study is one of the very few to have
tested widely claimed assumptions regarding the role of attachment in the
formation of new relationships (Bowlby, 1988; Dozier & Tyrrell, 1998;
Slade, 1999).
One limitation of the present study is the absence of a control group.
Only a randomized design with control groups would have enabled to draw
causal inference regarding the impact of mentoring on students relationships with teachers. However, the possibility to predict changes in such

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

412

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 412

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

relationships, through the use of initial scores at Time 1, increases the confidence one may have regarding the direction of the association. A second
limitation pertains to the assessment of initial perceptions of relationships
with teachers in reference to the high school context. This was a necessary
procedure in order to assess these initial perceptions very early on in the
first semester, prior to the beginning of the mentoring program. Yet, there
could be some qualitative differences between students perceptions of
their relationships with high school teachers and with college professors.
However, we argue that having a baseline level, although very imperfect,
strengthens the internal validity of the results if one is aware of the potential limitations associated with the assessment of this baseline (Kazdin,
2003). A third limitation pertains to the moment when the AAI was administered (at Time 3). Given that previous studies have shown changes in
WMA during the transition to college (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997),
one may argue that attachment tendencies could have changed in some
students. However, in the latter study, changes were found in romantic
attachment, not attachment to parents, using self-report methodology. In
the present study, attachment insecurity was assessed with an interview
focusing on relationships with parents. The AAI has shown high stability
over a 2-year period among late adolescents (Zimmermann & Becker-Stoll,
2002). Despite this empirical support, the possibility that WMA of
academically at-risk students may have shifted during the transition to
college remains an open question and would need further examination.
Finally, although our measure of subsequent perceptions of mentoring
presents high internal consistency, its convergent and divergent construct
validity is yet unknown. The finding that security in mentoring predicted
subsequent perceptions of the mentoring experience should be considered
as a first step in the validation of this scale.
Directions for future research
A number of implications emerge from the results of the present study.
First, in evaluating mentoring programs, it is important to consider not only
the presence or absence of a mentor, but also the interpersonal mechanisms
operating in mentoring (Rhodes, 2002). The present study has focused on
one interpersonal factor (i.e., perceived security) that potentially mediates
the impact of mentoring. Additional interpersonal factors to be investigated
include the mentormentee agreement on the content and goals of the intervention, and on the type of support needed. Second, the demonstration that
attachment dispositions moderate the relation between perceived security
in mentoring and academic interpersonal functioning calls for a more
thoughtful examination of the role of attachment in the formation, maintenance and termination of mentoring relationships. For instance, it could
be of interest to examine if the moderating effect of attachment is more
pronounced at the beginning of the mentoring relationship than at the end.
Attachment researchers would posit that attachment dispositions are stable
and drive the mentees interpersonal style (Dozier & Tyrell, 1998), thus
affecting each stage of the mentoring relationship equally. In contrast,

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 413

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

413

mentoring researchers would be more inclined to suggest that mentoring


may, under certain circumstances, buffer the negative impact of attachment
insecurity (Rhodes, 2002), thus viewing attachment as a malleable characteristic that may change progressively throughout the mentoring intervention. Longitudinal studies involving repeated assessments of
interpersonal functioning throughout the mentoring experience are needed
to clarify these matters. Finally, when evaluating mentoring outcomes,
studies should also consider the possible contribution of the mentors attachment dispositions (Bernier, Larose, & Soucy, 2005). Like many relational
contexts, the mentoring relationship involves two people who are pursuing
a common objective but who each have their own interpersonal history. It
is very likely that ones adjustment to the relationship is partly influenced
by the others history of interactions, and vice versa.
Conclusion
This study suggests that greater knowledge on the part of mentors of the
different attachment tendencies that characterize their students may help
them better understand students varied responses to their interventions.
By learning more about the implications of these tendencies for relational
functioning, the mentor will be able to put the impact of his or her interventions into perspective, and possibly adjust his or her practices. For most
mentors, this is not to suggest that they should try to modify the students
attachment state of mind (as a therapist would do), but rather that they
optimize their interventions by taking attachment models into account.
Mentors should be aware that help excessively centered on students
emotional experience could cause some of them to withdraw (e.g., students
who are more dismissing) and others to become too dependent (e.g.,
students who are more preoccupied). Mentors may, therefore, choose to
adapt their interventions to the students predispositions in order to
maximize the benefits of mentoring.

REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent
psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 14061419.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427454.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1989). Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:
Preliminary test manual. (Available from G. C. Armsden or M. T. Greenberg, Department
of Psychology, Box 351525, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 981951525, USA.)
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 7, 147178.
Bernier, A., Larose, S., & Soucy, N. (2005). Academic mentoring in college: The interactive
role of students and mentors interpersonal dispositions. Research in Higher Education, 46,
2951.

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

414

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 414

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22(3)

Bernier, A., Larose, S., Soucy, N. & Duchesne, S. (1997, April). Attachment style in
adolescence and perceptions of teacherstudent affective relationships. Poster presented at
the SRCD meeting, Washington, DC.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic
Books.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darling, N., Hamilton, S. F., & Niego, S. (1994). Adolescents relations with adults outside the
family. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Personal relationships
during adolescence (pp. 216235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826838.
Dozier, M. (1990). Attachment organization and treatment use for adults with serious
psychopathological disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 4760.
Dozier, M., & Tyrrell, C. (1998). The role of attachment in therapeutic relationships. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rhodes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 2545). New
York: Guilford Press.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Furman, W. (2001). Working models of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 583602.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview protocol (3rd ed.).
Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp.395433). New York: Guilford Press.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review.
Review of Educational Research, 61, 505532.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T.
Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research: Methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescent: Working models, affect
regulation, and representation of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135146.
Korfmacher, J., Adam, E., Ogawa, J., & Egeland, B. (1997). Adult attachment: Implications
for the therapeutic process in a home visitation intervention. Applied Developmental
Science, 1, 4352.
Lamport, M. A. (1993). Studentfaculty informal interaction and the effect on college student
outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971990.
Larose, S., & Bernier, A. (2001). Social support processes: Mediators of attachment state of
mind and adjustment in late adolescence. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 96120.
Larose, S., Bernier, A., Soucy, N., & Duchesne, S. (1999). Attachment style dimensions,
network orientation, and the process of seeking help from college teachers. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 16, 225247.
Larose, S., & Roy, R. (1995). Test of Reactions and Adaptation in College (TRAC): A new
measure of learning propensity for college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87,
293306.
Long, N. J., & Morse, W. C. (1996). Conflict in the classroom: The education of at-risk and
troubled student (5th ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M., Sauer, E.M., Berger, E., & Wyssmann, J. (1998). Internal working
models, self-reported problems, and help-seeking attitudes among college students. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 45, 7983.

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

06 larose (ds)

18/5/05

3:23 pm

Page 415

Larose et al.: Attachment and college mentoring

415

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult Attachment Classification System, draft 6.2. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A
move to the representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
50(12).
Nelson, J. S., Epstein, M. H., Bursuck, W. D., Jayanthi, M., & Sawyer, V. (1998). The preference of middle school students for homework adaptations made by general education
teachers. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 109117.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring todays youth.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J. E., Grossman, J. B., & Resche, N. L. (2000). Agents of change: Pathways through
with mentoring relationships influence adolescents academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 16621671.
Richman, J. M., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Bowen, G. L. (1998). Social support for adolescents atrisk of school failure. Social Work, 43, 309323.
Satterfield, W. A., & Lyddon, W. J. (1995). Client attachment and perceptions of the working
alliance with counselor trainees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42, 187189.
Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598608.
Slade, A. (1999). Attachment theory and research: Implications for the theory and practice of
individual psychotherapy with adults. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 575594). New York: Guilford
Press.
Soucy, N., & Larose, S. (2000). Attachment and control in family and mentoring contexts as
determinants of adolescent adjustment to college. Journal of Family Psychology, 14,
125143.
Talmi, A. (1997, April). Dimensions of support provided by special adults in the lives of young
adolescents. Poster presented at the conference of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Washington, DC.
Wilson, K. B. (1994). Developing a freshman mentoring program: A small college experience.
In M. A. Wunsch (Ed.), Mentoring revisited: Making an impact on individuals and institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like? Interpersonal
relationships. London: Falmer Press.
Zimmermann, P., & Becker-Stoll F. (2002) Stability of attachment representations during
adolescence: The influence of ego-identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 107124.

Downloaded from http://spr.sagepub.com by mohd yusof abdullah on October 29, 2008

Você também pode gostar