Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxxxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior

Tsachi Ein-Dor
Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Bowlbys (1982) attachment theory has generated an enormous body of research and conceptual elabo-
Received 19 January 2014 rations. Although attachment theory and research propose that attachment security provides a person
Received in revised form 19 September 2014 with many adaptive advantages, during all phases of the life cycle, numerous studies indicate that almost
Accepted 21 September 2014
half of the human species can be classied as insecurely attached or insecure with respect to attachment.
Available online xxxx
To date, the mainstream view in attachment theory and research is that attachment insecurity incurs
only disadvantages. I, however, argue that each attachment disposition security, anxiety, avoidance
Keywords:
has unique adaptive advantages in promoting survival. In making this argument, I extend the scope of
Attachment
Anxiety
attachment theory and research by considering a broader range of adaptive functions of insecure attach-
Avoidance ment strategies, and present data to support my argument.
Defensive behavior 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982), one of the most
inuential contemporary theories in developmental, personality,
and social psychology (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), proposes that
human beings possess an innate psychobiological system (the
attachment behavioral system) that motivates them to seek proxim-
ity to signicant others (attachment gures) when they need pro-
tection from threats. When attachment gures regularly respond
sensitively to a persons needs, he or she develops a sense of
attachment security while acquiring constructive strategies for
coping with threats and regulating negative emotions. When
attachment gures are often unavailable, unreliable, or rejecting
of bids for support, a person may become chronically insecure with
respect to close relationships. The main insecure attachment
patterns in adulthood are avoidance, marked by extreme indepen-
dence, and anxiety, marked by extreme dependence and hyper-
arousal. These attachment orientations are relatively stable over
time but can be changed through natural life experiences or effec-
tive psychotherapy (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, for a review).
According to both theory and research, attachment security
confers adaptive advantages, compared with insecurity, in a vari-
ety of social, emotional, and behavioral domains (Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). For example, secure individuals tend to have more
lasting and satisfying close relationships as well as fewer psycho-
logical problems. They are also viewed by others as more ideal
Address: School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, P.O. Box
167, Herzliya 46150, Israel. Tel.: +972 9 9602843; fax: +972 9 9602845.
E-mail address: teindor@idc.ac.il
relationship partners (e.g., Klohnen & Luo, 2003). These benets
of security caused researchers to wonder why a substantial portion
of all large samples studied in various countries are insecure with
respect to attachment. Belsky and colleagues were the rst to
argue that under certain conditions attachment insecurity has
adaptive benets, because it is associated with earlier menarche
in females and earlier reproduction in environments where waiting
for better conditions might result in failing to reproduce (Belsky,
Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; Belsky, Steinberg, Houts, & Halpern-
Felsher, 2010).
Theory and research also suggest, however, that survival rather
than early reproduction might be the major reason for the emer-
gence of the attachment behavioral system during mammalian,
especially primate, evolution (Ein-Dor, 2013; Ein-Dor, Mikulincer,
Doron, & Shaver, 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Threats (e.g.,
natural signs of danger or threats to a close relationship; Bowlby,
1982) activate the attachment system, which is adaptive because
it increases the likelihood of protection, support, and survival
(Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Mikulincer,
Gillath, & Shaver, 2002). In keeping with this view, in the present
paper, I present research showing that a persons responses to threat
are based partly on her or his attachment disposition and that these
dispositions may promote survival in a unique and adaptive way.
2. Attachment theory
Social and personality psychologists generally conceptualize
adult attachment patterns as regions in a continuous two-
dimensional space (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). One
dimension, attachment-related avoidance, reects the extent to

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
0191-8869/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
2 T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxxxxx
which a person distrusts relationship partners goodwill, strives to
maintain independence, and relies on deactivating strategies for
dealing with threats and negative emotions. Avoidant people cope
with threats by deemphasizing distress and vulnerability and by
attempting to cope independently, without seeking others help
(e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). The second dimension, attachment-
related anxiety, reects the extent to which a person worries that
others will not be available or helpful in times of need. People high
on attachment anxiety exaggerate their sense of vulnerability and
insistently call on others for help and care, sometimes to the point
of being intrusive (Feeney & Noller, 1990).
Attachment security is dened by low scores on both anxiety
and avoidance. Secure people generally cope with threats by rely-
ing on internal resources developed with the help of security-
enhancing attachment gures or by effectively seeking support
from others or collaborating with them (Shaver & Mikulincer,
2002). Secure individuals generally have high self-esteem, trust
other people, and perceive the world as a relatively safe place.
In contrast to the dominant view in attachment theory and
research (see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007
for extensive reviews), I contend that each of the three major
attachment patterns secure, anxious, and avoidant confers spe-
cial adaptive advantages that tend to increase the tness of indi-
viduals when dealing with threats and danger. This view is in
line with Nettles (2006) argument that personality variations
can be understood in terms of tradeoffs among tness costs and
benets: Behavioral alternatives can be considered as tradeoffs,
with a particular trait producing not unalloyed advantage but a
mixture of costs and benets such that the optimal value for tness
may depend on very specic local circumstances (p. 625).
2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of secure individuals defensive
reactions
Attachment research has shown that secure individuals tend to
collaborate with others in times of need and to use the strength of
numbers to overcome threats. For example, they are generally
better than insecure people at leading and coordinating group
activities, and they work more effectively with other group mem-
bers when solving problems (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak,
& Popper, 2007; Hinojosa, Davis-McCauley, Randolph-Seng, &
Gardner, 2014). These advantages stem from a sense of security
rooted in past supportive experiences with attachment gures
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), and is closely associated with core
beliefs, such as the belief that the world is a safe place, especially
when signicant others are present. These optimistic, comforting
mental representations promote self-soothing reappraisals of
threats, which help secure individuals perform better than inse-
cure ones in many challenging situations (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007). In times of need, secure individuals activate schemas and
scripts that promote seeking proximity to others (Mikulincer,
Shaver, Sapir-Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009) because as Axelrod
noted (Axelrod, 2006; Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981) using the pris-
oners dilemma game, cooperating with others usually outdoes
asocial-based strategies.
What attachment researchers call felt security (Sroufe &
Waters, 1977), however, does not always reect actual physical
security. In times of danger, a sense of felt security can be maladap-
tive if it hinders rapid recognition of a threat or retards assembly of
a rapid, effective response. For example, Mawson (2012) showed
that the typical human response to danger is to seek the proximity
of familiar people and places, even if this means remaining in or
even approaching a dangerous situation. Therefore, proximity
seeking is sometimes not the safest strategy and may, in fact, incur
two disadvantages: (a) slower identication of early signs of dan-
ger and (b) slower activation of defensive behavior.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
Sime (1983, 1985) examined these disadvantages in a retro-
spective study of reactions to a re in a large coastal resort on
the Isle of Man, Great Britain, in 1973. He found that people who
were physically closer to signicant others (e.g., family members)
were less likely to react to ambiguous cues of danger, such as
noises and shouts, which occurred during the early stages of the
re. They reacted only later, when unambiguous cues of danger,
such as smoke, ames, and people running while holding re
extinguishers, occurred. Subsequent studies of survivors behavior
during disasters also suggest that people who were together with
familiar others were slow to perceive that they were in danger
(Aguirre, Wenger, & Vigo, 1998; Kster, Seitz, Treml, Hartmann, &
Klein, 2011). This tendency might result from secure peoples sense
of safety and optimistic threat appraisals (Ein-Dor et al., 2010).
Research examining reactions to real or imagined dangers also
provides indirect support for the hypothesis that securely attached
people react in non-optimal way to signs of danger. For example,
Bowlby (1973, p. 91) noted that during and after disasters, no
member of a family is content, or indeed able to do anything else,
until all members of the family are gathered together. Govern-
ments and trained professionals have great difculty getting peo-
ple to evacuate before and during disasters, because traditional
family ties often keep individual members in the danger zone until
it is too late (Hill & Hansen, 1962, p. 217).
Taken together, the evidence suggests that although people
who are secure with respect to attachment are better at leading
and coordinating group activities, these advantages are partially
offset by their slower identication of actual and imminent dan-
gers and their sometimes non-optimal reactions to danger because
of their wish to stay close to other people. This suggests that the
tendency of secure people to focus on an ongoing project irrespec-
tive of mounting danger may sometimes hamper their survival.
Vigilance to danger and a quick ght-or-ight response are some-
times necessary to avert disaster. Being high on either attachment
anxiety or attachment avoidance might confer these abilities.
2.2. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachment
anxiety
As compared with people who are secure with respect to
attachment, those who score relatively high on anxious attach-
ment often perform relatively poorly in times of need because of
their tendency to be overwhelmed with stress. Specically, they
are inclined to exaggerate appraisals of threats (e.g., Mikulincer
et al., 2000), to have difculties in suppressing negative thoughts
and feelings (e.g., Mikulincer, Dolev, & Shaver, 2004), and to rumi-
nate on distressing thoughts (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). Never-
theless, these tendencies may be of benet to them: Anxious
people are vigilant in monitoring the environment for threats
and are emotionally expressive and desirous of support when a
threat is detected (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1990). Therefore, they
may react quickly and vocally to early, perhaps ambiguous, cues
of danger (i.e., sentinel behavior; Ein-Dor et al., 2010) and be
quicker, more sensitive and more accurate in detecting various
threats. As Freud contended, the paranoid person does not project
onto the sky, so to speak, but onto something that is already there.
(Freud & Rieff, 1963, p. 163).
The rst evidence in favor of this notion linked attachment anx-
iety with heightened accessibility to core components of the senti-
nel schema noticing danger quicker than others and warning
them about the danger (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011a).
For example, when participants were asked to write a story about
a TAT-like (Thematic Apperception Test; Murray, 1943) card por-
traying a scary scenario in which a group of people faced a menac-
ing beast, those higher on attachment anxiety composed stories
with more sentinel-related narratives. After reading a story about
 T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxxxxx
a person who behave in a sentinel way (same sex person as the
participant), participants who scored higher on attachment anxiety
were more likely to generate comprehensive inferences about the
persons thoughts, behaviors and feelings.
Attachment anxiety was later linked with actual sentinel-
related behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver,
2011b). Specically, the behavior of small groups of 3 people were
observed in an experimentally-manipulated threatening situation:
a room progressively lling up with nontoxic smoke from what
seems like a malfunctioning computer. In line with predictions,
the person with the highest score on anxiety detected the presence
of smoke more often than predicted by chance alone.
People high on attachment anxiety were also more likely to
break off an ongoing task and take effective action when facing
potential threat (Ein-Dor, Perry, & Merrin, 2014). Specically, par-
ticipants were invited to an apartment outside campus to partici-
pate in a study on visual perception. Upon their arrival, they were
sat in the living room and were asked to complete an engaging com-
puterized task on a laptop computer, in which they need to locate a
pickpocket in a vendor shop. Before the onset of the task, the
research assistant told them that he is cooking small refreshments
in the oven, and then he excused himself, saying that he is going
outside to get the mail. One minute into the task, a second research
assistant, who was out of sight in the kitchen, set off the smoke
alarm. Results indicated that people higher on attachment anxiety
were signicantly more likely to stop the task and call for help than
their more secure counterparts. In a complementary self-report-
based research, participants were asked to report on the rst action
that they are likely to take on various threat scenarios (Ein-Dor &
Perry, 2014). Results indicated that attachment anxiety qualied
the effects of situational features (e.g., degree of dangerousness
and clarity of the threat) to increase the likelihood of sentinel
(e.g., yelling) and fear-related behaviors (e.g., running away).
Aside from establishing a link between attachment anxiety and
reaction to potential life-engendering threats, people high on
attachment anxiety were also found to have a tendency to deliver
a warning message without delay (Ein-Dor & Orgad, 2012). Using a
designated software, participants were led to believe that they
accidently activated a Trojan horse that completely erased the
experimenters hard drive and possibly the campuss server. Partic-
ipants were then asked to alert the computer technicians about the
hazard. On their way, the researchers created four behavioral set-
tings in which they tried to delay the participants from delivering
the warning message (e.g., a confederate who asked them to help
her completing a short questionnaire). Results indicated that high
attachment anxiety was linked with fewer delays.
Research has also shown that attachment anxiety is associated
with the ability to accurately detect social-based threats. For
example, people high on attachment anxiety are better apt in fore-
telling their partners true thoughts and feelings in situations that
pose a threat to the relationship such as when partners rate an
attractive opposite-sex person (Simpson, Ickes, & Grich, 1999;
Simpson et al., 2011). People high on attachment anxiety were also
more accurate in detecting deceitful statements, and in playing
poker a social game in which to win, one needs an ability to call
his or her opponents bluffs (Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014).
The ndings supporting the premise that attachment anxiety is
associated with sentinel-related cognitions and behaviors are in
keeping with Boyce and Elliss evolutionarydevelopmental theory
of the origins and functions of stress reactivity (Boyce & Ellis, 2005;
Ellis, Essex, & Boyce, 2005). Specically, research on human
(Cacioppo, Berntson, Sheridan, & McClintock, 2000; Hanson et al.,
in press), nonhuman primates, such as Rhesus monkeys (Suomi,
2014), and on other mammalian species, such as prairie voles
(Perkeybile, Grifn, Seelke, Krubitzer, & Bales, 2010), has indicated
that early life stress affect the activation of various brain regions
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
3
that were perfected by evolution to deal with threats. For example,
early life stress fosters high reactivity in the hippocampus and
amygdala (Hanson et al., in press), which govern the fear system
(Feinstein, Adolphs, Damasio, & Tranel, 2011), and in the cortico-
tropin releasing hormone (CRH) and the locus coeruleus norepi-
nephrine (LC-NE) systems (Meaney, 2001) that enable effective
anxiety and fear-related responses in times of need (Gold,
Goodwin, & Chrousos, 1988). Thus, early life stress seems to pro-
mote the development of both the attachment anxiety disposition
(Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2004) and related sentinel cog-
nitions and behaviors.
2.3. Advantages and disadvantages of people high on attachment-
related avoidance
Avoidant people tend to dismiss threats, pain, and vulnerability
and to cognitively or behaviorally withdraw from sources of stress
and distress (e.g., Fraley & Shaver, 1997). Therefore, they might be
less vigilant to threat and perceive that they are in danger later
than others. They also do not perform well as teammates and have
lower expectations of contributing to a team effort (Rom &
Mikulincer, 2003). In times of need, in fact, they tend to look out
for their own interests and take care of themselves, even if this
sometimes occurs at other peoples expense (Feeney & Collins,
2001). Thus, they may be more likely to rely on self-protective
ght-or-ight responses in times of danger, without hesitating or
needing to deliberate with other group members, a reaction that
Ein-Dor and colleagues (2010) called rapid ght-or-ight behavior.
As a result, avoidant individuals primary motivation to save them-
selves may allow them to quickly discover a way to effectively deal
with a threat. Meanwhile, anxiously and securely attached individ-
uals may focus much of their attention on the whereabouts and
welfare of close associates without focusing quickly and fully on
how to escape. These self-centered behaviors may aid people high
on attachment avoidance in eluding threats and dangers by taking
quick and to some extent asocial actions.
The rst evidence in favor of this notion linked attachment-
related avoidance with the following core narratives of the rapid
ght-or-ight schema when writing a story about a scary scenario:
(a) escaping a perilous event without helping others, (b) acting
without collaborating or deliberating with others, and (c) reacting
quickly. After reading a story about a person who behave in a rapid
ght-or-ight way, participants high on attachment avoidance
generated more inferences about the persons behaviors and
thoughts than people low on avoidance.
Attachment avoidance was later linked with actual rapid ght-
or-ight behavior in times of need (Ein-Dor et al., 2011b). Speci-
cally, research has indicated that the typical response to a room
progressively lling up with smoke was eeing to the adjunct cor-
ridor. In line with predictions, attachment avoidance was linked
with quicker escape time and with better appraisals of effective
reactions when dealing with the situation.
People high on attachment avoidance, similarly to people high
on attachment anxiety, were also more likely to break off an ongo-
ing task and take effective action when facing potential threat
(Ein-Dor et al., 2014). Specically, people higher on attachment
avoidance were signicantly more likely to stop the task and take
action upon hearing the re alarm (go to the kitchen with allegedly
burning food in the oven) than their more secure counterparts. In a
complementary self-report-based research, attachment avoidance
was found to qualify the effects of situational features (e.g., degree
of dangerousness and clarity of the threat) to increase the likeli-
hood of rapid-responder (e.g., attacking; which relates to ght
responses), fear-related (e.g., running away; which relates to ight
reactions), and anxiety-related (e.g., risk assessment) reactions
(Ein-Dor & Perry, 2014).
4 T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxxxxx
The ndings supporting the premise that attachment avoidance
is associated with self-serving rapid ght-or-ight cognitions and
behaviors are in keeping with theory and research on the advanta-
ges of people high on other asocial personality types as the preda-
tory aggressive personalities psychopaths (Book & Quinsey,
2004; Coyne & Thomas, 2008; Gervais, Kline, Ludmer, George, &
Manson, 2013) and sociopaths (Mealey, 1995). For example, psy-
chopathy may confer adaptive benets by promoting defection
on people who interrupt the establishment of protable coopera-
tion and on people with whom one fails to nd common ground
(Gervais et al., 2013).
3. Concluding comments
Research indicates that people who score high on measures of
anxious or avoidant attachment display poorer adjustment in var-
ious social, emotional, and behavioral domains than people who
score relatively low (i.e., those who are relatively secure with
respect to attachment). Over 2500 attachment studies have been
published during the past few decades, with only several empirical
studies linking insecure attachment to adaptive outcomes (Ein-Dor
et al., 2010; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). One possible reason for
failing to nd evidence of benets associated with insecure attach-
ment patterns is that the outcomes of interest have usually been in
the domain of social adjustment or subjective well-being (Belsky,
1997, 1999; Ein-Dor et al., 2010; Simpson & Belsky, 2008). This
emphasis may have deected attention from possible adaptive
advantages of insecure attachment patterns. My line of research
adds to the literature suggesting that variations in attachment ori-
entations in particular, and in personality differences more gener-
ally, have important implications for adaptation in different life
domains a possibility that attachment researchers have generally
neglected. Specically, it highlights the proposition that individual
differences in attachment dispositions are related to different
adaptive outcomes that are, in turn, based on varying ecological
cues and circumstances. Studies like the ones reported here, offer
a new perspective on the strengths of individuals who have long
been viewed as decient and poorly adapted.
References
Aguirre, B. E., Wenger, D., & Vigo, G. (1998). A test of the emergent norm theory of
collective behavior. In Paper presented at the Sociological Forum.
Axelrod, R. (2006). The evolution of cooperation. Basic books.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science,
211(4489), 13901396.
Belsky, J. (1997). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential
susceptibility to rearing inuence: The case of mothering and attachment.
Child Development, 68(4), 598600.
Belsky, J. (1999). Modern evolutionary theory and patterns of attachment.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal
development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of
socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647670.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., Houts, R. M., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2010). The
development of reproductive strategy in females: Early maternal harshness ?
earlier menarche ? increased sexual risk taking. Developmental Psychology,
46(1), 120.
Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior-hawks?
Personality and Individual Differences, 36(1), 3345.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation: Anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Sadness and depression (Vol. 3). New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books
(2nd ed.).
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary
developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity.
Development and Psychopathology, 17(02), 271301.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 4676). New York: Guilford.
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., Sheridan, J. F., & McClintock, M. K. (2000). Multilevel
integrative analyses of human behavior: Social neuroscience and the
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychological
Bulletin, 126(6), 829.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Handbook of attachment, 2nd ed.: Theory, research,
and clinical applications. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Coyne, S. M., & Thomas, T. J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating
behavior: A test of the CheaterHawk hypothesis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44(5), 11051115.
Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as
attachment gures: Leaders attachment orientations predict leadership-related
mental representations and followers performance and mental health. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632.
Ein-Dor, T. (2013). Social defense theory: How a mixture of personality traits in
group contexts may promote our survival. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 357372). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment
paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive
advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123141.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011a). Attachment insecurities and the
processing of threat-related information: Studying the schemas involved in
insecure peoples coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
101, 7893. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022503.
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2011b). Effective reaction to danger:
Attachment insecurities predict behavioral reactions to an experimentally
induced threat above and beyond general personality traits. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 2, 467473.
Ein-Dor, T., & Orgad, T. (2012). Scared saviors: Evidence that people high in
attachment anxiety are more effective in alerting others to threat. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 667671.
Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Full house of fears: Evidence that people high in
attachment anxiety are more accurate in detecting deceit. Journal of Personality,
82, 8392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12035.
Ein-Dor, T., & Perry, A. (2014). Human reaction to threats: Examining the interplay
between personality dispositions and situational features. Psychology Research,
4, 599622.
Ein-Dor, T., Perry, A., & Merrin, J. (2014). Effective disengagement: Evidence that
insecure people are more likely to disengage from an ongoing task and take
effective action when facing danger, Submitted for publication.
Ellis, B. J., Essex, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: II.
Empirical explorations of an evolutionarydevelopmental theory. Development
and Psychopathology, 17(02), 303328.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2001). Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: An attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 972994.
Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281291.
Feinstein, J. S., Adolphs, R., Damasio, A., & Tranel, D. (2011). The human amygdala
and the induction and experience of fear. Current Biology, 21(1), 3438.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of
unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 10801091.
Freud, S., & Rieff, P. (1963). Sexuality and the psychology of love. New York: Collier
Books.
Gervais, M. M., Kline, M., Ludmer, M., George, R., & Manson, J. H. (2013). The strategy
of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits predict defection on low-value
relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1757),
20122773.
Gold, P. W., Goodwin, F. K., & Chrousos, G. P. (1988). Clinical and biochemical
manifestations of depression: Relations to the neurobiology of stress. The New
England Journal of Medicine, 319, 413420.
Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K.
D., et al. (in press). Behavior problems after early life stress: Contributions of the
hippocampus and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry.
Hill, R., & Hansen, D. A. (1962). Families in disaster. Man and Society in Disaster, 185, 221.
Hinojosa, A. S., Davis-McCauley, K., Randolph-Seng, B., & Gardner, W. L. (2014).
Leader and follower attachment styles: Implications for authentic leader
follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 595610.
Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is
attractiveself similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment
security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 709.
Kster, G., Seitz, M., Treml, F., Hartmann, D., & Klein, W. (2011). On modelling the
inuence of group formations in a crowd. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3),
397414.
Mawson, A. R. (2012). Mass panic and social attachment: The dynamics of human
behavior. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary
model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18(03), 523541.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of
individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 24(1), 11611192.
Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and
accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and
intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 509523.
Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-related strategies
during thought-suppression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-
representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 940956.
 T. Ein-Dor / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2014) xxxxxx
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1998). The relationship between adult attachment
styles and emotional and cognitive reactions to stressful events. In J. A. Simpson
& W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 143165).
New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment
system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental
representations of attachment gures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 881895.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics,
and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Sapir-Lavid, Y., & Avihou-Kanza, N. (2009). Whats
inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-base
script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 615.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test.
Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other
animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622631.
Perkeybile, A. M., Grifn, L., Seelke, A. M. H., Krubitzer, L., & Bales, K. L. (2010). Social
behavior and S1 representation in prairie voles are altered by variation in early
parental care. San Diego, CA: Society for Neuroscience.
Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The
association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals,
memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,
12201235.
Please cite this article in press as: Ein-Dor, T. Attachment dispositions and human defensive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.033
5
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics.
Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133161.
Sime, J. D. (1983). Afliative behaviour during escape to building exits. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 2141.
Sime, J. D. (1985). Movement toward the familiar person and place afliation in a
re entrapment setting. Environment and Behavior, 17(6), 697724.
Simpson, J. A., & Belsky, J. (2008). Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary
framework.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy hurts: Reactions of
anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship-threatening situation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 754769.
Simpson, J. A., Kim, J. S., Fillo, J., Ickes, W., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., et al. (2011).
Attachment and the management of empathic accuracy in relationship-
threatening situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 242254.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210394368.
Sroufe, A. L., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 11841199.
Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E. A., & Collins, A. (2004). The development of the
person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New
York: Guilford Press.
Suomi, S. J. (2014). Development in Rhesus Monkeys. Nature and nurture: The
complex interplay of genetic and environmental inuences on human behavior and
development, p. 35.