Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Attachment insecurity and openness to diversity: The roles of self-esteem

and trust☆
Suejung Han ⁎
Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, United States

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

Article history: Openness to diversity is useful to adjustment in the diversified modern society, but diversity can be perceived as a
Received 3 January 2017 threat to one's identity and cultural values. Thus, tendency to feel secure and not easily threatened—attachment
Received in revised form 10 February 2017 security—may be associated with openness to diversity. A path model hypothesized the associations between at-
Accepted 13 February 2017
tachment insecurity (i.e., attachment anxiety and avoidance) and universal-diverse orientation (UDO; i.e., open
Available online 20 February 2017
attitude toward diversity) both directly and indirectly through low self-esteem and interpersonal trust. A struc-
Keywords:
tural equation modeling analysis using two samples (N = 338 and 350, respectively) of U.S. undergraduates re-
Attachment vealed that attachment anxiety was associated with the UDO cognitive component Relativistic Appreciation
Self-esteem positively but its emotional component Comfort with Differences negatively, suggesting ambivalent attitudes
Trust to diversity. Indirect effects were significant between attachment insecurity and UDO through trust, although
Universal-diverse orientation self-esteem was associated with UDO only through its association with trust. It was suggested that mistrust in
Openness to diversity others' good intention might be why insecurely attached feel uncomfortable with the culturally different people.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In the increasingly diversified and globalized modern society,
successful adjustment entails interacting with diverse individuals and
negotiating diverse worldviews effectively (Jackson & Ruderman,
1995). Such diversity competence may be fostered by open attitude to-
ward diversity (Chang, 2001).
However, close-mindedness to differences may be an immediate re-
sponse because it had been useful for human survival. From an evolu-
tionary perspective (Confer et al., 2010), differences were equated
with potential danger in prehistoric times; it was adaptive to defend
oneself by categorizing different looking people as an enemy, feeling
fearful or angry, and distancing from or harming the person. As such,
human evolution facilitated close-mindedness to diversity (Cole &
Teboul, 2004).
Then, individual difference factors associated with openness to
diversity may counter such closed-mindedness to diversity. Because di-
versity can be perceived as a threat (Strauss, Connerley, & Ammerman,
2003), and felt threat can decrease tolerance toward different cultural
groups (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios Morrison, 2009), individuals who feel
☆ This study was supported by Faculty Diversity Research Award granted to the author
by the University of Wisconsin System Institute on Race and Ethnicity. I thank Dr. M. Carole
Pistole for being the research mentor for this award.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Campus
Box 4620, Normal, IL 61790-4620, United States.
E-mail address: shan3@ilstu.edu.
secure and not easily threatened may be more open to diversity. Thus,
this study examined whether attachment security was associated with
openness to diversity because of its association with self-esteem and
trust.
1.1. Attachment theory
Attachment theory proposes that attachment system—a biologically
prewired behavioral systems—activates upon perceiving threats, and
serves to ensure our survival by guiding physical proximity to attach-
ment figures for protection (Bowlby, 1988). The attachment system de-
activates when the attachment figure provides protection and soothing.
If attachment concern is active, other behavioral system functioning
(e.g., exploratory system function for exploring environments and nov-
elty; Elliot & Reis, 2003) becomes compromised (Bowlby, 1988).
Individual differences in the attachment quality develop from the
early childhood, depending on the attachment figure response to the
proximity seeking (Bowlby, 1988). This attachment security versus in-
security persist into adulthood as a stable trait (Fraley, 2002), internal-
ized in the form of internal working model (IWM; Bowlby, 1988).
IMW is a schema that consists of mental representations of self,
others, and relationships. The child may internalize positive self- (e.g.,
“I am worthwhile”) and other-representation (e.g., “others are trust-
worthy”) and develop attachment security, if the attachment figure is
perceived as consistently responsive and available (Baldwin, 1992).
Conversely, perceived unpredictable and inconsistent responses of the
attachment figure may lead to negative self-representation (e.g., “I

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.033
0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
292 S. Han / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296
may not be worthy of love”), developing attachment anxiety. Perceived
consistent rejection or unavailability of the attachment figure may lead
to negative other-representation (e.g., “others are not trustworthy”),
developing attachment avoidance. These mental representations beget
evaluative judgment of self (e.g., self-esteem) and others (e.g., trust)
(Wearden, Peters, Berry, Barrowclough, & Liversidge, 2008) and guide
the person with certain expectations and motivations in life tasks and
relationships, thereby affecting adjustment (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007a) including how one manages perceived threats.
1.2. Attachment and diversity as threat
Cultural diversity may be perceived as threat to our survival (Confer
et al., 2010), desire to maintain positive self-concept (Tsui, Egan, &
O'Reilly, 1992), and the sense of sharedness within one's cultural
group (Stephan et al., 2009). Such felt threat can create negative evalu-
ation and behaviors toward culturally different people (Stephan et al.,
2009).
Individuals with attachment insecurity versus security may address
such felt threat differently, developing more negative versus positive at-
titude toward diversity. Despite the dearth of research on the attach-
ment and openness to diversity associations, literature on attachment
and prejudice/intergroup relations is relevant. For example, experimen-
tally primed attachment security (e.g., subliminal presentation of secu-
rity-related words or images) reduced (a) negative evaluations of
outgroups (Boag & Carnelley, 2015; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001), (b) ag-
gressive behaviors toward outgroup members (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007b) and immigrants (Saleem et al., 2015), and (c) discriminatory in-
tention and behaviors toward Muslims (Boag & Carnelley, 2012). These
results suggested that enhanced attachment security reduced a sense of
felt threat, thereby rendering unnecessary the natural defensive efforts
to devalue or harm outgroup members (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b).
Attachment insecurity as an enduring trait—not experimentally
boosted state—has been examined in relation to prejudice and inter-
group contacts in a few studies. Some reported attachment anxiety,
but not avoidance, was associated with outgroup devaluation
(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001) and negative emotions toward Arabs
among U.S. college students (Saleem et al., 2015). Another study
found that both anxiously and avoidantly attached people showed
higher prejudice to outgroup members (Hofstra, van Oudenhoven, &
Buunk, 2005). Also, attachment security, but not attachment anxiety
and avoidance, was associated with direct contacts with immigrants, al-
though attachment avoidance was associated with outgroup devalua-
tion (Boccato, Capozza, Trifiletti, & Di Bernardo, 2015). Thus, it is not
conclusive whether and which attachment insecurity dimensions are
associated with prejudice or negative behaviors toward the culturally
different, let alone with openness to diversity.
1.3. Attachment and universal-diverse orientation
In this study, openness to diversity was operationalized as universal-
diverse orientation (UDO)—openness to and appreciation of human
similarities and cultural and individual differences of others (Miville et
al., 1999). UDO consists of a behavioral Diversity of Contacts—one's
past and intended future behaviors regarding diversity, a cognitive Rel-
ativistic Appreciation—appreciation of value of diversity, and an emo-
tional Comfort with Differences—a sense of connectedness and
comfort with diverse individuals—components (Miville et al., 1999).
UDO was associated negatively with prejudices such as homophobia
and personality such as dogmatism (e.g., Miville et al., 1999), but no
previous studies have examined systematic differential predictions of
the UDO components, nor investigated their association with
attachment.
As a tendency to feel threatened easily, however, attachment insecu-
rity may be associated with UDO through negative IMWs. Encountering
cultural diversity, the anxiously attached may feel threatened due to the
negative self-evaluation (e.g., self-esteem; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a)
and become motivated to protect felt-security by defensive measures
(e.g., devaluing the culturally different) (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001,
2007b), which would be associated with low UDO; a person with
attachment avoidance may feel threatened due to the negative other-
evaluation (e.g., trust; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a) and become moti-
vated to protect felt-security by distancing from them, which would
be associated with low UDO.
Moreover, due to unaddressed attachment concerns, attachment
system is chronically activated (attachment anxiety) or excessively
suppressed (attachment avoidance) (Bowlby, 1988). Therefore, explor-
atory system functioning such as exploring diversity may be compro-
mised (Elliot & Reis, 2003), resulting in low openness to diversity.
Thus, attachment anxiety and avoidance may also be associated with
low UDO directly.
2. Hypothesis and alternative models
With these rationales, I proposed a path model that attachment anx-
iety and avoidance were associated with UDO directly and indirectly
through low self-esteem and low trust respectively (Fig. 1). This
model (Model 1) was tested and compared with three theoretically
plausible alternative models. Model 2 added to Model 1 paths from at-
tachment anxiety to trust and attachment avoidance to self-esteem.
With mixed findings on the valence of other-representation in attach-
ment anxiety (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000) and self-representation
in attachment avoidance (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), it is not clear whether
self-esteem and trust are common mediating paths for both attachment
anxiety and avoidance versus distinctive paths (as hypothesized) in re-
lation to UDO, which was explored by Model 2. Model 3 added to Model
1 a path from self-esteem to trust. IWM includes representations of self,
others, and their relations (Baldwin, 1992). It is possible that self-in-re-
lation-to others representation may be more relevant than the indepen-
dent self-representation in predicting UDO (Pietromonaco & Barrett,
2000), because one may feel personal threat from diversity, rather
than viewing diversity as a threat in general, which was explored by
Model 3. Model 4 combined Models 2 and 3. The best fitting model
then was chosen and cross-validated in a different sample.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Participants were undergraduates enrolled at a regional Midwestern
university in the U.S. Sixty out of 398 responses in the main sample and
63 out of 413 in the validation sample with b 50% survey completion
were deleted. The main sample (N = 338) included 136 (40.2%) men
and 198 (58.6%) women with a mean age 21.18 (SD = 5.13, range
18–54). The validation sample (N = 350) included 139 (39.7%) men
and 209 (59.7%) women with a mean age 21.34 (SD = 5.78, range
18–46). Both the samples were mostly European Americans (88.8%,
89.7% respectively).
3.2. Instruments
3.2.1. Attachment
The 12-item Experiences in Close Relationship-Short Form (Wei,
Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007) measured attachment anxiety
(6 items, e.g., “I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner”)
and attachment avoidance (6 items, e.g., “I am nervous when partners
get too close to me”) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree). Internal consistency coefficients were 0.78
and 0.78 for attachment anxiety and 0.86 and 0.84 for attachment
avoidance in each sample.
 S. Han / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296
Fig. 1. The hypothesized (Model 1) and Alternative models (Models 2–4). Model 1 specified the solid lines. Model 2 added the dashed lines to Model 1. Model 3 added the dotted line to
Model 1. Model 4 added both the dashed and dotted lines to Model 1.
3.2.2. Self-esteem
The 10-item Rosenberg's (1965) Self-Esteem Scale measured global
self-esteem (e.g., “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.”) on a 4-
point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Internal
consistency coefficients were 0.87 and 0.90 in each sample.
3.2.3. Trust
The 20-item subscale of General Trust of the 40-item Trust Inventory
(Couch, Adams, & Jones, 1996) measured trust in generalized others
(e.g., “Most people are trustworthy.”) on a 5-point Likert-type scale
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Internal consistency co-
efficients were 0.87 and 0.88 in each sample.
3.2.4. Universal-diverse orientation
The 15-item Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale-Short
(Fuertes, Miville, Mohr, Sedlacek, & Gretchen, 2000) measured the
UDO (Miville et al., 1999) on a Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 6 (strongly agree). The three subscales include (a) Diversity
of Contact (5 items; e.g., “I attend events where I might get to know peo-
ple from different racial backgrounds”), (b) Relativistic Appreciation (5
items; e.g., “Persons with disabilities can teach me things I could not
learn elsewhere”), and (c) Comfort with Differences (5 items; e.g., “I
am only at ease with people of my own race” [reverse coded]). Internal
consistency coefficients were 0.79 and 0.81 (Diversity Contact) 0.71 and
0.73 (Relativistic Appreciation), and 0.81 and 0.82 (Comfort with Differ-
ences) in each sample.
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary analyses
Mean, standard deviations, and correlations among the study vari-
ables are presented in Table 1. In both samples, skewness and kurtosis
statistics demonstrated univariate normality of the variables. Attach-
ment avoidance was negatively associated with Relativistic Apprecia-
tion and Comfort with Differences in the main sample but not with
293
any UDO components in the validation sample. In both samples, attach-
ment anxiety was associated with Relativistic Appreciation positively
but Comfort with Differences negatively. Neither attachment anxiety
nor avoidance was associated with Diversity of Contact. Both attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance were associated with self-esteem and
trust negatively. Self-esteem was associated with Comfort with Differ-
ences only; trust was associated with all the UDO components.
4.2. Data analysis plan for hypothesis testing
A structural equation modeling (SEM; Schumacker & Lomax, 2010)
analysis tested the hypothesized path model using AMOS 22.0. In con-
structing the model, Diversity of Contact was not included due to its
non-significant associations with attachment anxiety and avoidance.
Relativistic Appreciation and Comfort with Differences were specified
as separate latent constructs because attachment anxiety and avoidance
were associated with Relativistic Appreciation in the opposite direc-
tions. Three parcels for attachment anxiety and avoidance respectively
and two parcels for self-esteem, trust, Relativistic Appreciation, and
Comfort with Differences were created using the item-to-construct bal-
ance method (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). The sam-
ple sizes (N = 338 & 350) were sufficient for detecting a small effect size
with 6 latent variables and 14 indicators (minimum required sample
size = 323, Westland, 2010). Model fit was evaluated by Comparative
Fit Index (CFI) value of 0.95 or above, Root Mean Square Error of Ap-
proximation (RMSEA) value of 0.08 or below, and Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR) value of 0.08 or below (Schumacker &
Lomax, 2010). Chi-square statistics (χ2) was used to compare nested
models fit; Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI; smaller scores indi-
cate better fit) for non-nested models fit. The Expectation Maximization
imputation for missing data was used to allow AMOS to calculate SRMR
and conduct bootstrapping analyses to test the significance of indirect
effects, because missing data was at complete random, Little's MCAR
χ2 (188, N = 338) = 162.42, p = 0.91 in the main sample, χ2 (321,
N = 350) = 243.53, p = 1.00 in the validation sample (Schlomer,
Bauman, & Card, 2010).
294 S. Han / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.

Range Main Validation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

M SD M SD

1 Anxiety 1–7 3.76 1.13 3.73 1.24 − 0.18⁎⁎ −0.32⁎⁎⁎ −0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 0.11⁎ −0.27⁎⁎⁎
2 Avoidance 1–7 2.74 1.14 2.73 1.19 0.28⁎⁎⁎ − −0.24⁎⁎⁎ −0.24⁎⁎⁎ −0.04 −0.18⁎⁎ −0.16⁎⁎
3 Self-esteem 1–4 3.05 0.46 3.06 0.52 −0.43⁎⁎⁎ −0.34⁎⁎ − 0.34⁎⁎⁎ −0.03 0.04 0.19⁎⁎
4 Trust 1–5 3.30 0.59 3.23 0.63 −0.31⁎⁎⁎ −0.35⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ − 0.17⁎⁎ 0.30⁎⁎⁎ 0.35⁎⁎⁎
5 Behavioral 1–6 3.72 1.00 3.67 1.03 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.22⁎⁎⁎ − 0.49⁎⁎⁎ 0.32⁎⁎⁎
6 Cognitive 1–6 4.49 0.68 4.45 0.74 0.20⁎⁎⁎ 0.01 0.05 0.24⁎⁎⁎ 0.51⁎⁎⁎ − 0.32⁎⁎⁎
7 Emotional 1–6 4.57 0.89 4.51 0.94 −0.21⁎⁎⁎ −0.06 0.23⁎⁎⁎ 0.27⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎ −

Note. N = 338 for main sample, 350 for validation sample; 1 attachment anxiety, 2 attachment avoidance; 5 UDO Diversity of Contact, 6 UDO Relativistic Appreciation, 7 UDO Comfort with
Differences.
Above diagonal = main sample; below diagonal = validation sample.
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

4.3. Hypothetical and alternative models testing 4.4. Validation of the model

In the main sample, the measurement model fit the data well, χ2 (62,
N = 338) = 147.22, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI =
0.051, 0.077), SRMR = 0.044. Standardized factor loadings ranged
from 0.66 to 0.93, p b 0.001, suggesting that the observed indicators rep-
resented latent constructs well. All the latent variables were correlated
with one another significantly, except for self-esteem and Relativistic
Appreciation, r = 0.06, p = 0.40, and attachment anxiety and Relativis-
tic Appreciation, r = 0.14, p = 0.06.
The hypothesized model (Model 1) fit to the data was marginally ad-
equate, χ2 (65, N = 338) = 191.14, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA =
0.076 (90% CI = 0.064, 0.088), SRMR = 0.089, ECVI = 0.888. The
paths coefficients were significant in the expected direction, except for
the positive association between attachment anxiety and Relativistic
Appreciation, β = 0.29, p b 0.001, and non-significant associations be-
tween self-esteem and both Relativistic Appreciation, β = − 0.004,
p = 0.95, and Comfort with Difference, β = 0.11, p = 0.08, and attach-
ment avoidance and Comfort with Difference, β = −0.05, p = 0.41.
Model 2, adding to Model 1 paths from attachment anxiety to trust
and attachment avoidance to self-esteem, and Model 3, adding to
Model 1 path from self-esteem to trust, fit the data well (see
Appendix 1 for fit indices) and better than Model 1, Δ χ2 (2, N =
338) = 19.42, p b 0.001 for Model 2, and Δ χ2 (1, N = 338) = 31.37,
p b 0.001 for Model 3. ECVI was smaller in Model 3 than in Model 2, sug-
gesting Model 3 was a better fitting model than Model 2. The model
The validation sample was used to cross-validate Model 4 and the in-
direct effects. The absolute and relative fits of the measurement model
and Models 1–4 were similar to those from the main sample
(Appendix 1). Model 4 path coefficients and directions were the same
as those identified in the main sample (see Fig. 2), except for the non-
significant attachment anxiety-Comfort with Differences and attach-
ment avoidance-Relativistic Appreciation associations. A bootstrapping
analysis with 5000 resamples revealed that all the indirect effects were
significant (Table 2). In summary, Model 4 that specified common me-
diating paths by trust and self-esteem × trust between attachment anx-
iety and avoidance and Relativistic Appreciation and Comfort with
Differences fit the data best in the main sample and was cross-validated
in the validation sample.
5. Discussion
5.1. Indirect effects by self-esteem and trust
The best-fitting alternative model suggested that both attachment
anxiety and avoidance were associated with Relativistic Appreciation
Table 2
Standardized bias-corrected indirect effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from
Model 4.

paths coefficients were the same in their significance and direction as Indirect effect through trust & self-esteem × trust Estimate 95% CI
in Model 1. The added paths in both Models 2 and 3 were significant, Main sample
β = − 0.29, p b 0.001 for attachment anxiety- trust, β = − 0.15, p = Attachment anxiety → Relativistic Appreciation −0.101⁎ (−0.168,
0.008 for attachment avoidance-self-esteem (Model 2), and β = 0.35, −0.030)
p b 0.001 for self-esteem-trust (Model 3). Attachment anxiety → Comfort with −0.095⁎⁎ (−0.161,
Differences −0.050)
Model 4, combining Models 2 and 3, fit the data well, χ2 (62, N =
Attachment avoidance → Relativistic −0.097⁎ (−0.162,
338) = 147.22, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.064 (90% CI = Appreciation −0.045)
0.051, 0.077), SRMR = 0.044, ECVI = 0.775 and better than Model 1, Attachment avoidance → Comfort with −0.076⁎⁎ (−0.124,
Δ χ2 (3, N = 338) = 43.92, p b 0.001, Model 2, Δ χ2 (1, N = 338) = Differences −0.042)
17.64, p b 0.001, and Model 3, Δ χ2 (2, N = 338) = 12.55, p b 0.001, Validation sample
Attachment anxiety → Relativistic Appreciation −0.166⁎⁎ (−0.268,
thus was chosen as the best fitting model. The model paths coefficients
−0.081)
were the same in their significance and direction as in Model 1. The Attachment anxiety → Comfort with −0.123⁎⁎⁎ (−0.217,
added paths were all significant. Differences −0.053)
The indirect effects by self-esteem × trust (i.e., specified as self-es- Attachment avoidance → Relativistic −0.158⁎⁎ (−0.244,
Appreciation −0.090)
teem to trust path) and trust on the attachment-UDO associations
Attachment avoidance → Comfort with −0.115⁎⁎⁎ (−0.198,
were tested using a bootstrapping analysis with 5000 resamples. As Differences −0.058)
displayed in the bias-corrected estimates of the standardized indirect
Note. The indirect effects are not calculated separately for multiple mediators in AMOS.
effects and their 95% confidence intervals (Table 2), all the indirect ef- ⁎ p b 0.05.
fects were significant. Separate indirect effects by self-esteem × trust ⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
and trust were not calculated in AMOS. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
 S. Han / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296
(UDO cognitive component) and Comfort with Difference (UDO emo-
tional component) via low trust, highlighting the centrality of mistrust
in the attachment insecurity—UDO association. Both anxiously and
avoidantly attached might not be open to diversity because they may
not trust the good nature or intention of the culturally different. This re-
sult is consistent with the finding that agreeableness—the tendency to
be trustful and amicable—was a strong predictor of attitude toward di-
versity (Strauss et al., 2003). Contrary to the hypothesis, both attach-
ment anxiety and avoidance (versus avoidance only) were associated
with trust. This result contradicts the theoretical notion that attachment
anxiety IWM includes negative self- and positive other-representations
and attachment avoidance IWM includes defensively boosted positive
self- and negative other-representations (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991) but may be explained by mixed findings on valence of other-rep-
resentation in attachment anxiety (for a review, see Pietromonaco &
Barrett, 2000). It is possible that attachment anxiety other-representa-
tion may be positive about others' competence in providing protection
(Hazan & Shaver, 1987), but negative about their willingness to support
(Sirois, Millings, & Hirsch, 2016), whereas attachment avoidance other-
representation is negative about others' goodwill (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007b). Low trust in this study may have captured negative other-rep-
resentation that others are not well-intentioned in general (attachment
avoidance) or in supporting self (attachment anxiety).
On the other hand, self-esteem mediated the attachment-UDO asso-
ciation only through trust. This result may suggest that self-in-relation-
to-others representation (Pietromonaco & Barrett, 2000), such as self-
efficacy in interacting with others, may be more relevant in predicting
UDO, rather than independent self-representation operationalized as
self-esteem. This result is consistent with the findings that self-esteem
was not associated with attitude toward diversity (Strauss et al.,
2003), but is contradicted by higher sensitivity to threat among individ-
uals low in self-esteem (Greenberg et al., 1990). Perhaps, diversity may
not be a threat to one's global self-esteem but possibly to self-efficacy in
effective social interactions with diverse people.
5.2. Direct effects
As predicted, the direct attachment anxiety-Comfort with Differ-
ences and attachment avoidance-Relativistic Appreciation associations
Fig. 2. The path coefficients of Model 4. Note. Coefficients in regular font (main sample) and in italics (validation sample) *p b 0.05, **p b 0.01 ***p b 0.001.
295
were negative and significant, even after self-esteem and trust ex-
plained the variance of these associations. This result suggests that
chronically activated (attachment anxiety) or overly suppressed (at-
tachment avoidance) attachment system (Bowlby, 1988) may compro-
mise an exploratory functioning of approaching and appreciating
cultural diversity. Specifically, attachment anxiety may hinder explora-
tion of diversity due to emotional discomfort, whereas attachment
avoidance may do so with cognitive dismissal of value of diversity. How-
ever, these direct paths were not significant (i.e., full mediation by self-
esteem and trust) in the validation sample, warranting further testing.
One unexpected yet notable finding was the positive direct associa-
tion between attachment anxiety and Relativistic Appreciation, along
with their concurrent negative indirect association. This contradiction
may highlight ambivalence toward diversity of the anxiously attached
(van Oudenhoven & Hofstra, 2006), attachment anxiety possibly being
a positive social orientation—at least at a cognitive level—with trust is-
sues being controlled; they may appreciate the value of diversity but
not trust good nature of the culturally different people. Also, attachment
anxiety negative association with Comfort with Differences suggested
internal dissonance of cognitive appreciation but emotional discomfort
with diversity.
Noteworthy was that neither attachment anxiety nor avoidance was
associated with Diversity of Contacts, UDO behavioral component. One
could argue that attachment security, defined as low attachment anxi-
ety and avoidance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007b), may not be relevant
to approach behaviors toward diversity. However, Boccato et al.
(2015) found that attachment security, when measured separately
from attachment anxiety and avoidance, was associated with direct
contacts (i.e., behaviors) with immigrants, whereas attachment anxiety
and avoidance were not. It is possible that attachment security versus
insecurity are independent, and thus are associated with different com-
ponents of openness to diversity distinctively.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This study has limitations. First, this study tested a path model with
cross-sectional data and is correlational. Any causal interpretations
among the variables should not be made. Longitudinal design such as
daily diaries could elucidate the causal relations. Second, generalizability
296 S. Han / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 291–296

of the results is limited, due to using mostly European American sam- Confer, J. C., Easton, J. A., Fleischman, D. S., Goetz, C. D., Lewis, D. M. G., Perillous, C., & Buss,
D. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limita-
ples. Future research should address moderators such as race/ethnicity. tions. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126.
Third, attachment security was not measured directly. Future research Couch, L. L., Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (1996). The assessment of trust orientation.
could examine attachment security association with UDO behavioral Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 305–323.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of
component (Boccato et al., 2015). Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317–331.
Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and
dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 6, 123–151.
6. Conclusion Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000). Factor struc-
ture and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity scale. Measurement
This study applied attachment theory to openness to diversity, UDO. and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 157–169.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon,
It was suggested that attachment insecurity was associated with mis-
D. (1990). Evidence for terror management II: The effects of mortality salience on re-
trust of others' good intention and sense of vulnerability in relation to actions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldviews. Journal of
others, which then associated with low UDO. Future research could ex- Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308–318.
amine whether addressing these negative IWMs associated with attach- Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
ment insecurities could promote openness to diversity. Hofstra, J., Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Buunk, B. P. (2005). Attachment patterns and majority
members' attitudes towards adaptation strategies of immigrants. International Journal
of Intercultural Relations, 29, 601–619.
Appendix 1. Structural equation model (SEM) fit indices Jackson, S. E., & Ruderman, M. N. (1995). Introduction: Perspectives for understanding di-
verse work teams. In S. E. Jackson, & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams:
Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 17–46). Washington: American Psy-
chological Association.
Sample Model χ2 df CFI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR ECVI Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to
parcel: Exploring the question and weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Main Measurement 147.22 62 0.96 0.064 (0.051, 0.044 0.775 Modeling, 9, 151–173.
sample 0.077) Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence
Model 1 191.14 65 0.95 0.076 (0.064, 0.089 0.888 that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to outgroups.
0.088) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 97–115.
Model 2 164.86 63 0.96 0.069 (0.056, 0.057 0.822 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007a). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
0.082) change. New York: Guildford Press.
Model 3 159.77 64 0.96 0.067 (0.054, 0.057 0.801 Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007b). Boosting attachment security to promote mental
health, prosocial values, and intergroup tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139–156.
0.080)
Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., et al. (1999). Appre-
Model 4 147.22 62 0.96 0.064 (0.051, 0.044 0.775
ciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity
0.077) Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 291–307.
Validation Measurement 136.80 62 0.97 0.059 (0.045, 0.043 0.719 Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do
sample 0.072) we really know about the self in relation to others? Journal of General Psychology, 4,
Model 1 202.46 65 0.95 0.078 (0.066, 0.099 0.890 155–175.
0.090) Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
Model 2 153.46 63 0.97 0.064 (0.051, 0.053 0.761 versity Press.
0.077) Saleem, M., Prot, S., Cikara, M., Lam, B. C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Jelie, M. (2015). Cutting
Model 3 166.18 64 0.96 0.068 (0.055, 0.066 0.791 Gordian knots: Reducing prejudice through attachment security. Personality and
0.080) Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–15.
Model 4 136.80 62 0.97 0.059 (0.045, 0.043 0.719 Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data manage-
0.072) ment in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 1–10.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner' guide to structural equation modeling
Note. df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Error of Approximation (RMSEA); CI = confidence interval; SRMR = Standardized Root Sirois, F. M., Millings, A., & Hirsch, J. K. (2016). Insecure attachment orientation and well-
Mean Square Residual; ECVI = Expected Cross-Validation Index. being in emerging adults: The roles of perceived social support and fatigue.
Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 318–321.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios Morrison, K. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D.
Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–60).
References Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strauss, J. P., Connerley, M. L., & Ammerman, P. A. (2003). The “threat hypothesis,” per-
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. sonality, and attitudes toward diversity. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39,
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484. 32–52.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1992). Being different: Relational demography
of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.
Boag, E. M., & Carnelley, K. B. (2012). Self-reported discrimination and discriminatory be- Van Oudenhoven, J. P., & Hofstra, J. (2006). Personal reactions to ‘strange’ situations: At-
havior: The role of attachment security. British Journal of Psychology, 51, 391–403. tachment styles and acculturation attitudes of immigrants and majority members.
Boag, E. M., & Carnelley, K. B. (2015). Attachment and prejudice: The mediating role of International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 783–798.
empathy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 337–356. Wearden, A., Peters, I., Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Liversidge, T. (2008). Adult attach-
Boccato, G., Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., & Di Bernardo, G. A. (2015). Attachment security and ment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and others. Personality and
intergroup contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 629–647. Individual Differences, 44, 1246–1257.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close re-
New York: Basic Books. lationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Chang, M. J. (2001). Is it more than about getting along?: The broader educational impli- Personality Assessment, 88, 187–204.
cations of reducing students' racial biases. Journal of College Student Development, 42, Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling.
93–105. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476–487.
Cole, T., & Teboul, J. C. B. (2004). Non-zero-sum collaboration, reciprocity, and the prefer-
ence for similarity: Developing an adaptive model of close relational functioning.
Personal Relationships, 11, 135–160.