Objective: The main aim of the current research is to investigate the relationship of attachment styles to life satisfaction and psychological resilience of university students. Another aim of the present study is to see whether life satisfaction scores differ by the subjects’ level of psychological resilience.
Method: The current work is a descriptive study using the relational screaning model. The study sample consisted of 425 university students, 302 of whom (71.1%) were female and the remaining 123 (29.9%) male. Convenience sampling was used in selecting the sample. The sample group was composed of undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral students. Data was collected through Experiences in Close Relationships Scale II (ECRS-II) for attachment styles, the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SCLS) for life satisfaction, and the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) for psychological resilience.
Results: Research findings concerning attachment styles of university students indicated that 49.4% of the sample displayed an avoidant and 48.9% an anxious attachment pattern. Individuals taking a score below the median in both anxious and avoidant dimensions of attachment, which constituted 31.7% of the study population, were defined as being securely attached. Study findings showed that the anxiety and avoidance sub-dimensions of attachment negatively predicted the total score of satisfaction with life. An increase in anxious and avoidant attachment scores was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the anxious and avoidant attachment styles did not predict psychological resilience. In addition, satisfaction with life scores of university students varied according to levels of psychological resilience. Individuals who had a high level of psychological resilience were found to have increased satisfaction with life compared to those who had a low level of psychological resilience.
Discussion: There are many studies indicating attachment styles to be the main determinant of subjective well-being. Study findings show that secure attachment affects satisfaction with life, which is one of the elements of subjective well-being and positive development. It is seen that the ability of university students to adapt to stressful and difficult conditions and to cope with unfavorable situations is associated with their satisfaction with life. Thus, psychotherapeutic interventions focused on improvement of attachment relations and enhancement of psychological resilience may increase the overall satisfaction with life.
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın birinci amacı üniversite öğrencilerinin bağlanma stilleri ile yaşam doyumu ve psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektir. Çalışmanın bir diğer amacı ise psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeylerine göre üniversite öğrencilerinin yaşamdan aldıkları doyumun farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığını görmektir.
Yöntem: Bu çalışma ilişkisel tarama yöntemi ile yapılmış betimleyici bir çalışmadır. Çalışmaya 425 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Örneklem seçiminde kolay ulaşılabilir örnekleme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Örneklem grubu lisans, yüksek lisans ve doktora düzeyinde öğrenim görmekte olan üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşmaktadır. Araştırmaya 302 (%71.1) kadın, 123 (%28.9) erkek öğrenci katılmıştır. Üniversite öğrencilerinin bağlanma örüntüleri Yakın İlişkilerde Yaşantılar Envanteri II (YİYE-II), yaşam doyumu Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeği (YDÖ), psikolojik dayanıklılığı Yetişkinler İçin Dayanıklılık Ölçeği (YİDÖ) kullanılarak ölçülmüştür.
Bulgular: Örneklem grubunun bağlanma stillerini belirlemeye yönelik yapılan analizler sonucunda, katılımcıların %49.4’ünün kaçınmacı, %48.9’unun kaygılı bağlanma örüntüsü sergiledikleri görülmektedir. Her iki bağlanma boyutunda medyanın altında puan alanlar güvenli bağlanma örüntüsü ile tanımlanmakta ve örneklemin %31.7’sini oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre güvensiz bağlanmanın kaygı ve kaçınma alt boyutları yaşam doyumu puanlarını negatif yönde yordamaktadır. Bireylerin kaygılı ve kaçınmacı bağlanma puanları arttıkça yaşam doyumu düzeyleri düşmektedir. Çoklu regresyon analizi sonuçları kaygılı ve kaçınmacı bağlanma stillerinin psikolojik dayanıklılığı yordamadığını göstermektedir. Ayrıca üniversite öğrencilerinin psikolojik dayanıklılık düzeyine göre yaşamdan aldıkları doyum farklılaşmaktadır. Psikolojik dayanıklılığı yüksek olan kişilerin yaşam doyumu puanları, dayanıklılığı düşük olan gruba göre anlamlı ölçüde yüksek bulunmuştur.
Tartışma: Bağlanma ilişkilerinin, öznel iyi oluşun temel belirleyicisi olduğunu gösteren pek çok çalışma bulunmaktadır. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular güvenli bağlanmanın, pozitif gelişimin ve öznel iyi oluşun bileşenlerinden biri olan yaşam doyumunu etkilediğini göstermektedir. Üniversite öğrencilerinin stres ve zorlu durumlara uyum gösterme ve negatif durumlarla başa çıkma yetisinin, yaşamdan aldıkları doyumla ilişkili olduğu görülmektedir. Bağlanma ilişkilerini geliştirmeye ve psikolojik dayanıklılığı artırmaya yönelik psikoterapötik girişimlerin genel yaşam doyumunu artıracağı düşünülmektedir.
REFERENCES
1.Ainsworth MD. Object relations, dependency, and attachment: a theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Dev 1969; 40:969-1025.
2.Ainsworth MD. Patterns of attachment behavior shown by the infant in interaction with his mother. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 1964; 10:51-58.
3.Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Volume I, Attachment. Second ed. New York: Basic Books; 1969.
4.Ainsworth MD, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S. Patterns of Attachment. A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Second ed. New York: Psychology Press, 2014.
5.Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990; 58:644-663.
6.Hazan C, Shaver PR. Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry 1994; 5:1-22.
7.Schaffer HR, Emerson PE. The development of social attachments in infancy. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1964; 29:1-77.
8.Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss. Volume II. Separation Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
9.Kobak RR, Sceery A. Attachment in late adolescence: working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Dev 1988; 1:135-146.
10.Gillath O, Karantzas GC, Fraley RC. Adult Attachment. A Concise Introduction to Theory and Research. London: Elsevier; 2016.
11.Proctor CL, Linley PA, Maltby J. Youth life satisfaction: a review of the literature. J Happiness Stud 2009; 10:583-630.
12.Tov W, Diener E. Culture and Subjective Well-Being. In Diener E (editor). Culture and Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer; 2009, 9-42.
13.Steger MF, Oishi S, Kesebir S. Is a life without meaning satisfying? The moderating role of the search for meaning in satisfaction with life judgments. J Posit Psychol 2011; 6:173-180.
14.Proctor CL, Linley PA. Life Satisfaction in Youth. In Fava GA, Ruini C (editors). Increasing Psychological Well-being in Clinical and Educational Settings, Cross-Cultural Advancements in Positive Psychology. New York: Springer, 2014, 199-215.
15.Diener E, Diener M, Diener C. Factors Predicting the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. In Diener E (editor). Culture and Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York: Springer; 2009, 43-70.
16.Martikainen L. The Family Environment in Adolescence as a Predictor of Life Satisfaction in Adulthood. In Vassar M (editor). Psychology of Life Satisfaction. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2012, 19-30.
17.Hwang K, Johnston MV, Smith JK. Adult attachment styles and life satisfaction in individuals with physical disabilities. Appl Res Qual Life 2009; 4:295-310.
18.Chen W, Zhang D, Pan Y, Hu T, Liu G, Luo S. Perceived social support and self-esteem as mediators of the relationship between parental attachment and life satisfaction among Chinese adolescents. Pers Individ Dif 2017; 108:98-102.
19.Guarnieri S, Smorti M, Tani F. Attachment relationships and life satisfaction during emerging adulthood. Soc Indic Res 2015; 121:833-847.
20.Liu JJW, Reed M, Girard TA. Advancing resilience: an integrative, multi-system model of resilience. Pers Individ Dif 2017; 111:111-118.
21.Jenkins JK. The Relationship Between Resilience, Attachment, and Emotional Coping Styles. Unpublished Master Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, 2016.
22.Kurilova J. Exploration of Resilience in Relation to Mindfulness, Self-Compassion, and Attachment Styles. University Of Calgary, Applied Psychology, Unpublished Master Thesis, Alberta, 2013.
23.Bowlby J. A Secure Base. Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. U.S.A: Basic Books; 1988.
24.Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in Adulthood. Structure, Dynamics, and Change. Second ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2016.
25.Bartley M, Head J, Stansfeld S. Is attachment style a source of resilience against health inequalities at work? Soc Sci Med 2007; 64:765-775.
26.Kong F, Wang X, Hu S, Liu J. Neural correlates of psychological resilience and their relation to life satisfaction in a sample of healthy young adults. Neuroimage 2015; 123:165-172.
27.Fraley RC, Waller NG, Brennan KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000; 78:350-365.
28.Selcuk E, Gunaydin G, Sumer N, Uysal A. A new scale developed to measure adult attachment dimensions: experiences in close relationships-revised (ECR-R) - psychometric evaluation in a Turkish sample. Turkish Psychological Articles 2005; 8:1-11. (Turkish)
29.Koker S. Comparison of normal and problematic adolescents in terms of level of satisfaction with life. Specialty Thesis, Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences, 1991. (Turkish)
30.Friborg O, Barlaug D, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH, Hjemdal O. Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2005; 14:29-42.
31.Basim HN, Cetin F. The reliability and validity of the resilience scale for adults-Turkish version. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2011; 22:104-114. (Turkish)
32.Dost MT. Examining life satisfaction levels of university students in terms of some variables. Pamukkale University Journal of Education 2007; 2:132-143. (Turkish)
33.Civitci A. The relationships between global life satisfaction and psychological needs in university students. Cukurova University Institute of Social Sciences 2012; 21:321-336. (Turkish)
34.Comert IT, Ozyesil ZA, Ozguluk SB. Satisfaction with life, meaning in life, sad childhood experiences, and psychological symptoms among Turkish students. Psychol Rep 2016; 118:236-250.
35.Harrison KE. Evaluating The Interplay Between Attachment and Resilience on Adult Relationship. Unpublished Master Thesis, San Diego State University Master of Arts in Communication, 2015.
36.Sumer N, Gungor D. Psychometric evaluation of adult attachment measures on Turkish samples and a cross-cultural comparison. Turkish Journal of Psychology 1999; 14:71-106. (Turkish)
37.Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991; 61:226-244.