The Comparison of Attachment Styles and Personality Characteristics in People with and without Pet

(1)

Vol-7, Special Issue-Number4-June, 2016, pp796-802

http://www.bipublication.com

Research Article

The Comparison of Attachment Styles and Personality Characteristics in

People with and without Pet

Hadiseh Hajizadeh and Mina Mojtabaei

Graduate student of General Psychology, Islamic Azad University, IU Kish, Kish Island, Iran. Hadis.hajizadeh62@gmail.com, mojtabaie_in@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT:

The aim of this study is to compare the attachment styles and personality traits in two groups including those with and without pets. The study is a causal-comparative research and the statistical population includes all of people owning/ lacking pet and living in the city of Isfahan in 1394. A total of 100 subjects in two groups of 50, including people with pets who referred to veterinary clinics and 50 participants without pets but keeping matched in terms of demographic characteristics with the peer group, participated in the research. In order to do the research task, non-random sampling,through using the NEO personality inventory questionnaire and adult attachment styles, was used. By using multivariate analysis of variance, the results showed that people owning pet showed lower average of agreeability features (compatibility) than those without animals. In the attachment style dimensions, there were no significant differences between the two groups. In general, it seems that keeping the pets can adjust the avoidant attachment style of the animal owners to secure attachment.

Keywords: Attachment styles, personality traits, pet.

INTRODUCTION

In many countries, it is quite normal to keep pets in the home. In our country, there are individuals or families who have a member or members interestedin keepingpet animals. There are many researches and studies conducted in the field of keeping pet consequences on the physical state as well as transmission of diseases from animals to human, however, there are few studies regarding the psychological consequences and evaluation of the attachment styles and features of the people keeping pet animals.(TaheriMirghaed, 1384). Individual differences may be the result of character (John &Sirvastava, 1999, Donnellan, Burt, Levendosky&Klump, 2008) or differences in the attachment orientation (Miclansier& Shiver, 2003). Character theory emphasizes the explanation of the regular dispersion in cognition, emotion and behavior of individuals in various

behavioral situations, while the main focus of the attachment theory is on close interpersonal processes. Combining these two models is important (Sibley, & Overall, 2008; quoted in Nilforoushan et al., 1393).

Attachment is a deep and lasting biological, psychological and socialposition, which is formed based on the relationship between child and caregiver inthe early life (Ainsworth, 1973 and Bowlby, 1969, Levy &Orolans, 1998, as cited inJohnson &Whiffen, 2001).

Different ways of mutual interaction between children and caregivers lead to the formation of three kindsof attachments including “secure”,

“avoidance” and “anxiety

(2)

features including intimacy and pleasure, avoidant attachment with lower levels of intimacy and commitment and ambivalent attachment with excitement and concerns about relationships, in accompany with low level of satisfaction (Feeney &Noller, 1990).

Attachment theory is based on the belief that attachment is a universal link and exists in all human beings, which means that people are influenced by their attachment bonds. Several studies have shown that attachment style as a changing factor is an important determinant in personal orientation and formation of personality. Carlson and Sroufhave highlighted the importance of organizational action of attachment system in integrating emotional, motivational, cognitive and behavioralcomponents (Carlson and Srouf, 1995). Bacanli et al. (2009) and Burger (2006) define personality as a stable behavioral pattern in people and the inner personality processes.

What is done by the consistent behavior patterns is the performance at any time and place and the inner personality processes include internal developed emotions, cognitions and emotional processes that affect all feelings and actions.Costa & Mc Crae(1986), have identified five factors that were related to personality: neuroticism (the tendency to experience anxiety, depression and low self-esteem), extroversion (the tendency to positivity, determination and sociability), openness (a willingness to curiosity, flexibility and innovation), agreeableness (desire for forgiveness, kindness, empathy and dedication) and conscientiousness (having a tendency to organization, efficiency and logic) (GarrusiFarshi, 1380 ).

Akbari Zardkhaneh, et al (1390) showed that the social dysfunction of cat and bird owners, bird owners’ depression and general mental health problems of the pet owners are more than the control group. As far as openness is considered, the pet owners had lower levels of this factor in comparison with the control group.

In general, the mental health of people with pet animals is at a lower level compared with those

without pet. The desirable personality traits in these people are at a lower level compared to the control group (Akbari Zardkhaneh, Rostami and Mamghaniyeh, 1390).

Clsincand colleagues (2010) found that pet owners, on a scale of extroversion, were higher than those without animals. In openness, the owners of cats and dogs had higher scores than those without animals. And in agreeableness scale, people without animal were at a higher level and on the scale of conscientious, pet owners were at a higher level too but did not obtain significant differences in neuroticism scale.

Previous studies have shown various differences in personality traits of people with pets.

Individuals and social environment are interactive systems, and it is believed that socio-cultural environment is effective in the development of personality structure. Individual differences and attachment relationships are effective in the active model and attachment relationships, respectively and psychological adjustment through the truth of the effects of active pattern and attachment relationships affects expectations about ego and others. (Cervoneet al., 2001).

The aforementioned differences and lack of access to relevant researches on the comparison of attachment styles and personality characteristics of people with without pet, led us to conduct this research. Therefore, in this study, researchers attempt to answerif there is a significant difference between attachment styles and personality traits of people with and without pets.

METHOD

Present study is an ex post facto research (causal-comparative research). The study population included all the people with and without pets in Isfahan in 1394. The subjects participating in the study comprised 100 members, including two groups. 50 members of the group with pets and 50 members without pets.

(3)

individuals without pets were selected through available sampling and based on homogenization of age, gender, marital status, socioeconomic status and educational level with the experimental group.

In the present study, the following tools have been used:

Adult Attachment Scale (RASS):

Attachment Style Questionnaire was made by Collins and Reid (1990). The scale includes a self-assessment of the skills in making relationships and self- description of the way of forming attachment relationships in comparison with close attachment figures, consisting of 18 articles and three subscales including proximity, dependence and anxiety that match “secure”, “avoidant” and “anxious” styles attachments which through marking on a 5 degree scale of a Likert-type range from: “in no way is in accordance with my characteristics”: (1), to: “fully comply with my characteristics” (5).

For each attachment style, six questions have been considered and the highest score of these three sub-scales determines the dominant person's attachment style.

Given that for every sentence in the answer sheet, which option is marked, the score will be determined

For options through 1 to 5,0 to 4 score is respectively, considered. Questions 1, 6, 8, 12,13 and17measure secure attachment. Questions 2, 5, 7, 14, 16 and18 evaluate avoidant attachment and eventually Questions 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 15measure ambivalent anxiety attachments. Collins and Reid (1990) showed that the factors of proximity, attachment and anxiety in a period of 2 months and even during the eight months were stable and regarding the reliability of the Adult Attachment Inventory of Collins and Reid, for each subscale of the questionnaire in three samples of students, Cronbach's alpha was reported as follows.

Pakdaman has reported the reliability of this test by using Cronbach's alpha in secure attachment,

style avoidant style, ambivalent anxious attachment style, 0.74, 0.52 and 0.28, respectively (Pakdaman, 1385). In the present study, Cronbach's alpha of secure attachment style, avoidant style and ambivalent anxious attachment style was calculated0.70, 0.49 and 0.32, respectively.

NEO Personality Inventory short form (NEO-FFI): the revised version of NEO Personality Inventory NEO-PI of Costa and Mac Lycra (1992) is a self-assessment questionnaire based on personality traits which is in accordance with a famous personality pattern called the Five-Factor Model (Goldberg, 1993).

According to the revised version of the questionnaire NEO, five factors or domains include Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Each area has six aspects or minor scales, meaning, certain personality traits that show various aspects of each area (FathiAshtiani, 1389).

The answer sheet of this questionnaire is based on five Likert scales(GarousiFarshi, 1380).

NEO-FFI personality questionnaire was conducted by Correa and Costa in 1983 on 208 American college students within three months and the validity of 0.83, 0.75, 0.80, 0.79, 0.79 and 0.79were obtained for N, E, O, A andCelements, respectively (GarousiFarshi, 1380).

(4)

Findings

Table 1. Descriptive indicators of NEO Personality Inventory components and attachment styles of persons with and without animal pet

Scale Groups The most The least

Mean circumstantial evidence

Standard Error

20.42 1.232

Standard Deviation

Neuroticism With pet animal 4 38 8.711

Without pet animal 0 38 22.54 1.343 9.498

Extraversion With pet animal 17 37 27.74 0.793 5.609

Openness With pet animal 15 34 26.54 0.676 4.782

Agreement With pet animal 18 36 26.76 0.642 4.538

Conscientious With pet animal 19 45 33.18 0.738 5.220

Dependence With pet animal 6 19 13.36 0.410 2.898

Proximity With pet animal 7 20 12.68 0.479 3.389

Anxiety With pet animal 0 21 8.72 0.753 5.326

To test the research hypothesis, due to existence of the eight variables (components of the NEO Personality Inventory: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness and Adult Attachment Questionnaire subscales: proximity, dependence and anxiety) an independent group variable (people with and withoutdomestic animals), multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used.

The homogeneity of covariance matrices was examined by the test box. Table 2: Test results box test to check homogeneity of covariance matrices

Box's M 44.439

F 1.127

DOF 36

DOF 32316.056

The level of significance 0.275

The results of Table 2 show that the variance-covariance matrix is observed. Table 3: Results of multivariate tests

Effect Value F Degree of

Freedom

Degree of error freedom

Level of

significance Chi Eta error

Pilot effect 0.187 2.619 8 91 0.013 0.187

Wilks's lambda distribution 0.813 2.619 8 91 0.013 0.187

Hoteling effect 0.230 2.619 8 91 0.013 0.187

Roy’s largest root 0.230 2.619 8 91 0.013 0.187

Multivariate test results in Table 3 indicate that there is a significant difference between keeping and lacking of maintenance of animals in terms of personality dimensions and attachment styles, (p = 0.013, F8,91= 2.619,). In other words,it can be said that people with pets and those without animal are different in

terms of the five personality characteristics and attachment styles.

Table 4: The results of the Tests of subjects (dependent variables: quintuple personality traits and attachment styles) dependent

variable Sum of squares

Degree of

freedom Root mean F Level of significance Chi Eta

(5)

Extraversion 31.360 1 31.36 0.755 0.387 0.008

Openness 10.240 1 10.24 0.426 0.515 0.004

Agreement 204.490 1 204.49 6.745 0.011 0.064

Conscientious 84.640 1 84.64 2.442 0.121 0.024

Dependence 6.250 1 6.25 0.863 0.355 0.009

Proximity 11.560 1 11.56 1.126 0.291 0.011

Anxiety 79.210 1 79.21 2.513 0.116 0.025

Table 4 indicates the results of F test to investigate the effects among subjects. The table shows there is a difference between the group of people with and without a pet in terms of agreeableness feature (F1,98= 6.745, p = 0.011, eta = 0.064). There was

no significant difference between the two groups regarding other personality characteristics as well as their attachment styles as the significant levels were greater than 0.05. Through Chi Eta factors,it can be concluded that maintenance or lack of maintenance of animals has a modest effect in explaining the agreeability feature. That is to say, maintenance or lack of maintenance of animals (independent variable) 6.4% contributed to the explanation of the variance of the agreement featurewhich is upon Cohen’s (1988) guidelines as a moderate effect size.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of the present study, which show a lack of significant difference between people with and without animal pet, is consistent with Smolkovic, Fajfar and Mlinaric’s researches (2012), which have expressed no significant correlation between attachment to animal and the styles of attachment (secure, avoidance and anxiety). The findings of the study are not in consistent withZilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, Shaver (2011), McConnell and colleagues (2011), Colby and Sherman (2002), Peabody (1997) and Stammbach and Turner (1999). McConnell and colleagues (2011) argue that people with avoidance and anxietyattachment stylesare different regarding attachment to pet animals and

this difference is reflected in their expectations from their animal pets and their emotional reaction to death.

McConnell and colleagues (2011) found that people with pet obtained lower scores in an anxious attachment style.In other words, these people are less likely to suffer anxiety insecure attachment styles. Colby and Sherman (2002) also found that the rate of depression in people with different attachment styles changedvariously in interaction with animals, so that, people with secure attachment styles have better behavior while interacting with pet dog. People with anxious attachment style also experience a better behavior and lower rate of depression.In contrast, people with anxious attachment style experience a higher rate of depression. This finding indicates that different people with different attachment styles of interacting and keepingpet animals will not experience similar benefits. Peabody (1997) found that there are significant differences between the attachment styles of people with and people without pet so that, people with anxious attachment stylewere more attached to their pets. Also Peabody, Stammbach and Turner (1999) found that there is a negative relationship between attachment to pets and existence of important people in one's life (close human relationships). Also, there is a significant negative relationship between the attachment to pets and the extent of social networks.

(6)

colleagues (1392). The results of all of these researches suggest that those without animals show higher compatibility. Regarding other personality scales, the results of the study are in consistent with ZardkhanehAkbari (1390), Chubineh and colleagues (1386) and TaheriMirghaed and colleagues’s(1392) researches who have suggested that there is no significant difference between people with and without animal in the conscientiousness and extraversion terms. This research is inconsistent with TaheriMirghaed and colleagues (1392) and Chubineh et al (1386) who found that pet owners had higher level of neuroticism. It is also consistent with Parslow, Jorm,Christensen, Rodgers and Jacomb’s study (2005) and Kidd (1989) who stated that people with animal are emotionally more stable than people without animal.As Costa and McCrae(1990) have suggested, agreeableness (compatibility) is defined as the willingness to help, humility, forgiveness and kindness as people who have a higher compatibility, often think of others, are primarily altruism, empathize with others and on the whole they are sociable.In contrast, the compliant person is self-centered and often suspects others’ intention and is more competitive than cooperative.Clark and Robertson (2005) argue that the features of agreeability likefineness, helping other, being non-defensive, cooperativeness and agreeing with others are the most important features of person with agreeability trait. People who obtain low scores on agreeability trait are in trouble regarding their social relationships.So we can say that people who always disagree with others have less social interaction and less desire to communicate emotionally with others.

They are more likely to keep pet animals compared with other people and they possibly spend some leisure time with their pet.Pet owners love their animals more than people. Those who have a lower level of social interaction are likely to replace their animals to compensate this shortfall.Most human interactions provide

significant social support for people. Social support is important for mental health and physical well-being of people and it reflects the centrality of belonging in life.

Toskaand Marenic (2007) state that discontent in interpersonal relationships is associated with loneliness. Various entertainments such as interaction with animals area good way to overcome loneliness. But can pets also provide social needs of people? Pets can serve as important sources of social support and can providetheir owners positive mental and physical health (McConnell et al., 2011).

REFERENCES:

1. Chubineh, Hamid., Rostami, Reza, Mohammadi, Ali, Bahonar, Alireza, Shirani, Dariush; safdari, Reza; Ghalyanchi, Arash; Nosratabadi, Masoud. (1386). assessment the status of mental health and personality characteristics of pet owners referred to the veterinary clinic of Tehran University. ArmaghaneDanesh Journal, 12 (2). 46): 99-107.

2. Costa, P. T; McCrae, R. R.(1980). “Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age”. In P.B. Baltes& O.G. Brim, Jr.(Eds), Life span

development and behavior (3: 65- 102).

3. GarrosiFarshi, Mirtaghi. (1380). New approaches in personality assessment, Tabriz, community researcher publishing.

4. Smolkovic, I; Fajfar, M; Mlinaric, V.(2012).Attachment to Pets and Interpersonal Relationships. Journal of European

Psychology Students, Vol. 3.

5. Zilcha-Mano, S; Mikulincer, M; Shaver, Ph. R.(2011).”Pet in the therapy room: An attachment perspective on human-pet relationship: conceptualization and assessment of pet attachment orientations”. Journal of

research in personality, Valume45, Issue4

pages 345-357.

(7)

with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership”. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Vol 101(6), 1239-1252.

7. Colby, Patricia. M., & Sherman,Angela (2002). Attachment styles impact on pet visitationeffectiveness. Anthrozoös: A multidisciplinary journal of the interactions of

people andanimals, Volume 15, Issue 2

8. Stammbach, K.B. & Turner, D.C. (1999). Understanding the human-cat relationship:

Human social support or attachment.

Anthrozoos, 12(3), 162-167.

9. Parslow, R. A. (2005).”Pet ownership and health inolder adults: findings from a survey of 2, 551community- based Australians aged 60-64. J”. Gerontology.51: 40- 47.

10.Nilooforoushan, Parisa, Ahmadi, seyedahmad, Fatehizadeh, Maryam, Abedi, Mohammadreza, Ghasemi, Vahid. (1393). The impact of GFP and attachment dimensions on marital quality. Journal of Counseling and Psychotherapy of family, Issue 3, 474-506.

11.Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh ; Reza Rostami ; Maryam Mamaghanieh (2011). The relationship between type of pet owining and pet owner personality and mental health care..Journal of veterinary research.Volume 66, Issue 3, Page 271-275

12.TaheriMirghaed A, Yunesian M, Dargahi H, Bahonar A, Bahrami A, Lalehgani A et al . The Relationship Between Contact With Pets And Domestic Animals And Their Owners’ Mental Health And Personality Trait. payavard. 2013; 7 (1) :21-31

13.Shafi'IMotlagh, Sajad. (1389). Investigation of simple and multi dimensional relationships of attachment styles and personality traits couples with marital satisfaction of the couples in Gachsaran, Master's thesis, University of Isfahan.

14.Pakdaman, Shahla (1380). A comparison of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy of gifted and normal students. Faculty of Education and psychology, Tehran University.

15.Parslow, R.A; Jorm, AF; Christensen, H; Rodgers, B; Jacomb, P.(2005).”Pet ownership an health in older adults: findings from a survey of 2,551 community-based Australians aged 60 64”.Gerontology, 51(1):40-7.

16.Clarke, S; Robertson, I.T.(2005).”A meta-analytic review of the big five personality factors and accident involvement in occupational and non-occupational settings”.

Journal of Occupational and