Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between attachment styles and postformal thought ability and to test the comparability of three methods of testing for postformal thought. In a sample of 119 participants, postformal thought levels and attachment styles were assessed using postformal thought questionnaires and an attachment style scale. It was predicted that individuals with secure attachment styles would exhibit higher levels of postformal thought ability than individuals with anxious–ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles. It was also predicted that the three postformal tests would have equivalent results. Results indicated that attachment and postformal thought were not related and that the three measures of postformal thought were equivalent. Results are discussed in terms of the relationship between attachment styles and individuals’ abilities to perform complex problem-solving tasks and/or dilemmas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Oxford: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Arslan, E., Arslan, C., & Ari, R. (2012). An investigation of interpersonal problem solving approaches with respect to attachment styles. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 12(1), 15–23.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125–143. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bpg015.
Benovenli, L., Fuller, E., Sinnott, J., & Waterman, S. (2011). Three applications of the theory of postformal thought: Wisdom, concepts of God, and success in college. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 141–154.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. c1973.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. doi:10.1080/10478400701598298.
Cartwright, K. B., Galupo, M. P., Tyree, S. D., & Jennings, J. G. (2009). Reliability and validity of the complex postformal thought questionnaire: Assessing adults’ cognitive development. Journal of Adult Development, 16(3), 183–189. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9055-1.
Commons, M., Armon, C., Kohlberg, L., Richards, F., Grotzer, T., & Sinnott, J. D. (Eds.). (1989). Beyond formal operations III: Models and methods in the study of adult and adolescent thought. New York: Praeger.
Commons, M. L. (2008). Introduction to the model of hierarchical complexity and its relationship to postformal action. World Futures, 64, 305–320.
Cordon, S. L., Brown, K. W., & Gibson, P. R. (2009). The role of mindfulness-based stress reduction on perceived stress: Preliminary evidence for the moderating role of attachment style. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 258–269. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.23.3.258.
Deniz, M. E. (2011). An investigation of decision making styles and the five-factor personality traits with respect to attachment styles. Kuram Ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 11(1), 105–113.
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1994). Positive affect improves creative problem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18(4), 285–299. doi:10.1007/BF02856470.
Galupo, M. P., Cartwright, K. B., & Savage, L. S. (2010). Cross-category friendships and postformal thought among college students. Journal of Adult Development, 17(4), 208–214. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9089-4.
Giannini, M., Gori, A., De Sanctis, E., & Schuldberg, D. (2011). Attachment in psychotherapy: Psychometric properties of the psychological treatment inventory attachment styles scale (PTI-ASS). Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 21(4), 363–381. doi:10.1037/a0025461.
Greenberger, E., & McLaughlin, C. S. (1998). Attachment, coping, and explanatory style in late adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27(2), 121–139. doi:10.1023/A:1021607627971.
Griffin, J., Gooding, S., Semesky, M., Farmer, B., Mannchen, G., & Sinnott, J. (2009). Four brief studies of relations between postformal thought and non-cognitive factors: Personality, concepts of god, political opinions, and social attitudes. Journal of Adult Development, 16(3), 173–182. doi:10.1007/s10804-009-9056-0.
Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits. A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35–43.
Hofstadter, D. R. (1979). Godel, Escher and Bach: An eternal golden braid. New York: Basic Books.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1122–1131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122.
Isen, A. M., Johnson, M. M., Mertz, E., & Robinson, G. F. (1985). The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1413–1426. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413.
Johnson, L. (1991). Bridging paradigms: The role of a change agent in an international technical transfer project. In J. Sinnott & J. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive aging (pp. 59–72). New York: Praeger.
Johnson, L. (1994). Nonformal adult learning in international development projects. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning (pp. 203–217). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Johnson, L. (2004). Postformal thinking in the workplace. Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59(1), 135–146. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.ep10514122.
Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: Attachment in private and public life (p. 1996). London; New York: Routledge.
Mikulincer, M., & Sheffi, E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to positive affect: A test of mental categorization and creative problem solving. Motivation & Emotion, 24(3), 149–174.
Rogers, D. B., Sinnott, J. D., & van Dusen, L. (1991). Marital adjustment and social cognitive performance in everyday logical problem solving. Paper presented at the Sixth Adult Development Conference, Boston, MA.
Sinnott, J. D. (1981). The theory of relativity: A metatheory for development? Human Development, 24, 293–311.
Sinnott, J. D. (1984). Postformal reasoning: The relativistic stage. In M. Commons, F. Richards & C. Armon (Eds.), Beyond formal operations (pp. 298–325). New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. (1989a). Changing the known, knowing the changing. In D. Kramer & M. Bopp (Eds.), Transformation in clinical and developmental psychology (pp. 51–69). New York: Springer.
Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.). (1989b). Everyday problem-solving: Theory and applications. New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. & Johnson, L. (l996). Reinventing the university: A radical proposal for a problem focused university. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sinnott, J. D. (1990). Yes, it’s worth the trouble. Unique contributions from everyday cognition studies. Paper presented at the Twelfth West Virginia University Conference on Lifespan Developmental Psychology: Mechanisms of Everyday Cognition, Morgantown, WV.
Sinnott, J. D. (1991a). Conscious adult development: Complex thought and solving our intragroup conflicts. Invited presentation, Sixth Adult Development Conference. Boston: Suffolk University.
Sinnott, J. D. (1991b). Limits to problem-solving: Emotion, intention, goal clarity, health, and other factors in Postformal thought. In J. D. Sinnott & J. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Bridging paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive aging. New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D. (1993a). Teaching in a chaotic new physics world: Teaching as a dialogue with reality. In P. Kahaney, J. Janangelo & L. Perry (Eds.), Theoretical and critical perspectives on teacher change (pp. 91–108). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sinnott, J. D. (1993b). Use of complex thought and resolving intragroup conflicts: A means to conscious adult development in the workplace. In J. Demick & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Development in the workplace (pp. 155–175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sinnott, J. D. (1994a). Development and yearning: Cognitive aspects of spiritual development. Journal of Adult Development, 1, 91–99.
Sinnott, J. D. (1994b). Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sinnott, J. D. (1994c). New science models for teaching adults: Teaching as a dialogue with reality. In J. D. Sinnott (Ed.), Interdisciplinary handbook of adult lifespan learning (pp. 90–104). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Sinnott, J. D. (1996). The developmental approach: Postformal thought as adaptive intelligence. In F. Blanchard-Fields & T. Hess (Eds.), Perspectives on cognitive change in adulthood and aging (pp. 358–383). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sinnott, J. D. (1997). Brief report: Complex postformal thought in skilled research administrators. Journal of Adult Development, 4(1), 45–53.
Sinnott, J. D. (1998a). Creativity and postformal thought. In C. Adams-Price (Ed.), Creativity and aging: Theoretical and empirical approaches. New York: Springer.
Sinnott, J. D. (1998b). New patterns: Creating the multinational problem focused university. In R. Carneiro (Ed.), Educacao e sociedade (pp. 160–192). Lisbon: Gulbenkian Foundation.
Sinnott, J. D. (1998c). Development of logic in adulthood: Postformal Thought and its applications. New York: Plenum.
Sinnott, J. D. (2000). Cognitive aspects of unitative states: Spiritual self-realization, intimacy, and knowing the unknowable. In M. E. Miller & A. N. West (Eds.), Spirituality, ethics, and relationship in adulthood: Clinical and theoretical explorations (pp. 177–198). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.
Sinnott, J. D. (2003a). Postformal thought and adult development: Living in balance. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti (Eds.), Adult development. New York: Plenum.
Sinnott, J. D. (2003b). Spirituality, development and healing: Lessons from several cultures. Paper presented at Loyola College Midwinter Conference on Religion and Spirituality, Columbia, MD.
Sinnott, J. D. (2003c). Teaching as nourishment for complex thought. In N. L. Diekelmann (Ed.), Teaching the practitioners of care: New pedagogies for the health professions (pp. 232–271). Interpretive studies in healthcare and the human services series. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Sinnott, J. D. (2004a). Learning as a humanistic dialogue with reality; new theories that help us teach the whole person: Context of learning and complex thought: Implications for modern life. In T. Hagestrom (Ed.), Stockholm lectures: Adult development and working life (pp. 78–108). Stockholm: University of Stockholm Press.
Sinnott, J. D. (2004b). Learning as a humanistic dialogue with reality; new theories that help us teach the whole person: Context of learning and complex thought: Implications for modern life. Invited monograph, Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm
Sinnott, J. D. (2004c). Learning as a humanistic dialogue with reality; new theories that help us teach the whole person: Complex postformal thought and its relation to adult learning, life span development, and the new sciences. Invited monograph, Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm.
Sinnott, J. D. (2005). The dance of the transforming self: Both feelings of connection and complex thought are needed for learning. In M. A. Wolf (Ed.), Adulthood, new terrain, new directions (pp. 27–38). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sinnott, J. D. (2006). Spirituality as “feeling connected with the transcendent”: Outline of a transpersonal psychology of adult development of self. Religion, Spirituality, and the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 287–308.
Sinnott, J. D. (2010). Coherent themes: Individuals’ relationships with God, and their early childhood experiences, bonds with significant others, and relational delusions during psychotic episodes have common existential and relational themes. Journal of Adult Development, 17(4), 230–244.
Sinnott, J. D. (Ed.). (2013). Positive psychology: Advances in understanding adult motivation. New York: Springer Publishing.
Sinnott, J. D. (2014). Adult development: Cognitive aspects of thriving close relationships. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinnott, J. D., & Berlanstein, D. (2006). The importance of feeling whole: Learning to “feel connected”, community, and adult development. In C. H. Hoare (Ed.), Oxford handbook of adult development and learning (pp. 381–406). New York: Oxford U. Press.
Sinnott, J. D., & Cavanaugh, J. (Eds.) (l991). Bridging paradigms: Positive development in adulthood and cognitive aging. New York: Praeger.
Sinnott, J. D., Hilton, S., Wood, M., Spanos, E., & Topel, R., (2015). Does motivation affect emerging adults’ intelligence and complex problem solving? Journal of Adult Development, 22. doi:10.1007/s10804-015-9222-5.
Thompson, R. A., & Raikes, H. A. (2003). Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and methodological challenges for attachment theory. Development and Psychopathology, 15(3), 691–718. doi:10.1017/S0954579403000348.
Wolf, F. A. (l981). Taking the quantum leap. New York: Harper & Row.
Yan, B. (l995). Nonabsolute/relativistic (N/R) thinking: A possible unifying commonality underlying models of Postformal reasoning. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Yan, B., & Arlin, P. K. (l995). Non-absolute/relativistic thinking: A common factor underlying models of postformal reasoning? Journal of Adult Development, 2, 223–240.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix
Measures
Questionnaire
Please read each statement carefully and then select whether or not the statement holds true for you at all. Please circle the corresponding number (1: strongly disagree—7: strongly agree) for how much the statement holds true for you.
New example of interview dilemma and questions, originally in Spanos email.
You are near a train track and you see a train coming from the East with four little children playing on the tracks. You notice a lever you can pull to send the train down a different track, saving the four children. But on that different track, on a bridge, are your two best friends who have been hiking with you. They will be hit by the train if you pull that lever to redirect the train.
Questions: (add follow-ups).
Would you redirect the train?
What is the pragmatic/practical thing to do?
Is there a paradox or contradiction here?
What is the theoretical way to solve this problem? The practical way?
Is there more than one solution?
Is there more than one method that will solve this problem?
What are your goals in working with this problem?
What is the “best” way to solve this problem?
Are there things that you would or would not consider to be “part of this problem”?
How do you define the problem here?
Is there some general way or rule for solving problems like this, as well as a concrete solution to the problem?
Scales and Scoring
Coding and Scoring Guidelines for Interviews or Open-ended Items
Having access to any of these operations is evidence that the participant is shifting systems of logical reality to some degree. The degree of Postformal thought shown by the participant is based on the nine different operations that follow. Each operation is one potential indicator of the use of postformal thought by the participant. In addition to defining how to code these nine operations, the scoring system is explained, and examples are given in order to clarify the coding and scoring system. The coding and scoring usually is recorded on a postformal reasoning score sheet.
Problem Definition
The coder should briefly indicate how the participant has defined the problem, listing the definitions. In defining the problem, the participant states or clearly implies that he/she is defining the problem in a given way, perhaps either as being a math problem and/or as a social relations problem. This is a labeling of problem type. It is possible for the participant to indicate zero, one, or more ways of defining the problem. Problem definition is one potential indicator that the participant can shift logics.
Scoring
Defining the problem in two or more ways gives the participant a total of one point toward “being postformal” on the tally for this problem and/or on the tally across all problems. Therefore, the coder counts the definitions and enters the total number. If the number is two or more, one point can be added to the total postformal score, either for this problem or for the tally for all problems.
Metatheory Shift
Metatheory shift by the participant takes place when she/he clearly indicates that it is possible to define the approach to the problem in more than one major way, i.e., in an “abstract” manner and in a “practical” manner. Both terms are defined in a standard dictionary sense. Two or more practical definitions of the problem (or more than one abstract definition), a situation which would have sufficed to get points for “problem definition”, does not constitute a metatheory shift becase metatheory shift demands a larger paradigm shift. The participant either voices that the problem might be solved in more than one way or actually solves the problem in more than one way, showing this major shift. The participant, therefore, is “labelling his or her logic” by stating that there is more than one way to look at the problem, either claiming it for abstract logic or for practical logic. The issue is whether or not the participant can shift between two different logics with different and contradictory implications for the solution of the problem.
Scoring
The coder simply decides “yes” or “no” in this portion, after listing the metatheory(ies) used. If the score is “yes”, the participant is given a point toward “being postformal” on the tally for this problem and/or on the tally across all problems.
Parameter Setting
Parameter setting involves the limiting aspects of the problem situation that are voiced by the participant or very clearly implied in the plan of attack used during problem solving. These may be any limits or any variables that are set and/or used by a participant to describe the conceptual space in which the solution will be worked out. However, the larger dimensions of the logic and metatheory, or of the overall definition of the problem, may be taken for granted and left unstated during this (lower-level) parameter setting. The participant is deciding the (lower-level) rules of the problem-solving game. The parameters mentioned by the participant may be taken directly from the wording of the problem or may be added to the wording by the participant. Parameter setting must go beyond the mere reading of the problem, however. Parameter setting implies that the participant can increase and decrease the problem space in which the logic of the problem can then be worked out.
Scoring
The parameters that are expressed or clearly implied by the participant’s attack on the problem are listed and counted. The listing of two or more parameters gives the participant one point toward “being postformal” either for the tally for this problem or for the tally across all problems.
Multiple Goals
The coder should briefly list the goal(s) that the participant has indicated. Goals may be stated verbally by the participant or may be implied by a clearly and narrowly defined approach to the solution. What is the point or goal the participant is trying to achieve? What is/are the participant’s stopping point(s) after which he/she considers the problem “solved” (by any definition)? These are the goals. Stating multiple goals implies that the participant can make use of more than one logic about the problem.
Scoring
The goals are listed and totaled. The participant also is given a point for two or more goals. This point may be added to the postformal tally for this problem, or to the tally across all problems.
Multiple Methods
The coder needs to list briefly the methods that the participant has used to solve the problem. The methods are the general processes and/or the heuristic that have been used to reach a solution. These method(s) are general in nature so that they could be applied to any number of problems. For example, things such as formulae, multiplication, and addition are methods. General methods also include, for example, “seeking family counseling”, “keeping the older person happy”, and “putting foods together which taste good when eaten together”. Sometimes “finding a method or a process that works in a lot of situations” is a goal, too, in the context of the operations called “process/product shift” (see below) and “multiple goals” (see below), because the participant considers the problem “solved” when a good method has been found. As before, using several methods to get to the same end implies the ability to shift logics and commit to one.
Scoring
The methods are listed, and the total number of them is noted. If two or more are listed, a score of one postformal point is given for this operation. This point may be added to the tally of postformal points for this problem, and/or to the tally across all problems.
Process/Product Shift
For process/product shift to be said to occur, there must be a shift in the type of solutions offered. With reference to those solutions provided, there must be at least one general process that is clearly seen as providing, in and of itself, a solution to the given problem. Therefore, in addition to a solution applicable to any of this sort of problem, similarly defined, there is at least one specific solution that would only apply to this particular given problem. So the participant with process/product shift both (1) has clearly indicated the ability to define the solutions to a problem both in the sense of a generally applicable process and in the sense of providing a specific “product” solution, and (2) has shown the ability to shift between these two types of “solutions”, one a process and one a specific contexted product. This ability implies the ability to select logics.
Scoring
The two different types of solution should be written down by the coder. The coder needs to decide either “yes” or “no” as to the presence of the operation. A “yes” gives one more Postformal point on the tally for this problem, and/or on the tally across all problems. Simply having a method and an answer is not sufficient (together or alone) for getting a process/product point.
Multiple Solutions
A solution is the answer that lets the participant reach her/his goal and stop solving the problem. If the participant acts as if he/she completed the process and reached a goal, but yet failed to voice the solution directly, it may be necessary for the coder to examine what the participant said or wrote. For example, the participant may have written down pairs of letters on the ABC pairs problem, yet failed to voice a specific number of pairs, after which it is clear that this array is viewed by the participant as “the solution”. Yet if the number of pairs is on the scratch sheet, and the participant said he or she had reached a solution, this constitutes a solution. Creating multiple solutions implies that the participant can manipulate more than one logic.
Scoring
The coder lists all the solutions that are voiced and/or indicated, and totals their number. If the total is two or more, the participant receives a point toward the Postformal tally for this problem, and/or for the tally for all the problems in the aggregate.
Pragmatism
For pragmatism to be found, the participant must have indicated more than one solution and then have chosen a best solution or a “clear winner” from the solutions given, thus permitting him or her to more on to the next problem. There must be evidence that the participant was able to make a choice between these competing solutions or realities and, having made a choice, was then able to move forward. This implies access to postformal logic. Pragmatism in this application differs slightly from the usual definition of pragmatism found in the dictionary.
Scoring
The coder indicates “yes” or “no”. A “yes” code gives the participant one point toward “being Postformal” on the tally for a single problem or on the tally across all problems.
Paradox
Paradox, as an operation of Postformal thought, is defined as a seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. In this operation, the participant has noted that there is a contradiction present in the apparently simultaneous demands of the problem for (for example) simply looking for a mathematical solution and simultaneously creating a solution applicable to the real world. The participant appears to understand that there is a “double bind” quality to the demands of the problem. Often this brings out the participant’s sense of humor. Awareness pf paradox implies awareness of multiple logical contradictory realities.
Scoring
The coder scores a “yes” or a “no” for paradox on this problem. The participant is given a point for “being postformal” if he or she obtains a “yes.” The point may then be included in the tally for this problem or th.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sinnott, J., Tobin, E., Chrzanowska, E. et al. The Relationship Between Attachment Style and Postformal Thought. J Adult Dev 24, 239–251 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-017-9262-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-017-9262-0