“Can’t Buy me Love? Anxious Attachment and Materialistic Values”: A Critical Evaluation
Hampson and Coleman (1995) have proposed that one of the most important ways in which psychology differs from the natural sciences is on the basis of individual differences. Unlike chemicals, there are no two people who can be considered to be the same; not the so called identical twins because when subjected to similar stimuli, they respond quite differently. This forms the basis of personality and individual differences in psychology, which looks into responses of people in similar situations under the introduction of a state or variable (Noel et al., 2006). Among the complexities that call for detailed analysis is the rationale behind social relationships; such as friendship and romantic relationships. While appearances are thought to play a significant role during the first stages of relationships, they have little to do with maintaining it (Heider, 1958). Culture, the influence of experience, individual differences, and interactions are factors that cannot be ignored as impacting on relationships (Mitchell, 1996). However, research has also found associations between social relationship styles and theoretically unrelated concepts: For example, anxious attachment is suggested to be influenced by materialistic values (Noel, et al, 2006).
The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the article that reports the study of Norris, Lambert, De wall and Fincham’s (2012) study which explores anxious attachment and materialistic values in relationship through two study experiments presented within the same research paper. The study will be summarizsed, emphasizsing the analysis techniques as well as sampling processes which are the major determinant to the conclusions of the article. The findings and discussion will also be evaluated as they are the ends of the procedures and their comparison with those of similar studies elsewhere, as well as with the theories postulated in this area.
Theis reviewed study explored the possibility that the threat of rejection may motivate anxiously attached people to seek substitute attachments, by substituting social relationships for relationships with materialistic items (Norris et al., 2012). To achieve the purpose, two studies were conducted with the first study being divided into two parts. The first involved 61 undergraduate from Midwestern University, 50 0of whom were women in romantic relationships and were aged between 18 and 29. They answered questions on the (ECR –R) with respect to their current romantic relationship and later completed a measure on materialism. In the first study the conclusion was presented that anxious attachment is associated with greater materialism (Norris et al., 2012).
The second part of the initial Norris et al. (2012) study was a replication of the first part with a larger sample and without restriction of people in romantic relationships: cClose relationships were also used. The finding provided more evidence of associations between anxious attachment and materialism; however, this was not only for those in relationships but the student population at large. The possible reason brought forward by Norris et al. was that anxiously attached people developed relationship with material goods in an attempt to make up for lack of stable meaningful social relationship with people.
The second study conducted by Norris et al. (2012) used a sample of 153 students who were in close or romantic relationship (with a majority of 93 of whom were women aged between 18 and 26). They completed measures of materialism, the 8-item version of UCLA Loneliness scale, and short form ECR –R measure of adult attachment with respect to their current relationship. Norris et al. found out that loneliness may be implicated in mediating associations between anxious attachment and materialism. The reverse was not true as materialism did not mediate relationship between anxious attachment and loneliness (Norris et al., 2012).
On the question whether people can buy the love they desire, Norris et al. (2012) concludes that anxious attachment predicts greater materialistic values. Those anxiously attached may develop materialistic values in order to replace bonds with people for those with objects and loneliness may mediate the relationship between materialism and attachment (Norris et al., 2012). Therefore, according to Norris et al., given that the pursuit is extrinsic, goals related to materialism can come at the expense of those associated with formation and maintenance of social bond in close or romantic relationship and materialistic individual may end up lonelier.
Looking at the studies conducted, consistency is noted in the use of correlation which is suitable when two variables are in consideration. In either of the studies, the relationship between anxious attachment and materialism is investigated with the level of relationship varying from romantic to close relationship (Norris et al., 2012). The inclusion of loneliness would be to represent the negative extreme end of a relationship which would result with rejection (Heider, 1958) as a threat that was used as an intervening variable. However, as put forward by Kashy (2005), it is possible that the impact of materialism is a small element of the reasons behind a romantic or close relationship (Heider, 1958). However, the subjects could not answer other possible reasons and motives as they were beyond the scope of the study. Therefore, people could have reasons with weightier impacts upon relationship substitutions than materialism (Kashy, 2005).
Norris et al. (2012) varied the size of the sample and the criteria that qualified individuals into the sample. Norris et al. did not only consider those in romantic relationships but also those in close relationship and later school at large in making conclusions. The study, however, was conducted in one university and inferences drawn regarding the students may not be generalisable to the general population.
Materialism would have different impacts in different communities of the world depending on what each holds as important (Tice, 1990). Courage would be considered more material than property possession in some communities living in jungle which is contrary to others that value money and other property as important. Culture may determine how anxious attachment be influenced by materialism (Mitchell, 1996; Tice, 1990). Although the correlation may remain significantly positive in almost all the cases, it may vary in terms of magnitude; while some have strong correlation others especially from different region and culture would show some variations. This is a limitation which Norris et al. did not mention giving the study a narrow scope.
The samples were also made up of majority women (Norris et al., 2012), which may have subjected the research findings to gender effects. This means that most of the responses made were from female perspective and less by men. Whether there is an association between anxious attachment and materialistic values in both women and men may not be sufficiently proven because of their small number in the samples.
The findings of Norris et al. (2012) are that people who are anxiously attached yearn for social connection and remain vigilant for signs of rejection. Anxious attachment is suggested to be potentially satisfied by greater materialistic values (Norris et al., 2012). Since inadequate social bonds causes the feeling of loneliness (Russell, 1996), it was found out that such loneliness may be causal to higher urge for greater materialism. Such findings are also supported by concepts of the need to belong theory (Tice, 1990), and Anderson et al. (1994), who states that loneliness leads to a feeling of inadequacy which makes a person approach others shyly. To make up for the inadequacy feeling, such a person would turn to materiality to boot his or her confidence.
In explaining their findings, Norris et al. (2012) admit that attachment security is multifaceted and influenced by early life experiences and therefore hard to manipulate using experiment as the study attempted. This is in line with the observation of Hampson and Colman (1995) who appreciate the differences among individuals and therefore the difficulty of subjecting them to experiments. However, Norris et al., explain that people take on materialism to increase feelings of security. The study also projects that such persons tend to develop hoarding behaviours with over time – a disorder which is considered obsessive-compulsive (Anderson et al., 1994).
The article provided evidence supporting the relationship between attachment and materialistic values and also adds to the number of social and psychological benefits of boosting attachment security to those earlier suggested by prior research (e.g., Mickulincer & Shaver, 2007). It can also be seen as setting the pace for future studies especially those that will investigates areas of relationships. The future studies should, however, consider this association in various communities to explore cultural differences.
The Norris et al.’s (2012) study had a well laid out design and technique. The first part of the initial study provided findings for a simple situation and then replicated in a more complex study as the second part. The age bracket of the respondents was also well selected especially because the young people are arguably the ones getting into more relationships and therefore, whatever motivates them could be determined. Older people despite having been in relationships have different views which would not reflect the associations between anxious attachment and materialism; for instance, married people’s relationship is independent of presence of materialistic values (Noel et al., 1958).
In conclusion, it is worth to note that although Norris et al. (2012) concluded that the relationship between the anxious attachment and materialistic values is positively correlated, the significance of the study is reduced because only trends were considered while ignoring causal associations between them. It would have been appropriate if the study incorporated analyseis of other factors, cultures, and experiences to determine the cause of the prevailing associations. The sample selected, although it was sufficient in terms of size, it is not adequately inclusive because it leaves representative of those outside the target university out of analysis yet the findings are generalizsed for the entire population. The study concurred with previous literature and therefore provided an informed discussion. Finally the conclusion was well arrived at after considering the empirical and secondary findings. Future research should focus on investigating the consistency of this study’s findings in other regions of the world to ensure that it is not applicable to a given community. Results from such studies will inform a general statement that anxious attachment predicts higher materialistic values (Norris, 2012).
References
Anderson, C.A., Miller, R.S., Riger, A.L.,Dill, J.C., and Sedikides, C. (1994). Behavioral and characterological attributional styles as predictors of depression and lonleliness: Review, refinement, and test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 549-558
Hampson, S and Colman, A. (1995). Individual differences and personality. London: Longman publishers.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of personal relationships. New York: John Wiley and Sons
Kashy, D. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and support in romantic relationships: The role of attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 514–529.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Security-based self-representations in adulthood: Contents and processes. New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications.
Mitchell, K. A. (1996). Attraction and attachment: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personality Relationships, 6:121-138
Noel, L., Kuo, S., Abraham, K., & Linz, H. (2006). Materialism and well-being: The role of social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 463–470.
Norris, J.I., Lambert, N.M., DeWall, C.N., & Fincham, F.D. (2012) Can't buy me love?:
Anxious attachment and materialistic values. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53, 666-669. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.009
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66: 23–41.
Tice., D (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 9: 165-171
