Attachment and grit: exploring possible contributions of attachment styles (from past and present life) to the adult personality construct of grit.
Levy, Jaclyn M. ; Steele, Howard
Introduction
A newly conceptualized personality trait known as grit (Duckworth
et al., 2007) has been recently validated to have significant long-term
impacts on perseverance and resolve. Past research surrounding grit has
focused largely on its relation to the 'Big Five'
Consciousness as applied to trainees at the West Point, a U.S. Military
Academy. Grit studies thus far (Duckworth, 2007) have been informative
and illuminating; however, the questions as to what attributes or
elements are likely to create the 'gritty individual' have not
yet been systematically investigated, even in a correlational design
such as that which informed the current report. Grit is defined as
"perseverance and passion for long-term goals"-(Duckworth
2007). Because personality is largely formed during the years of
attachment, it is imperative that such a relationship is explored in
depth. The present research on the correlation between
childhood-attachment styles and grit has yielded dynamic results.
Fundamental connections have been observed which may help bridge the
gaps concerning the process and formation of this newly identified
personality characteristic. This study will examine the research and
address the links between grit and attachment styles.
Literature Review
Duckworth et al., (2007) questioned why some individuals accomplish
more than others of equal intelligence. They postulated that certain
characteristics (cognitive ability, creativity, vigor, emotional
intelligence, charisma, self-confidence, emotional stability &
physical attractiveness) are likely characteristics of high achieving
individuals. Additionally, they suggested that some of the 'Big
Five' dimensions might be relevant and necessary for some careers
but not others (ex. extraversion for a salesperson, though, irrelevant
to a creative writer). Might there be a more-or-less separate 6th
dimension of personality that is associated with success across a wide
range of careers?
Pioneering researchers, Duckworth et al., (2007) thought so, and
introduced the concept of grit. Grit is defined as "perseverance
and passion for long-term goals" (Duckworth 2007, p. 1087).
According to Duckworth et al., (2007) grit entails working persistently
toward challenges, upholding effort and concentration over years
throughout hardships, setbacks and stagnancy. Gritty individuals view
achievement as a long-term process; their lead is endurance,
determination and stamina. Disappointment and/or boredom may indicate to
many that is it time to modify one's trajectory, whereas gritty
persons continue on track (Duckworth et al., 2007). Gritty individuals
sustain this effort and concentration over many years despite
disappointments, failures and hardships while in development of their
goal. The gritty individual characteristically finishes tasks at hand
and pursues long-term goals.
Thus, Duckworth et al. (2007) ascertained a two-factor structure
for a 12-item self-report measure of grit. This configuration was
consistent with the premise of grit as a multifarious trait encompassing
stamina in dimensions of interest and effort (Duckworth et al., 2007).
They observed that grit was distributed and shared by the most prominent
and successful leaders in every field.
Although all of these findings are imperative, critical and
pertinent, searching for the underlying factors of success is of equal
importance. The purpose of this study was to explore and determine some
likely foundations of grit, enlarging the focus from the individual
personality to his or her thoughts and feelings about close personal
relationships in the past (childhood) and in the present (vis-a-vis
romantic adult relationships).
Adults' recollections of their childhood relations with
parents
Retrospectively, many adults with anxiety disorders report a
childhood of affectionless control, comprised of coldness and
overprotective parent behavior (Gerlsma et al., 1990). Might it be that
the kind of parenting one receives, or experiences, is an influence upon
the amount of grit the child and later adult will have? Anxiety in
childhood is certainly a distressing condition, which affects both
academic and social functioning (Pine, 1997). Clinical anxiety is found
to be one of the most common psychiatric problems experienced by
school-aged children (Bell-Dolan & Brazeal, 1993; Bowen et al.,
1990; Schniering et al., 2000). Some studies have found a relationship
between parenting behavior and childhood anxiety (e.g., Whaley et al.,
1999). Jordi& Alonso (2008) found that a lack of care from mother is
related to all types of anxiety disorders as well as excessive maternal
overprotection. In a study of 2699 adolescents (11-20 years) recruited
from community high schools located in a variety of counties,
adolescents who reported more parental nurturance and acceptance tended
to be rated by their parents and teachers as less anxious than did
adolescents who reported less nurturance (Scott et al., 1991). These
combined, are fundamentally associated with all of the different
pathologies related to anxiety. Regarding parental overprotection,
numerous studies suggest that it can have deleterious effects on the
developing child or adolescent, such as symptoms of depression,
oppositional behavior and externalizing behavior problems (Burbach et
al., 1989; Cappelli et al., 1989; Mayes, et al., 1988; McFarlane, 1987;
Miller, et al., 1992).
Studies of childhood anxiety have typically focused on its outcome
and its relationship to coping strategies (Whaley et al., 1999),
openness to socialization (Darling & Steinberg, 1993), social
anxiety and withdrawal (Rubin & Stewart, 1996), and parental
criticism and its relationship to perception of self (Wood et al.,
2003). Studies of parental overprotection have generally focused on
children with illnesses and disabilities (Thomasgard, et al., 1995;
Holmbeck, et al., 2002), however, little has focused on parental
overprotection and its possible result in terms of grit.
Searching for the outcomes of childhood anxiety and parental
overprotection is important, however, there is a gaping hole in the
research, being that most studies have examined anxiety and
overprotection outcomes in terms of emotionality and socialization. For
this study, examining childhood experiences of parental care and
parental overprotection, and its importance to current grit,
consistency, perseverance and ambition was deemed to be of central
importance. Thus, the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) was used to
detect past overprotection and anxiety. The PBI is the most widely used
questionnaire for assessing any parental contributions to a disorder(s)
(Parker, 1979). The development of the PBI focused on refining and
defining care and protection/control. These dimensions are said to be
central to theoretical elucidations about child development, and
additionally, low care and overprotection have been consistently
suggested as disposing the onset of most psychiatric conditions (Parker
1983). The PBI sufficed for measuring past bonding and relationships to
parents, however, current relationships were also of interest.
Adult Attachment Styles
Hazan and Shaver (1988) have been pioneers in the development of
the attachment theory approach to adult love relationships. In this
concept, differences in early social experiences construct generally
stable variations in relationship styles and the same three attachment
styles illustrated in the infant attachment literature (avoidance,
resistance/ambivalence, and security) are exhibited in adult romantic
love. Their view has presented theoretical and empirical evidence for
the relatedness of attachment style to romantic love (Hazan& Shaver,
1987). Over time, the social psychology literature as concerns adult
attachments has settled on two dimensions informing adults'
feelings and thoughts in close romantic relationships. These are
avoidance and anxiety, where being low on both of these dimensions is
equivalent to security. Research has specified that securely attached
individuals perform better than individuals with avoidant or
anxious-ambivalent attachment styles on several relationship variables;
commitment, dependency, fulfillment and the incidence of positive and
negative emotions experienced in relationships (Baldwin et al., 1996).
Individuals with high anxiety have been shown to worry about
abandonment, (Hazan& Shaver, 1987) yearn for emotional support,
closeness and reassurance from their romantic partners (Collins &
Read, 1990). These desires and worries provoke highly anxious persons to
monitor their partners and relationships closely for signs of scarce or
waning physical or emotional proximity (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994;
Simpson et al., 1999). Beyond being an emotional stressor, anxiety has
been proven to be a distracting factor, such as in test anxiety (Hodapp,
1991, 1995) and anxiety in childhood affects both academic and social
functioning (Pine, 1997).
Additionally, Collins & Feeney (2000) found that avoidant
attachment predicted ineffective support seeking. In conjunction, these
findings partially led to the hypothesis, that anxious and/or avoidant
individuals would be preoccupied by other thoughts, and also have a lack
of social support, thus would be distracted and unsupported from
attaining a larger goal and persevering.
Thus, the Adult Attachment Scale, (AAS) and the Experiences of
Close Relationships Scale-Short Form (ECR-S; Brennan, Clark &
Shaver, 1998) were used to examine and detect current attachment styles.
The AAS was developed by Collins & Reid (1990), which embarked on
the earlier work of Hazan& Shaver (1987) and Levy & Davis
(1988). This scale was developed by breaking down the original three
archetypal descriptions of attachment (Hazan& Shaver, 1987) into a
series of 21 items. The AAS measures dimensions of security, avoidance
and anxiety/ambivalence. Factor analysis of the results led to the
materialization of the three key factors that were interpreted by the
authors as 1) a capability to be close, 2) depend on others and 3)
anxiety over relationships. The ECR-S is another technique for assessing
individual differences in partner attachment (Brennan, et al., 1998).
This scale operationalizes adult close relationship attachment patterns
through subject's conscious beliefs in their close, partner
relationships. Through the ECR-S, attachment patterns are identified as
in close relationships as haven been 1) dismissing, 2) secure 3)
preoccupied and 4) fearful.
Hypothesis
It is hypothesized that 1) adults with positive memories (high
care, low overprotection) of their childhood relationships to parents,
will have higher grit scores and 2) individuals with adult romantic
relationships typified by less anxiety and less avoidance, and more
security, will have higher grit scores. It is assumed that these effects
will be additive in the sense that highest grit scores will be reported
by those adults with both (1) positive childhood memories; and (2)
secure adult attachment styles. Lowest grit scores should be evident in
those with memories of childhood that involve low care and high
interference, and high anxiety or high avoidance in the adulthood
styles. Intermediate scores in grit should hold for those with a mixed
picture (negative childhood/positive adulthood or positive
childhood/negative adulthood).
Method
Participants
4 self-report surveys were placed on the Internet through a portal
called "Surveymonkey.com." Participants were recruited
worldwide. They were recruited mostly via the Internet through social
networking sites such as Facebook.com, University subject pool sites,
such as "SonaSystems.com," and through class emails. However,
some participants were recruited by word of mouth, and filled out the
same survey, paper based. Participants also helped to recruit others by
sharing the link to the survey with family and friends.
In total, there were 263 participants, 227 who participated online
and 36 who participated on paper. Of those who completed the
demographics section, there were 171 Females and 62 males ranging from
ages 18-87. The average age was 25, and the most frequently recruited
was 21. In descending order, there were 193 Heterosexual, 16 not
otherwise specified, 15 Homosexual and 9 Bisexual participants. In terms
of Race, Culture and Ethnicity, there were 162 White/Caucasian, 42
Asian, 8 Hispanic and/or Latin American, 7 Mixed-race, 6 not otherwise
specified, 5 Black, 4 African, and 2 European. Geographically, there
were 206 from North America, 16 from mixed-locations (including Asia,
North America, New Zealand, Africa, Europe and the Middle East), 7 from
Asia, 4 from Europe, 2 from the Middle East, 1 from Central America and
1 from South America.
Procedure
Data collection was based on questionnaires. Student participants
who attended The New School were offered .5 research credits, and other
participants were offered the chance to enter a lottery for an iPod
mini. Participation was voluntary.
Measures
The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, 1983; Parker,
Tupling, & Brown, 1979), Experiences in Close Relationship
Scale-Short Form (ECR-S; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007),
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins & Read, 1990) and the Grit
Scale (Duckworth, & Quinn, 2009; Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews &
Kelly, 2007) were all administered. Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI)
The PBI is a self-administered 50-item questionnaire, distributing
25 identical questions for each parent. It measures subjectively
perceived parental quality during the first 16 years of life. The two
scales, 'care' and 'protection' are measured for
each parent. Care is broken down into two dimensions: 1) affection and
warmth, and 2) rejection, indifference and coldness. Similarly,
protection is also comprised of two parts: 1) parent control,
overprotection and intrusion and 2) promotion of independence. It is a
four-item Likert-type scale with values ranging from "very
unlike" to "very like.
Experiences in Close Relationships- Short Form (ECR-S)
The ECR-S is a 12-item questionnaire, designed to measure designed
to assess a general pattern of adult attachment, which scores for
anxiety and avoidance. Participants scored each of these items according
to how characteristic it was of them, using a seven-item Likert-type
scale with values ranging from "strongly disagree" to
"strongly agree."
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)
The AAS is a 21-item questionnaire, designed to measure dimensions
of security, avoidance and anxiety/ambivalence. Participants scored each
of these items according to how characteristic it was of them, using a
five-item Likert-type scale with values ranging from "not like me
at all" to "very much like me."
Grit Scale
The Grit Scale is a 17-item self-survey designed to measure
dimensions of Grit, specifically grit, consistency, perseverance, brief
grit and ambition. Participants scored each of these items according to
how characteristic it was of them, using a five-item Likert-type scale
with values ranging from "not like me at all" to "very
much like me."
Results
Results are presented in 11 sections, and 12 tables reflecting the
statistical results obtained from examining this study's
hypotheses.
In order to determine if a relationship existed between age and
variables on the Grit Scale, correlations were computed. These are shown
below in table 1.1
Table 1.1 shows that a significant positive correlation was found
between age and grit, (r = 0.18, p< 0.01). Furthermore, age was also
significantly positively correlated with perseverance, (r = 0. 13, p<
0.05) and with brief grit, (r = 0.21, p< 0.01). It was therefore
decided that age should be controlled for, entered at first step, in the
regression modeling predicting grit (see final section of results).
Mean scores were computed and compared to see if there were any
differences between online and paper-based surveys, and these results
are shown below in table 1.2
Table 1.2 shows that there were significant differences found in
perseverance, t(40.12) = -2.42, p< 0.05, exhibiting higher overall
perseverance scores through out the paper-based surveys as compared to
the surveys administered online.
T-tests were computed in order to determine if differences existed
between males and females with Grit (see table 1.3)
Table 1.3 shows that there were no differences found between
genders for the facets of the Grit scale, comprised of grit,
consistency, perseverance, brief grit, and ambition.
Correlations were computed in order to determine if there were any
relationships between Grit variables and past parental care depending on
the gender of the participant, and these results are shown below in
table 1.4.
Table 1.4 shows that for females, ambition was positively
correlated with PBI Mother Care (r = .23, p<. 01). Furthermore, high
PBI Care from Father was related to consistency (r = .16, p < .05).
Additionally, high Overprotection from Father was negatively correlated
with brief grit (r = -.16, p<. 05). On the other hand, the only
significant correlation for males was between PBI overprotection from
the Father and ambition (r = -.42, p<. 01). Given these few hints of
gender effects, it was decided to include gender in the first block of
regression models, along with age (see last section of results).
Correlations were computed in order to determine if there were any
significant relationships between Care and Overprotection from Mother
and/or Father in the first sixteen years of ones life and Grit. Results
are shown in table 2.
Table 2 shows that the more care one received from ones Mother
and/or Father (PBI), the higher the grit and ambition. Thus, grit was
significantly correlated to PBI Care from Mother (r = .14,p <.05) and
PBI Care from Father (r = .15,p <.05). Additionally, brief grit told
a similar story to PBI Care from Mother (r = .13,p < .05) and Father
(r = .15,p <.05). However, ambition was not related to PBI Care from
Father, but was significantly correlated to PBI Care from Mother (r =
.24,p <.01). On the other hand, consistency was significantly
correlated to PBI Care from Father (r = .18, p < .01).
Correlations were computed in order to determine if there were any
significant relationships between the components of the Grit scale and
ECR-S and AAS. These results are shown in table 3.
Table 3 shows that grit and ECR Anxiety were negatively correlated
(r = -.24, p < 0.01), as were consistency (r = -.30, p < 0.01) and
brief grit (r = -.24 p< 0.01). Thus, the more anxious one is, the
less grit they exhibit. Additionally, ECR Avoidance and grit shared a
negative correlation (r = -.18, p< 0.01). Likewise, consistency and
brief grit were negatively correlated with ECR Avoidance (r = -.16,
p< 0.01; r = -.18, p < 0.01, respectively). AAS Anxiety shared
similar negative correlations to grit (r = -.21, p< 0.01),
consistency (r =-.22, p < 0.01) and brief grit (r = -.23, p<
0.01).
Additive Model Hypothesis
In the first hierarchical regression, overall grit was entered as
the dependent variable (see Table 4.1).
Step one of the regression in table 4.1 examined the extent to
which age and gender linked up with overall grit. This first step
revealed that not gender, but age, significantly linked up with overall
grit [R.sup.2] = .035, F(2, 230) = 4.15,p< .05. Specifically, age was
found to be a significant predictor [beta] = .18, p< .01. The second
step of the regression added included those Parent-Bonding Instrument
variables that correlated significantly with overall grit in the
bivariate correlations, namely recalled levels of care from mother and
father. The addition of these variables significantly contributed to the
variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .027, [DELTA]F(4, 228) = 3.31, p<
.05. Specifically, PBI Care Mother (not Father) was a significant
predictor [beta] = .14, p< .05. In step three, current relationship
quality variables [ECR/AAS factors] were added to the model. These
variables also significantly strengthened the predictive power of the
model [DELTA]R2 = .12, [DELTA]F(7, 225) = 10.7, p< .01. In step
three, both ECR Anxiety ([beta] = -.26, p< .01) and ECR Avoidance
([beta] = -.17, p < .01) were significant predictors of grit.
In the second hierarchical regression, consistency was entered as
the dependent variable (see Table 4.2).
Step one of the regression in table 4.2 examined the extent to
which age and gender linked up with consistency. This first step
revealed that not gender, but age significantly linked up with
consistency, [R.sup.2] = .019, F(2, 230) = 2.22, p = .11. Specifically,
age was found to be a significant predictor [beta] = .14, p< .05. The
second step of the regression added those Parent-Bonding Instrument
variables including recalled levels of care from father, which
correlated significantly with consistency in the bivariate correlations.
The addition of these variables did not significantly contribute to the
variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .029, [DELTA]F(4, 226) = 1.71, p =
.15. However, age was still the only significant predictor, [beta] =
.15, p< .05. In step three, current relationship quality variables
[ECR/AAS factors] were added to the model. These variables did
significantly strengthen the predictive power of the model [DELTA]R2 =
.114, [DELTA]F(5, 221) = 6.04, p< .001. In step three, both ECR
Anxiety ([beta] = -.34, p< .001) and ECR Avoidance ([beta] = -.15, p
< .05) were significant predictors of consistency. Thus lower anxiety
and lower avoidance were each significant predictors of higher
consistency, with a weak trend effect of (older) age contributing as
well in the final model.
In the third hierarchical regression, consistency was entered as
the dependent variable (see Table 4.3).
This analysis differed from the previous in that administration
(paper versus online survey) was included as a predictor. Step one of
the regression in table 4.3 examined the extent to which age, gender,
and administration linked up with consistency. This first step suggested
that these variables as a package showed a trend toward linking up with
the dependent variable, [R.sup.2] = .028, F(3, 229) = 2.17,p = 0.09.
When examined individually, age was found to be a significant predictor
[beta] = .16, p< .05. The second step of the regression added those
Parent-Bonding Instrument variables, including recalled levels of care
from father, which correlated significantly with consistency in the
bivariate correlations. As in the previous regression analysis, the
addition of these variables did not significantly contribute to the
variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .060, [DELTA]F(4, 225) = 1.93, p =
.11. Age was still the only significant predictor of consistency [beta]
= .18, p< .05. In step three, current relationship quality variables
[ECR/AAS factors] were added to the model. These variables did
significantly strengthen the predictive power of the model [DELTA]R2 =
.18, [DELTA]F(5, 220) = 6.39, p< .001. In step three; in addition to
age ([beta] = .14, p< .05), administration ([beta] = -.14, p<
.05), as well as both ECR Anxiety ([beta] = -.35, p< .001) and ECR
Avoidance ([beta] = -.15, p < .05) were significant predictors of
consistency. This final model suggests that consistency was linked in an
additive way (as shown in Table 4.3) with (older) age, (lower) anxiety
and avoidance, and also answering the questions on paper as opposed to
online.
In the fourth hierarchical regression, brief grit was entered as
the dependent variable (see Table 4.4).
Step one of the regression in table 4.4 examined the extent to
which age and gender linked up with brief Grit. This first step revealed
that not gender, but age significantly linked up with brief grit
[R.sup.2] = .045, F(2, 230) = 5.38,p< .01. Specifically, age was
found to be a significant predictor [beta] = .20, p< .01. The second
step of the regression added included those Parent-Bonding Instrument
variables that correlated significantly with brief grit in the bivariate
correlations, namely recalled levels of care from mother and father. The
addition of these variables did not significantly contribute to the
variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .037, [DELTA]F(4, 226) = 2.25, p =
.065. Specifically, age was still the only significant predictor [beta]
= .23, p< .01. In step three, current relationship quality variables
[ECR/AAS factors] were added to the model. These variables did
significantly strengthen the predictive power of the model
[DELTa][R.sup.2] = .136, [DELTA]F(5, 221) = 7.65, p< .001. In step
three, age ([beta] = -.19, p< .01) as well as ECR Anxiety ([beta] =
-.23,p< .01) and ECR Avoidance ([beta] = -.25, p < .01) were
significant predictors of brief grit.
In the fifth hierarchical regression, ambition was entered as the
dependent variable (see Table 4.5).
Step one of the regression in table 4.5 examined the extent to
which age and gender linked up with ambition. This first step revealed
that neither gender or age significantly linked up with ambition
[R.sup.2] = .007, F(2, 230) = .808,[beta] = .447. The second step of the
regression added those Parent-Bonding Instrument variables, including
level of care from mother, which significantly correlated with ambition
in the bivariate correlations. The addition of these variables
significantly contributed to the variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .054,
[DELTA]F(4, 226) = 3.25,p< .05. Specifically, PBI Care Mother (not
Father) was a significant predictor [beta] = .23, p< .01. In step
three, current relationship quality variables [ECR/AAS factors] were
added to the model. These variables also significantly strengthened the
predictive power of the model [DELTA]R2 = .057, [DELTA]F(5, 221) = 2.86,
p < .05. In step three, PBI Care from Mother ([beta] = -.24, p <
.01) as well as both ECR Anxiety ([beta] = -.16, p< .05) and ECR
Avoidance ([beta] = .30, p < .01) were significant predictors of
ambition. Finally, some support for the additive model (where early as
well as current relationship factors contributed independently to the
outcome) were observed.
In the last hierarchical regression, perseverance was entered as
the dependent variable (see Table 4.6).
Step one of the regression in table 4.6 examined the extent to
which age and gender linked up with perseverance. This first step
revealed that neither gender or age significantly linked up with
perseverance [R.sup.2] = .020, F(2, 230) = 2.31, p = .101. The second
step of the regression added included those Parent-Bonding Instrument
variables. The addition of these variables didn't significantly
contribute to the variance of the model [DELTA]R2 = .021, [DELTA]F(4,
226) = 1.23, p = .30. However, age did become a significant predictor of
perseverance when these PBI variables were added, [beta] = .15,p
<0.05. In step three, current relationship quality variables [ECR/AAS
factors] were added to the model. These variables did not significantly
strengthen the predictive power of the model [DELTA]R2 = .037,
[DELTA]F(5, 221) = 1.75, p = .12. However, ECR Avoidance ([beta] = -.16,
p < .05) was a significant predictor of perseverance. Given that the
increase in R-squared at this final step was not significant, it would
appear that perseverance is an aspect of grit not strongly linked to the
attachment variables considered.
Discussion
Firstly, it was hypothesized that adults with positive memories
(high care, low overprotection) of their childhood relationships to
parents would have higher Grit scores. Secondly, it was hypothesized
that individuals with adult romantic relationships characterized by less
anxiety, less avoidance, and more security, would also have higher Grit
scores. It was assumed that these effects could be additive in the sense
that highest grit scores would be reported by those adults with both (1)
positive childhood memories; and (2) secure adult attachment styles.
This was the first study to explore the relationship between Grit and
attachment styles, therefore, there are many notable findings.
Consistent with the hypotheses, the links between parental care and
the facets of the Grit scale, it was found that high grit scores were
significantly linked to high past mother and father care. Additionally,
high care from mother was shown to be a significant predictor of grit.
Brief grit performed similarly, in that it was significantly linked to
high care from mother and father. Generally, it may be possible that
early care fuels one's ability to cope and therefore may contribute
to the development of grit. These findings are also concurrent with past
research, insofar as individuals who received high care from parents
often fare better. For example, individuals with high parental care
generally experience secure attachments with caregivers and close
partners (Smith & Pederson 1988; Isabella 1993; Ward & Carlson
1995; Van Ijzendoorn& De Wolf 1997; Braungart-Rieker et al. 2001;
Coppola et al. 2006) thus, yielding positive emotional and social
development (Landry et al. 2000; Kivijarvi et al.2004), satisfactory
cognitive development (Landry et al. 2000) and obedience between the age
of 15-31 months (Lehman et al. 2002).
Moreover, consistency was significantly related to past care from
father, but not mother, and was also related to female consistency, but
not male consistency. Contrastingly, ambition was linked to high care
from mother, but not father, and was linked to female ambition, but not
male ambition. In addition, high care from mother was a significant
predictor for ambition. It is incredibly curious as to why females only
responded to high parental care, yielding higher grit scores. Could it
be that care from mom, security and positive memories may support ego
functioning, and thus are found to be important in developing grit?
Kobak and Sceery (1988) proposed that securely attached individuals
are expected to deal with psychological distress by acknowledging it as
well as engaging in constructive action to reduce distress. Individuals
with high parental care and thus, secure attachment, are said to have
low anxiety and avoidance dimensions, and therefore, cope well with
stress by either seeking support from attachment figures or by recalling
mental demonstrations of support received in the past (Mikulincer and
Shaver, 2003). In support of the first hypothesis, secure relationships
with peers are related to adaptation to college, academic achievement,
college retention rates and well being among college students (Abby et
al. 1985; Brooks and DuBois 1995; Fass and Tubman 2002; Zea et al.
1995). This finding alone helped to pave the way for the primary
hypothesis, however, in conjunction; these findings help to possibly
explain why high parental care, as expected, was significantly linked to
various factors in the Grit Scale.
Although attachment security is related to low anxiety and low
avoidance, and attachment anxiety and avoidance were negatively
correlated with the Grit Scale parts, it is curious as to why secure
attachment styles on the ECR-S and AAS were not related to or predictors
of any facets of the Grit Scale. What is more, high care from mother and
father were significantly correlated with the Grit Scale, and as
mentioned earlier, individuals with high parental care generally
experience secure attachments (Smith & Pederson 1988; Isabella 1993;
Ward & Carlson 1995; Van Ijzendoorn& De Wolf 1997;
Braungart-Rieker et al. 2001; Coppola et al. 2006). Also, secure
attachment to parents is found to be related to lower levels of anxiety
among children, adolescents, and college students (Armsden and Greenberg
1987; Brown and Whiteside 2008), so it would be hypothesized that
security and the Grit Scale would link up. Research in this area would
be interesting to explore further.
In terms of anxiety, the current findings show that present
attachment anxiety styles are significantly correlated with grit.
Furthermore, anxiety was also a significant predictor of lower grit
scores. Brief grit also showed similar results to grit, being that
current anxiety attachment styles were significantly correlated with
brief grit. Additionally, consistency was negatively correlated with
anxiety and anxiety was also a significant predictor for consistency.
These findings parallel past research such that anxiety in childhood
affects both academic and social functioning (Pine, 1997). Also,
individuals high in anxiety have been shown to worry about abandonment,
(Hazan& Shaver, 1987) crave emotional support, nearness and
assurance from their romantic partners (Collins & Read, 1990) which
all may obstruct possible Grit. Current avoidant styles were
significantly negatively correlated with grit. Moreover, adult avoidance
was a significant predictor of lower grit scores. Brief grit was also
significantly linked to current avoidant attachment styles, as was
consistency. In addition, current avoidant styles were shown to be
significant predictors of consistency and perseverance. One may
speculate that because grit means facing challenges and overcoming
obstacles, to succeed one cannot avoid, but instead confront. This being
consistent with this studies finding, may be one explanation for why
avoidance styles were negatively correlated with the Grit Scale.
Avoidance and anxiety may interfere with the ability to develop grit,
making it harder to persevere and are therefore possible predictors of
low grit. Earlier research has shown that securely attached persons
perform better than avoidant or anxious persons in several ways, such as
loyalty, reliance, achievement, and positive and negative emotions
experienced in relationships (Baldwin et al., 1996) and Collins &
Feeney (2000) found that avoidant attachment predicted ineffective
support seeking. Due to the past research, it was to be expected that
individuals high in anxiety and/or avoidance would score lower in the
factors of the Grit Scale.
In terms of overprotection, high father overprotection showed a
significant negative correlation to female grit, and was negatively
correlated to lower male ambition, but not female ambition.
Theoretically, overprotection may decrease self-reliance and reduce
experience, and thus could be a predictor of low grit. For instance,
parental over-control is assumed to limit the development of
children's autonomy, leading to perceptions of the environment as
uncontrollable and a limited sense of personal competence or mastery. In
turn, these beliefs are hypothesized to contribute to the development of
anxiety in children (Barlow, 2002; Chorpita et al., 1996; Chorpita et
al., 1998; Dadds, 2002; Rapee, 2001). It is questionable as to why there
were gender differences in father overprotection and its relationship to
lower ambition, which would be interesting to further research.
Additional findings suggest that grit, perseverance and brief grit
had positive correlations with age, thus the older one's age, the
"grittier" they are according to the above findings.
Furthermore, age was a significant predictor for grit, brief grit,
consistency and perseverance. There may be many reasons for this
finding, and one may speculate that generally, in a community sample,
the older one is, the more one has proven one can achieve. Thus, one has
more to show in terms of accomplishment and therefore, may exhibit
higher grit and perseverance.
To account for anticipated differences, identical online surveys
and paper-based surveys were administered to participants. As predicted,
there were slight differences. However, the only significant difference
was found in perseverance, where perseverance was much higher in the
paper-based sample. Not only thought as both were independent predictors
in the final regression model, so this is a curious result indeed. The
majority of the paper surveys were administered to a community middle
class population, whereas the Internet based surveys were more evenly
distributed. College students were more inclined to use the Internet
survey base, whereas the older middle class participants were more
inclined to engage in the paper-based survey. Could it be that the older
one is, and perhaps more accomplished, the higher the perseverance?
Further research is needed to determine why perseverance was higher in
the paper-based sample.
In conclusion, the personality trait of grit would appear from
these results to be partially accounted for by relationship (attachment)
variables, specifically lower avoidance and lower anxiety in current
adult relationships, and higher care experiences in past (childhood)
relationships with mother and father. To the extent that one's
thoughts and feelings about current (and past) attachments change, it
may be assumed that levels of grit may change accordingly. Further
research is needed to explore in fuller details the associations between
personal relationships and personality.
Appendix A
Consent Form
Study conducted by: Jaclyn levy
Please read the following information and, if you consent to
participating, sign below. The purpose of this study is to examine
possible links between four factors: (1) Beliefs about oneself and
romantic partners; (2) what one expects of themselves; (3) the quality
of memories of early childhood; (4) a personality trait called
"grit." In this way, the research hopes to better understand
sources of well-being.
The study will be represented as a research paper for Jaclyn
Levy's Senior Work Project in Psychology for Eugene Lang College.
Subjects will be asked to fill out three questionnaires concerning the
self, relationships, and family history. Each subject will be assigned a
number in order to preserve the subject's anonymity. In order to
further maintain anonymity, please do not put your name on any of the
forms. For Lang student participants taking a psychology course, you may
be able to receive course credit and for other participants you can
enter a lottery to win an ipod-mini.
I have read and understand the above information. I am aware that
some questions touch on sensitive subjects that require recapturing
memories and feelings from the past. I understand that, at any time, if
I feel uncomfortable, I have the right to end my participation with no
negative consequences and my responses will remain anonymous. If there
are any questions please feel free to contact Jaclyn Levy
(LevyJ661@newschool.edu), the supervisor of the research, Dr. Howard
Steele (SteeleH@newschool.edu), or the Institutional Review Board-Human
Subjects Committee coordinator (212-229-5727 ext. 3102).
Subject Signature: -- Date: --
Principle Investigator: -- Date: --
PARENTAL BONDING INSTRUMENT (PBI) mother form
This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviors of
parents. As you remember your mother in your first 16 years please
circle the most appropriate answer. 1. Spoke to me in a warm and
friendly voice
* Very like
* Moderately like
* Moderately unlike
* Very unlike
2. Did not help me as much as I needed * repeat answer order for
all questions
3. Let me do those things I liked doing
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me
5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries
6. Was affectionate to me
7. Liked me to make my own decisions
8. Did not want me to grow up
9. Tried to control everything I did
10. Invaded my privacy
11. Enjoyed talking things over with me
12. Frequently smiled at me
13. Tended to baby me
14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted
15. Let me decide things for myself
16. Made me feel I wasn't wanted
17. Could make me feel better when I was upset
18. Did not talk with me very much
19. Tried to make me feel dependent on her/him
20. Felt I could not look after myself unless she/he was around
21. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted
23. Was overprotective of me
24. Did not praise me
25. Let me dress in any way I pleased
FATHER FORM
This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviors of
parents. As you remember your FATHER in your first 16 years please
circle the most appropriate answer.
1. Spoke to me in a warm and friendly voice
* Very like
* Moderately like
* Moderately unlike
* Very unlike
2. Did not help me as much as I needed *repeat answer order for all
questions
3. Let me do those things I liked doing
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me
5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries
6. Was affectionate to me
7. Liked me to make my own decisions
8. Did not want me to grow up
9. Tried to control everything I did
10. Invaded my privacy
11. Enjoyed talking things over with me
12. Frequently smiled at me
13. Tended to baby me
14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted
15. Let me decide things for myself
16. Made me feel I wasn't wanted
17. Could make me feel better when I was upset
18. Did not talk with me very much
19. Tried to make me feel dependent on her/him
20. Felt I could not look after myself unless she/he was around
21. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted
23. Was overprotective of me
24. Did not praise me
25. Let me dress in any way I pleased
Experiences in Close Relationships
Instruction: The following statements concern how you feel in
romantic relationships. I am interested in how you generally experience
relationships, not just in what is happening in a current relationship.
Respond to each statement by indicating how much you agree or disagree
with it. Mark your answer using the following rating scale:
1. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.
* Strongly Disagree
* Disagree Slightly
* Disagree
* Neutral
* Slightly Agree
* Agree Strongly
* Agree
2. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.
*repeat answer order for each question
3. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.
4. I find that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I
would like.
5. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and
reassurance.
6. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away.
7. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.
8. I do not often worry about being abandoned.
9. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.
10. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I
need them.
11. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.
12. I worry that romantic partners won't care about me as much
as I care about them.
Feelings about relationships
1. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others
* Very much like me
* Mostly like me
* Somewhat like me
* Not much like me
* Not like me at all
2. People are never there when you need them * repeat answer order
for each question
3. I am comfortable depending on others
4. I know that others will be there when I need them
5. I find it difficult to trust others completely
6. I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there
when I need them
7. I do not often worry about being abandoned
8. I often worry that my partner does not really love me
9. I find others are reluctant to get as close as I would like
10. I often worry my partner will not want to stay with me
11. I want to merge completely with another person
12. My desire to merge sometimes scares people away
13. I find it relatively easy to get close to others
14. I do not often worry about someone getting close to me
15. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others
16. I am nervous when anyone gets too close
17. I am comfortable having other depend on me
18. Often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel
comfortable being
Grit Scale
Directions for taking the Grit Scale: Please respond to the
following 17 items. Be honest--there are no right or wrong answers!
1. I aim to be the best in the world at what I do.
* Very much like me
* Mostly like me
* Somewhat like me
* Not much like me
* Not like me at all
2. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge. *
repeat answer order for each question
3. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.
4. I am ambitious.
5. My interests change from year to year.
6. Setbacks don't discourage me.
7. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short
time but later lost interest.
8. I am a hard worker.
9. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.
10. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take
more than a few months to complete.
11. I finish whatever I begin.
12. Achieving something of lasting importance is the highest goal
in life.
13. I think achievement is overrated.
14. I have achieved a goal that took years of work.
15. I am driven to succeed.
16. I become interested in new pursuits every few months.
17. I am diligent.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Age:
Gender/Sex:
Race:
Ethnicity:
Culture:
Sexual Orientation:
What state(s) did you grow up in?
Thank you!
Thank you for helping me with my senior thesis. If you would like
to enter the lottery to win an Ipod mini, please email
attachment.grit@gmail.com with the best way to contact you for the
lottery.
References
Abby, A., Abramis, D. J., & Caplan, R. D. (1985). Effects of
different sources of social support and social conflict on emotional
wellbeing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 111-129.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0602_2.
Alonso J., Heider, D., Matschinger H., Bernert S., Brugha TS.,&
De Girolamo G., (2008) Adverse parenting as a risk factor in the
occurrence of anxiety disorders: a study in six European countries'
Social Psychiatry Epidemiology, 43(4):266-72.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of
parent and peer attachment: Individual differences and their
relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-453. doi:10.1007/BF02202939.
Baldwin, M.W., Keelan, J.P.R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., &
Koh-Rangarajoo, E (1996). Social-Cognitive Conceptualization of
Attachment Working Models: Availability and Accessibility Effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94-109
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and
treatment of anxiety and panic. (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Bell-Dolan, D., & Brazeal, T.J. (1993). Separation anxiety
disorder, overanxious disorder, and school refusal. Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2, 563-580.
Bowen, R.C., Offord, D.R., & Boyle, M.H. (1990). The prevalence
of overanxious disorder and separation anxiety disorder: Results from
the Ontario Child Health Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29, 753-758.
Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M., Powers, B. & Wang, X. (2001)
Parental sensitivity, infant affect, and affect regulation: predictors
of later attachment. Child Development, 72, 252-270.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P. (1998). Self-report
measures of adult romantic attachment. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships. pp. 46-76. New York:
Guilford Press.
Brooks, J. H., & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and
environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of college.
Journal of College Student Development, 36, 347-360
Brown, A. M., & Whiteside, S.P. (2008). Relations among
perceived parental rearing behaviors, attachment, style, and worry in
anxious children. Anxiety Disorders, 22, 263-272.
doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.02.002
Burbach, D. J., Kashani, J. H., & Rosenberg, T. K. (1989).
Parental bonding and depressive disorders in adolescents. Journal of
Child Psychology and psychiatry, 30, 417-429
Cappelli, M., McGrath, P.J., MacDonald, N. E., Katsansis, J., &
Lascelles, M. (1989).Parental care and overprotection of children with
cystic fibrosis.British Journal of Medical Psychology, 62, 281-289.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent
pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65,
971-981.
Chorpita, B. F., Albano, A. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1996).
Cognitive processing in children: Relation to anxiety and family
influences. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(2), 170-176.
Chorpita, B. F., Brown, T. A., & Barlow, D. H. (1998).
Perceived control as a mediator of family environment in etiological
models of childhood anxiety. Behavior Therapy, 29, 457-476.
Collins, N.L., & Feeney, B.C. (2000). A Safe Haven: An
Attachment Theory Perspective on Support Seeking and Care giving in
Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
6(78), 1053-1073.doi: 10.1O37//OO22-3514.78.6.1053
Collins, N.L., & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult Attachment, Working
Models and Relationship Quality in Dating Couples.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Coppola, G., Vaughn, B., Cassiba, R. & Costantini, A. (2006)
The attachment script representation procedure in an Italian simple:
associations with adult attachment interview scales and with maternal
sensitivity. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 209-219.
Dadds, M. R. (2002).Learning and intimacy in the families of
anxious children.In R. J.McMahon & R. D. Peters (Eds.), The effects
of parental dysfunction on children (pp. 87-104). New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as
context: An integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487-496.
Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D & Kelly, D.R
(2007). Personality Processes and Individual Differences, Grit:
Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, (92)6, 1087-1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Fass, M.E., & Tubman, J.G. (2002). The influence of parental
and peer attachment on college students' academic achievement.
Psychology in the Schools, 39, 561-573.doi: 10.1002/pits.10050
Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P.M.G., & Arrindell, W.A. (1990). Anxiety,
depression and perception of early parenting? A meta-analysis. Clinical
Psychology Review, 10, 251-277.
Hartigan, J., & Wigdor, A. (1989). Fairness in employment
testing: Validity generalization, minority issues and the general
aptitude test battery. Washing, DC: National Academy Press.
Hazan, C, & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as
an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511-524.
Hodapp, V. (1991). Das Prufungsangstlichkeitsinventar TAI-G:
Eineerweiterte und modifizierte Version mitvierKomponenten [The Test
Anxiety Inventory TAI-G: An extended and modified version with four
components]. Zeitschriftfur PadagogischePsychologie, 5, 121-130.
Hodapp, V. (1995). The TAI-G: A multidimensional approach to the
assessment of test anxiety. In C. Schwarzer& M. Zeidner (Eds.),
Stress, anxiety, and coping in academic settings (pp. 95-130).
Tubingen, Germany: Francke. Holmbeck, G. N., Shapera, W. E., &
Hommeyer, J. S. (2002). Observed and perceived parenting behaviors and
psychosocial adjustment in preadolescents with spinal bifida. In B. K.
Barber (Ed.), Intrusive parenting: How psychological control affects
children and adolescents (191-234). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late
adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of
self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. doi:10.2307/1130395.
Landry, S., Smith, K., Swank, P. & Miller-Loncar, C. (2000)
Early maternal and child influences on children's later independent
cognitive and social functioning. Child Development, 71, 358-375.
Levy, M. B., & Davis, K. E. (1988). Love styles and attachment
styles compared: Their relations to each other and to various
relationship characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relations,
5, 439-471.
Mayes, S. D., Handford, H. A., Kowalski, C, Schaefer, J. H. (1988).
Parent attitudes and child personality traits in hemophilia: A six-year
longitudinal study. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine.18,
339-355, 1988.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory
of personality.In L. A.Pervin& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 129-153).
McFarlane, A. C. (1987). The relationship between patterns of
family interaction and psychiatric disorder in children. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 21, 383-390.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment
theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive
consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion,
27, 77-102.
Miller, K. E., King, C. A., Shain, B. N., & Naylor, M. W.
(1992). Suicidal adolescents' perceptions of their family
environment. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 22, 226 -239.
Parker, G. (1983).Parental overprotection: A risk factor in
psychosocialdevelopment. New York: Grune& Stratton.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979).Parental Bonding
Instrument.J6ritish Journal Of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths
and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. Pine, D. S. (1997). Childhood Anxiety
Disorders. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 9, 329-339.
Rapee, R. M. (2001). The development of generalised anxiety. In M.
W. Vasey& M. R. Dadds (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of
anxiety (pp. 481-503). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, K.H., & Stewart, S.L. (1996). Social withdrawal. In E.J.
Mash & R.A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (pp. 277-307). New
York: Guilford.
Schniering, C.A., Hudson, J.L., & Rapee, R.M. (2000). Issues in
the diagnosis and assessment of anxiety disorders in children and
adolescents. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 453-478.
Scott, W.A., Scott, R., & McCabe, M. (1991). Family
relationships and children's personality: A cross-cultural,
cross-source comparison. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 1-20.
Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Grich, J. (1999). When accuracy
hurts: Reactions of anxious-ambivalent dating partners to a relationship
threatening situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
754 -769.
Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as
attachment: The integration of three behavioral systems. In R. J.
Sternberg & M. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 68-99).
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Smith, Ph B, & Pederson, D R (1988) Maternal sensitivity and
patterns of infant-mother attachment Child Development, 59, 1097-1101
Thomasgard, M., Metz, W. P., Edelbrock, C., & Shonkoff, J. P.
(1995). Parent- child relationship disorders. Part I: Parental
overprotection and the development of the Parent Protection
Scale.Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 244-250.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. C. (1992). Recurrent personality
factors based on trait ratings. Journal of Personality, 60, 225-251.
Ward, M. J. & Carlson, E. A. (1995) Associations among adult
attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother
attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 66,
69-79.
Whaley, S.E., Pinto, A., & Sigman, M. (1999). Characterizing
interactions between anxious mothers and their children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 826-836.
Wood, J., McLeod, B. D., Sigman, M., Hwang, W. -C., & Chu, B.
C. (2003). Parenting and childhood anxiety: Theory, empirical findings,
and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44,
134-151.
Van Ijzendoorn, M. & De Wolf, M. (1997) In search of the absent
father: meta-Analyses of infant-father attachment: a Rejoinder to our
discussants. Child Development, 68, 604-609.
Zea, M. C., Jarama, S. L., & Bianchi, F. T. (1995). Social
support and psychosocial competence: Explaining the adaptation to
college of ethnically diverse students. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 23, 509-531.doi:10.1007/BF02506966.
Jaclyn M. Levy and Dr. Howard Steele
The New School for Social Research
Email: LevyJ661@newschool.edu
Table 1.1: Correlations between age and variable on the grit scale
Table 1.1 Grit and Age N=238 Age p
Grit .18 ** .006
Consistency .12 .058
Perseverance .13 * .042
Brief Grit .21 ** .001
Ambition -.07 .252
Note: * = p<.05, two-tailed; ** = p<.01 level, two-tailed
Table 1.2: Mean scores (and standard deviations) for type of
administration of survey
Table 1.2 Mean grit scores for computer (N=205) and paper (N=36)
administration.
Computer Paper
M SD M SD t(df) p
Grit 39.2 6.09 39.8 4.9 -.47(239) .641
Consistency 18.5 5.1 17.2 5.3 1.36(239) .176
Perseverance 20.8 2.7 22.6 4.2 -2.42 *(40.1) .020
Brief Grit 26.9 5.0 26.9 4.1 .02(239) .988
Ambition 20.0 3.8 20.0 3.13 .03(239) .973
Table 1.3: Mean scores (and standard deviations) between males and
females with Grit.
Table 1.3 Mean grit scores for Gender.
Female Male
(N =171) (N = 63)
M SD M SD t(df) p
Grit 39.7 5.8 39.0 5.3 .813(232) .417
Consistency 18.4 5.4 18.3 4.1 .193(145) .847
Perseverance 21.3 2.6 20.7 3.3 1.20(93.7) .233
Brief Grit 27.2 4.9 26.6 4.3 .890(232) .375
Ambition 20.1 3.7 20.1 3.1 -.075(232) .940
Table 1.4: Correlations between Grit variables depending on the
gender of the participant
Table 1.4 Gender, Grit and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI)
Female (N = 171)
Male (N = 63) Grit Consistency Perseverance
PBI Care Mother
Female .14, .12 .07
Male .03, .02 .03
PBI Overprotection Mother
Female -.10, -.11 -.01
Male .13, .09 .10
PBI Care Father
Female .13 .16 * -.06
Male .04 .05 .01
PBI Overprotection Father
Female -.14 -.15 .01
Male -.07 .05 -.18
Female (N = 171)
Male (N = 63) Brief Grit Ambiti
PBI Care Mother
Female .12 .23 **
Male .05 .23
PBI Overprotection Mother
Female -.11 .06
Male .08 -.07
PBI Care Father
Female .12 .06
Male .08 .23
PBI Overprotection Father
Female -.156 * .03
Male -.10 -.42 **
Note: * = p<.05, two-tailed; ** = p<.01 level, two-tailed
Table 2: Correlations between Care and Overprotection from Mother
and/or Father in the first sixteen years of ones life and Grit
Table 2. Grit and Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI)
(N=241) Grit Consistency Perseverance
PBI Care Mother .14 * .11 .09
PBI Overprotection Mother -.03 -.05 .03
PBI Care Father .15 * .18 ** -.02
PBI Overprotection Father -.10 -.10 -.03
Brief
(N=241) Grit Ambition
PBI Care Mother .13 * .24 **
PBI Overprotection Mother -.05 .03
PBI Care Father .15 * .09
PBI Overprotection Father -.11 -.06
Note: * = p<.05, two-tailed; ** = p<.01 level, two-tailed
Table 3: Correlations between the components of the Grit scale and
ECR-S and AAS
Table 3. Grit and Experiences in Close Relationships- Short Form
(ECR-S)/Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)
Grit Consistency Perseverance
ECR Anxiety -.24 ** -.30 ** .04
ECR Avoidance -.18 ** -.16 * -.07
AAS Secure .11 .11 .04
AAS Avoidant -.06 -.10 .04
AAS Anxious -.21 ** -.22 ** -.05
Brief Grit Ambition
ECR Anxiety -.24 ** -.01
ECR Avoidance -.18 ** -.05
AAS Secure .06 .12
AAS Avoidant -.02 .09
AAS Anxious -.23 ** -.05
Note: * = p<.05, two-tailed; ** = p<.01 level, two-tailed
Table 4.1: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
overall grit
Table 4.1 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting overall grit (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age .09 .03 .18 ** .006
Gender -.51 .82 -.04 .536
Step 2
Age .12 .03 .21 ** .002
Gender -.34 .82 -.03 .678
PBI Care Mother .11 .06 .14 * .045
PBI Care Father .03 .04 .05 .434
Step 3
Age .08 .03 .15 * .023
Gender -.41 .78 -.03 .601
PBI Care Mother .08 .05 .12 .111
PBI Care Father -.01 .04 -.02 .786
ECR Anxiety -.21 .07 -.26 ** .004
ECR Avoidance -.17 .06 -.17 ** .007
AAS Anxious -.06 .12 -.05 .553
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .04 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .06 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .18 for Step 3.
Table 4.2: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
consistency
Table 4.2 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting consistency (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age .06 .03 .14 * .037
Gender -.03 .76 -.00 .964
Step 2
Age .07 .03 .15 * .025
Gender .02 .77 .00 .983
PBI care Mother .06 .05 .08 .262
PBI care Father .05 .04 .09 .206
PBI overprotection Mother .00 .05 .01 .936
PBI overprotection Father -.05 .05 -.07 .370
Step 3
Age .05 .03 .11 .095
Gender -.17 .74 -.02 .819
PBI Care Mother .06 .05 .08 .258
PBI Care Father .03 .04 .05 .453
PBI Overprotection Mother .02 .05 .03 .649
PBI Overprotection Father -.03 .05 -.04 .549
ECR Anxiety -.25 .07 -.34 *** .000
ECR Avoidance -.13 .07 -.15 * .044
AAS Anxious .02 .10 .02 .818
AAS Avoidant .04 .10 .03 .720
AAS Secure -.07 .10 -.06 .467
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .02 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .05 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .16 for Step 3.
Table 4.3: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
consistency
Table 4.3 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting consistency (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age .07 .03 .16 * .021
Gender .01 .76 .00 .994
Administration (Online -1.36 .95 -.10 .153
vs. Paper)
Step 2
Age .08 .03 .18 * .010
Gender .03 .76 .00 .974
Administration (Online -1.64 .97 -.11 .091
vs. Paper)
PBI care Mother .07 .05 .10 .185
PBI Care Father .05 .04 .09 .204
PBI overprotection Mother .02 .05 .03 .683
PBI overprotection Father -.05 .05 -.07 .310
Step 3
Age .06 .03 .14 * .039
Gender -.16 .73 -.01 .832
Administration (Online -1.10 .92 -.14 * .035
vs. Paper)
PBI Care Mother .07 .05 .10 .172
PBI Care Father .02 .04 .05 .500
PBI Overprotection Mother .04 .05 .06 .379
PBI Overprotection Father -.04 .05 -.05 .464
ECR Anxiety -.25 .07 -.35 *** .000
ECR Avoidance -.13 .07 -.15 * .048
AAS Anxious .02 .10 .02 .837
AAS Avoidant .03 .10 .03 .778
AAS Secure -.06 .10 -.04 .565
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .03 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .06 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .18 for Step 3.
Table 4.4: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting brief grit
Table 4.4 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting brief grit (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age .09 .03 .20 ** .002
Gender -.45 .69 -.04 .520
Step 2
Age .10 .03 23 ** .001
Gender -.53 .71 -.05 .453
PBI care Mother .09 .05 .13 .075
PBI care Father .02 .03 .03 .641
PBI overprotection Mother .02 .04 .03 .653
PBI overprotection Father -.07 .05 -.11 .118
Step 3
Age .08 .03 19 ** .004
Gender -.55 .67 -.05 .415
PBI Care Mother .09 .05 .13 .053
PBI Care Father .01 .03 .03 .668
PBI Overprotection Mother .03 .04 .05 .434
PBI Overprotection Father -.05 .05 -.07 .313
ECR Anxiety -.16 .06 -.23 ** .008
ECR Avoidance -.20 .06 -.25 ** .001
AAS Anxious -.11 .09 -.12 .214
AAS Avoidant .15 .09 .14 .098
AAS Secure -.13 .09 -.11 .142
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .05 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .08 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .22 for Step 3.
Table 4.5: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
ambition
Table 4.5 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting ambition (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age -.03 .02 -.08 .206
Gender -.01 .53 -.00 .981
Step 2
Age -.01 .02 -.03 .693
Gender -.05 .53 -.01 .932
PBI care Mother .11 .04 .23 ** .002
PBI care Father .01 .03 .02 .754
PBI overprotection Mother .04 .03 .10 .179
PBI overprotection Father -.03 .04 -.05 .491
Step 3
Age -.01 .02 -.04 .581
Gender -.08 .53 .01 .874
PBI Care Mother .12 .04 .24 ** .002
PBI Care Father .02 .03 .05 .528
PBI Overprotection Mother .04 .03 .09 .218
PBI Overprotection Father -.02 .04 -.03 .675
ECR Anxiety .00 .05 .00 .968
ECR Avoidance -.10 .05 -.16 * .042
AAS Anxious -.10 .07 -.14 .164
AAS Avoidant .24 .07 .30 ** .001
AAS Secure .10 .07 .12 .168
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .01 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .06 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .12 for Step 3.
Table 4.6: Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
perseverance
Table 4.6 Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables
predicting perseverance (N=238)
Variable B coef SE B Beta p
Step 1
Age -.03 .02 -.08 .206
Gender -.01 .53 -.00 .981
Step 2
Age -.01 .02 -.03 .693
Gender -.05 .53 -.01 .932
PBI care Mother .11 .04 .23 ** .002
PBI care Father .01 .03 .02 .754
PBI overprotection Mother .04 .03 .10 .179
PBI overprotection Father -.03 .04 -.05 .491
Step 3
Age -.01 .02 -.04 .581
Gender -.08 .53 .01 .874
PBI Care Mother .12 .04 .24 ** .002
PBI Care Father .02 .03 .05 .528
PBI Overprotection Mother .04 .03 .09 .218
PBI Overprotection Father -.02 .04 -.03 .675
ECR Anxiety .00 .05 .00 .968
ECR Avoidance -.10 .05 -.16 * .042
AAS Anxious -.10 .07 -.14 .164
AAS Avoidant .24 .07 .30 ** .001
AAS Secure .10 .07 .12 .168
NOTE: [R.sup.2] = .020 for Step 1; [R.sup.2] = .06 for Step 2;
[R.sup.2] = .12 for Step 3.
