Page 106 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 15

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). This Internal of others, they avoid intimacy because they fear
Working Model in turn forms a prototype that being rejected (Collins & Feeney, 2000).
influences later relationships outside the family Considering how these may manifest in mis-
(Ainsworth, 1973, 1985, 1991; Ainsworth et al., sionary contexts, one can anticipate how suc-
1978; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Cozoli- cessful adaptation to a new culture may be
no, 2010; Siegel, 2010). The person utilizes this impacted. For example, those with anxious
internal lens, subconsciously filtering people attachment styles typically resort to hyperacti-
and situations through this grid and making vating strategies to cope. Mikulincer and Sha-
assessments of safety, security, self-worthiness, ver (2005) described these as intense efforts to
lovability, self-efficacy and a host of other app- attain proximity to attachment figures to ensu-
raisals (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). These app- re their attention and support. People who rely
raisals can impact adjustment and effectiveness on these hyperactivating strategies compulsi-
in cross-cultural missionary service especially vely seek proximity and protection. They are
in interpersonal relationships, often cited as a hypersensitive to signs of possible rejection or
source of stress in missionary circles. In fact, a abandonment and are prone to ruminating on
central factor in studies of intercultural effec- personal deficiencies and threats to relation-
tiveness/competence and adjustment of expa- ships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Conversely,
triates is the development of appropriate inter- persons with an avoidant attachment style uti-
personal relationships (Cerny, Smith, Ritchard, lize deactivation strategies to cope. These stra-
& Dodd, 2007) and interpersonal relationships tegies include inhibition of proximity-seeking
form the core of our understanding of attach- inclinations and actions. They involve the sup-
ment styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; pression or discounting of any threat that might
Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Siegel, 1999). activate the attachment system. Those who rely
Adult attachment researchers have identified on these strategies tend to maximize distance
four prototypic attachment styles derived from from others. They experience discomfort with
two underlying dimensions: anxiety and avoi- closeness, strive for personal strength and self-
dance (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brenn- reliance, and suppress distressing thoughts and
an, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Collins & Feeney, memories (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). Fur-
2000; Fraley & Waller, 1998). The two orthogo- thermore, individuals with avoidant attach-
nal dimensions of anxiety or avoidance result ment schemas, who perceive relationships as
in characteristic ways of coping (Brennan et al., unsupportive, behave in compulsively self- re-
1998; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). For example, liant manners (Bowlby, 1973). They are not able
securely attached adults are low in both attach- to turn to others for support in stressful situati-
ment-related anxiety and avoidance and are ons, nor do they possess internalized resources
comfortable with intimacy. Furthermore, they for comfort (Solomon, Ginzburg, Mikulincer,
are willing to rely on others for support, and are Neria, & Ohry, 1998). These coping strategies
confident that they are valued by others (Collins or lack thereof are critical for the cross cultural
& Feeney, 2000). Preoccupied (anxious-ambi- worker and can become problematic.
valent) adults are high in anxiety and low in
avoidance. They have an exaggerated desire for Attachment Style and Acculturation
closeness and dependence, as well as a heigh- Research has already established an associati-
tened concern about being rejected (Collins & on between acculturation and attachment style
Feeney, 2000). Dismissing -avoidant individu- (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006). At the outset, the
als are low in attachment-related anxiety but are move itself can activate the attachment schemas.
high in avoidance. They view close relationships Missionaries experience separation from their
as relatively unimportant, and they value inde- primary attachment figures, home country, cul-
pendence and self-reliance (Collins & Feeney, ture, and language (Kim, 2012). Their Internal
2000). Fearful -avoidant adults are high in both Working Model will be more apparent as they
attachment anxiety and avoidance. Although face multiple stressors including culture shock,
they desire close relationships and the approval social and geographical remoteness, restric-

103