Japanese Psychological Research doi: 10.1111/jpr.

12130
2016, Volume 58, No. 4, 355–366

Emotion Regulation and Coping Strategies in

Pedagogical Students with Different Attachment Styles


SIMONA PROSEN* and HELENA SMRTNIK VITULIC University of Ljubljana

Abstract: Emotion regulation (ER) and coping strategies were compared in 242 peda-
gogical students from the Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, with different
attachment styles: secure (51.3%), fearful (31.9%), preoccupied (14.2%), and dismis-
sive (2.7%). The students’ ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (M = 19.02; SD = .92),
and the majority were female (95.0%). They completed three questionnaires asses-
sing their attachment styles and their use of ER and coping strategies. It was deter-
mined that the students used the majority of ER and coping strategies sometimes.
Somewhat different patterns in the use of ER and coping strategies were, however,
present in each attachment-based group. Significant differences between these
groups appeared in their use of the ER strategies of social support, suppression, and
comfort eating, and in the coping strategies of seeking social support and escaping
or avoiding stressful situations.
Key words: attachment style, coping, emotion regulation, pedagogical students.

Emotion regulation (ER) and coping strategies
were explored in pedagogical students with dif-
ferent attachment styles. Both ER and coping
processes are closely connected to internal
representations of self and others in relation-
ships – attachment styles (Bartholomew & Hor-
owitz, 1991) – as these representations influence
the individual’s regulatory capacities (Fonagy,
Steele, & Steele, 1991; Skinner & Zimmer-
Gembeck, 2007). The pedagogical students in
our study will become human-relations profes-
sionals, working with various groups of people;
being sensitive, trustworthy, and cooperative in
interpersonal relationships are therefore impor-
tant competencies they should strive to have
(Razdevšek Pucko & Rugelj, 2006). Given that
these characteristics are closely related to the
individual’s attachment style, our aim was to
examine the students’ attachment styles and
their relationships to their ER and coping pro-
cesses. ER, coping and attachment styles will
therefore be introduced in greater detail.
ER
ER has been defined as the process by which
individuals influence which emotions they
have, when they have them and how they
experience and express them (Gross, 1998).
ER includes the behaviors, strategies, and
skills by which one monitors, evaluates, modu-
lates, inhibits, and enhances emotional experi-
ence and expression in a goal-oriented way
(Gross & Thompson, 2009; Thompson &
Meyer, 2009). Gross and Thompson’s (2009)
ER process model offers different ways of
influencing the emergence of emotions or
dealing with emotions when they have already

*Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to: Simona Prosen, Department of Education
Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploš
cad 16, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia. (E-mail:
simona.prosen@pef.uni-lj.si)

© 2016 Japanese Psychological Association. Published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
356 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic
been experienced. The situation may be
avoided (Situation Selection) or changed
(Situation Modification). Within the situation,
one may redirect one’s attention to non-
emotional content (Attentional Deployment).
ER may also be accomplished by changing the
situation’s meaning or importance (Cognitive
Reappraisal). Finally, response tendencies can
be altered, including the experiential, physio-
logical, and behavioral components of
response (Response Modulation). The behav-
ioral component of response modulation may
be achieved via physical activation, suppres-
sion, social support seeking, comfort eating, or
psycho-substance use. Among all of these ER
strategies, some – such as reappraisal – are
considered more efficient, as they have posi-
tive connections with well-being (John &
Gross, 2009), self-esteem, and social support
(Gross & John, 2003), and negative associa-
tions with psychopathology (Aldao, Nolen-
Hoeksema, & Schweizer, 2010). On the other
hand, some ER strategies – such as suppres-
sion – are considered less efficient, as they are
associated negatively with well-being (John &
Gross, 2009; Karademas, Tsalikou, & Tell-
arou, 2010) and social functioning (Gross &
John, 2003), and positively to psychopathology
(Aldao et al., 2010; Gross, 1998).
By the end of adolescence, individuals become
more responsible for managing their emotions
and use more flexible ER strategies tailored to
specific sociocultural contexts and personal goals
(Thompson & Meyer, 2009). However, ER
development may continue throughout one’s life
(Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003). As ER plays an
important role in many psychological processes,
such as social relationships (Lopes, Salovey,
Cote, & Beers, 2005), it is particularly important
for human-relations professionals.
Coping
Coping has been defined as “constantly chan-
ging cognitive and behavioral efforts to man-
age specific external and/or internal demands
that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the
resources of the person” (Folkman, Lazarus,
Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986, p. 572). Coping
strategies may be problem-focused (i.e., aimed
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
at a reduction of environmental stressors) or
emotion-focused (i.e., focusing on the regula-
tion of stress-related negative emotional reac-
tions; Folkman et al., 1986). The individual
may apply more active coping strategies aimed
at facing the stress situation (e.g., planful
problem-solving, seeking social support) or
more passive strategies leading to situation
avoidance (e.g., escape-avoidance). Active
coping strategies are generally considered to
be more efficient when dealing with stress,
while passive coping strategies are thought to
be less efficient (Glasscock, Andersen, Lab-
riola, Rasmussen, & Hansen, 2013).
Learning how to cope with stressful events
represents an important task of the indivi-
dual’s development. An overview of various
research shows that the biggest qualitative
change in development of coping occurs from
middle childhood to adolescence, although the
capacity to use particular coping strategies
(such as planning) may not fully emerge until
late adolescence or early adulthood
(Skinner & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007). Coping
has many psychological correlates with physi-
cal health (Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley, &
Novacek, 1987) and psychological functioning,
such as the quality of social relationships
(Zambianchi & Ricci Bitti, 2014). It is there-
fore important for everyone, but especially for
human-relations professionals.
Coping and ER are both conceptualized as
processes of regulation, yet their interrelation
has not been fully explored (Compas et al.,
2014). In a study with adults by Smrtnik Vitulic
and Prosen (2016), these two processes were
found to be mostly non-associated, suggesting
their distinct nature. Consequently, in the
present study, ER and coping were analyzed
separately regarding their possible specificities
in students with different attachment styles.
Attachment Style
Experiences in child–caregiver interactions are
internalized early in life and mold the child’s
expectations and evaluations of the degree of
security, trust, intimacy, autonomy, and so
forth, to be expected in close relationships
(Bowlby, 1997; Fonagy et al., 1991). These
 Regulation regarding students’ attachment
internal representations – attachment style –
continue to influence the quality of relation-
ships throughout one’s life (Bowlby, 1997).
Several classifications of attachment styles
in adolescence/adulthood exist, including the
four-category classification by Bartholomew
and Horowitz (1991). Classification is made
according to the relative valences
(i.e., positive or negative) of individuals’ cor-
responding internal representation of self and
other within relationships. A person with a
secure attachment style has internalized a pos-
itive model of self and others, and therefore
expresses comfort with both closeness and
separateness in close relationships. This
attachment style is the most prevalent
(Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1965). Using their
Relationship Questionnaire, Bartholomew and
Horowitz (1991) found secure attachment in
47% of psychology students from North
America, while Žvelc and Žvelc (2006) – also
using the mentioned questionnaire – found it
in 48% of students attending different study
programs in Slovenia. By contrast, a person
with a dismissive attachment style has positive
self-evaluations but negative evaluations of
others. Such a person acknowledges discom-
fort with closeness and prefers to remain sep-
arate from others. If a person evaluates
him/herself negatively and others positively,
this is referred to as a preoccupied attach-
ment style. Such internal representations dis-
pose a person to expressing a strong need for
intimacy and a strong fear of abandonment,
welcoming support from others but fre-
quently worrying about relationships. Finally,
a person with a fearful attachment style nega-
tively evaluates him/herself and others.
He/she therefore fears both rejection and
emotional closeness and typically avoids
close relationships (Lopez & Gormley, 2002).
The last three described attachment styles
are referred to as insecure. In psychology stu-
dents from North America, Bartholomew
and Horowitz (1991) found that 18%, 14%,
and 21% of them reported dismissive, preoc-
cupied, and fearful attachment styles, respec-
tively. Of students attending different study
357
programs in Slovenia (Žvelc & Žvelc, 2006),
10%, 13%, and 29% reported having dismis-
sive, preoccupied and fearful attachment
styles, respectively.
Attachment style has several psychological
correlates in adolescence/adulthood. Positive
correlations have been found between secure
attachment and self-esteem and cognitive
functioning (Gross & Thompson, 2009; Jacob-
sen, Edelstein, & Hofmann, 1994; Siegel,
1999). On the other hand, some authors
(Broberg, Hjalmers, & Nevonen, 2001) report
insecure attachment as more frequent in per-
sons with mental health problems. In late ado-
lescence – the period to which the participants
in the present study belong – Mattanah, Han-
cock, and Brand (2004) found securely
attached students to be better adjusted to col-
lege than their colleagues with insecure
attachment.
Even though attachment styles are consid-
ered resistant to change, they can be modified
when significant changes occur in an indivi-
dual’s close relationships (Thompson, 1999).
Persons outside the family (e.g., teachers,
trainers, counselors) who might become
attachment figures may provide secure
experiences for those with insecure attach-
ment (Cugmas, 2003).
Attachment style may be thought of as pre-
disposing the individual to a particular percep-
tion of relationships and consequently his/her
response, including ER and coping processes.
Some authors (Carr, Colthurst, Coyle, &
Elliott, 2013; Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg,
2003) emphasize that early attachment experi-
ence represents an important source of a per-
son’s future ER competence, as ER capacities
grow and develop most effectively in the con-
text of secure attachment relationships. Some
associations may also be found between a per-
son’s attachment style and his/her ability to
cope (Lopez & Gormley, 2002). However,
studies of attachment and its associations to
ER or coping in human-relations professionals
are scarce. Therefore, in the present study we
were interested in how pedagogical students –
future human-relations professionals – with
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
358 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic
different attachment styles used their coping
and ER strategies.
Methodology
Sample
The sample comprised 242 pedagogical stu-
dents (study programs: primary education,
preschool education, social pedagogy) from
the Faculty of Education of the University of
Ljubljana, Slovenia. The age of the students
ranged from 18 to 24 years (M = 19.02; SD =
.92), and the majority were female (95.0%).
Instruments
The Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholom-
ew & Horowitz, 1991) was used to assess
four attachment styles: secure, fearful, preoc-
cupied, and dismissive. Descriptions of these
attachment styles are given in the question-
naire, with one description for each attach-
ment style (as described above). The
students self-rated the degree to which the
four descriptions of attachment styles applied
to them on a 7-point scale: 1 (almost never),
2 (very rarely), 3 (sometimes), 4 (moderately),
5 (quite often), 6 (very often), and 7 (almost
always).
The Emotion Regulation Strategies Ques-
tionnaire (ERSQ), designed by the authors of
the present article and based on Gross and
Thompson’s (2009) model of ER, was used. It
includes different ER strategies, each repre-
sented by one item: (a) Situation Selection
(i.e., try to avoid the potentially unpleasant sit-
uation); (b) Situation Modification (i.e., try to
change the potentially unpleasant situation);
(c) Attentional Deployment (i.e., try to think
of something pleasant when feeling the
unpleasant emotions); (d) Cognitive Reap-
praisal of a situation’s meaning (i.e., try to
look at the situation from another perspective
when feeling the unpleasant emotions) and
importance (i.e., try to lessen the situation’s
importance when feeling the unpleasant emo-
tion); and (e) Response Modulation: experien-
tial (i.e., try to switch off unpleasant emotions),
physiological (i.e., try to relax the body when
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
feeling the unpleasant emotions), and behav-
ioral. Within the behavioral response modula-
tion strategy, a distinction was made between:
(a) physical activation (i.e., go for a walk
when feeling the unpleasant emotion);
(b) suppression, defined as the reduced
expression or non-expression of emotions
(i.e., try to hide unpleasant emotions in front
of others); (c) seeking social support (i.e., try
to find someone to help me when feeling the
unpleasant emotion); (d) comfort eating
(i.e., eat something good when feeling the
unpleasant emotions); and (e) psycho-active
substance use (i.e., take a pill or drink alcohol
when feeling the unpleasant emotions). These
ER strategies are defined in the introduction
of this article. The Spearman rho correlations
between ERSQ items revealed 35% of signifi-
cant ones, yet they were all low, suggesting
separate use of all included items. Some
authors (Gross, 1998; Schutte, Manes, & Mal-
ouff, 2009) have described Situation Selection,
Situation Modification, Attentional Deploy-
ment, and Cognitive Reappraisal ER strate-
gies as prior to emotion occurrence and
Response Modulation as following such an
occurrence. However, the ERSQ question-
naire employs a different perspective of these
strategies regarding whether they are placed
before or after the experience of emotions, as
Gross and Thompson’s (2009) model of ER
does not unequivocally explain where within
the model the emotion itself emerges (see
more in Prosen & Smrtnik Vitulic, 2014). As
can be observed from the items of the ques-
tionnaire, Situation Selection and Situation
Modification represent strategies aimed at the
emergence of emotions, while all of the other
ER strategies influence emotions after their
occurrence. For each ER strategy, the partici-
pants of the study assessed how often they
used it on a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1 = almost never use, 2 = rarely use, 3 = som-
etimes use, 4 = frequently use, 5 = almost
always use).
The Slovene translation of the revised Ways
of Coping Questionnaire (as cited in Lamovec,
1994) was used to assess coping strategies. The
questionnaire includes cognitive and behavioral
 Regulation regarding students’ attachment
strategies that people use to manage internal
and/or external demands in stressful situations.
All 66 items were self-rated by the students on
a 4-point scale (0 = never use, 1 = sometimes
use, 2 = frequently use, 3 = almost always use).
Eight scales are included in the original ques-
tionnaire; however, three of these scales
(Confrontive Coping, Self-Controlling, and
Accepting Responsibility) were excluded from
the further analysis due to their low internal
reliabilities (Cronbach’s alphas below .60), as
recommended by Ferligoj, Leskošek, and
Kogovšek (1995). The five scales included in
the further analysis were: (a) Distracting
(e.g., went on as if nothing had happened);
(b) Seeking Social Support (e.g., talked to
someone who could do something concrete
about the problem); (c) Escape-Avoidance
(e.g., tried to make myself feel better by eating,
drinking, smoking, using drugs or medications,
etc.); (d) Planful Problem-Solving (e.g., made a
plan of action and followed it); and (e) Positive
Reappraisal (e.g., found new faith). The inter-
nal reliabilities of Distracting, Seeking Social
Support, Escape-Avoidance, Planful Problem-
Solving, and Positive Reappraisal were .65, .74,
.64, .68, and .62, respectively. The Planful
Problem-Solving scale is described as primarily
being problem-focused coping, while Distract-
ing and Positive Reappraisal are described as
emotion-focused coping. The Seeking Social
Support scale serves both functions (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1987).
Procedures
The pedagogical students (of primary educa-
tion, preschool education, and social peda-
gogy) completed the questionnaires during a
lecture on developmental psychology. Their
participation was based on their informed con-
sent, and was voluntary and anonymous. One
of the authors of this article was present at all
times during the completion of the
questionnaire.
Data Analysis
Since the normality of distribution for each
item in the Emotion Regulation Strategies and
Ways of Coping questionnaires was not
359
confirmed (Shapiro–Wilk tests: all ps < .00), a
set of non-parametric statistical procedures
was applied. Even though a certain level of
different attachment styles may be found in
each individual, one of them is usually prevail-
ing (Broberg et al., 2001). Such predominant
attachment style was identified for each partic-
ipant in our study on the basis of the highest
self-rated attachment description. The students
were assigned to one of the four attachment
groups: secure (n = 116), fearful (n = 72), pre-
occupied (n = 32), or dismissive (n = 6). There
were 16 students whose results could not be
assigned to any of the groups because their
assessment matched two or more attachment
descriptions equally.
Spearman correlations were insignificant
between dismissive and secure (rho = −.06),
dismissive and fearful (rho = −.01), and dis-
missive and preoccupied attachment (rho =
−.10). According to Cohen’s (1988) sugges-
tions (values of correlations ≥.10 and <.30
indicate relationships of a small magnitude,
and values of .30–.49 and >.50 indicate moder-
ate and high magnitudes, respectively). Corre-
lations in our study were low but significant
between preoccupied and secure (rho = −.28)
and preoccupied and fearful attachment
(rho = .26). Only correlation between fearful
and secure attachment was moderate and sig-
nificant (rho = −.53).
In the further analysis, the attachment-
based groups of students were compared.
Medians were calculated for the use of each
ER and coping strategy for each attachment-
based group of students. Kruskal–Wallis tests
were used to compare the use of each ER and
coping strategy by these groups. If the differ-
ences between the groups were significant,
Mann–Whitney U-tests were applied to deter-
mine the differences between each pair of
groups.
Results
When classified regarding their prevalent
attachment style, the majority of the pedagogi-
cal students in our study were assigned to the
secure group (51.3%). There were 31.9% of
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
360 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic

Table 1 Medians for ER and coping strategies and their frequency categories in different
attachment styles in students
Secure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissive
(n = 116) (n = 72) (n = 32) (n = 6)

Me Use Me Use Me Use Me Use

ER strategies
Situation selection 3.59 F 3.49 S 3.63 F 3.67 F
Situation modification 3.62 F 3.90 F 3.84 F 3.50 S
Attentional deployment 3.55 F 3.40 S 3.34 S 3.67 F
Cognitive reappraisal
Meaning 3.43 S 3.35 S 3.16 S 3.83 F
Importance 2.72 S 3.69 F 3.38 S 3.17 S
Response modulation
Experiential 1.91 R 1.78 R 1.66 R 2.33 R
Physiological 2.87 S 2.54 S 2.44 R 2.83 S
Behavioral
Physical activation 3.37 S 3.15 S 3.09 S 3.50 S
Suppression 3.27 S 3.68 F 3.19 S 3.00 S
Social support 3.91 F 3.49 S 4.22 F 2.67 S
Comfort eating 2.60 S 2.56 S 3.03 S 1.67 R
Substance use 1.44 R 1.35 R 1.59 R 1.67 R
Coping strategies
Distracting 1.22 S 1.21 S 1.21 S 1.25 S
Seek social support 1.61 F 1.37 S 1.69 F 1.11 S
Escape-avoidance 1.09 S 1.17 S 1.34 S 0.71 S
Planful problem-solving 1.53 F 1.43 S 1.48 S 1.56 F
Positive reappraisal 1.61 F 1.55 F 1.58 F 1.38 S

Note. Me = median of frequency of ER strategy use; F = frequently used; S = sometimes used; R =

rarely used.

the students who demonstrated a prevalent
fearful attachment style, 14.2% who had a
prevalent preoccupied attachment style, and
2.7% who indicated a prevalent dismissive
attachment style. The use of ER and coping
strategies by students with different prevalent
attachment styles were outlined (Table 1) and
compared (Table 2). Average scores (Mes) for
all ER strategies ranged between 1.35 and
4.22. For ER strategies, the criteria of Me > 3.5
as frequently, 2.5 ≤ Me ≤ 3.5 as sometimes,
and Me < 2.5 as rarely used were applied.
Average scores for all coping strategies ranged
between .71 and 1.69. For coping strategies,
the criteria of Me > 1.5 as frequently,
.5 ≤ Me ≤ 1.5 as sometimes, and Me < .5 as
rarely used were applied.
Situation Selection and Situation Modifica-
tion, the two ER strategies aimed at the proc-
ess of emotion emergence, were frequently
used by most of the pedagogical students with
different attachment styles, with the exception
of their moderate use in the fearfully attached
(Situation Selection) and dismissively attached
(Situation Modification) groups of students.
All of the other ER strategies included in
our study were aimed at influencing emotion
after its emergence. The first, Attentional
Deployment, was frequently used by students
with prevalent secure and dismissive attach-
ments, while the other two groups of students
used it sometimes. Cognitive Reappraisal of
the situation’s meaning and importance is an
ER strategy that was sometimes used by the
students, with the exceptions of its frequent use
by students who had a dismissive attachment
style (Reappraisal of Meaning) and by fearfully
attached students (Reappraisal of Importance).
All of the groups of students used Experiential
Response Modulation and Substance Use

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.

 Regulation regarding students’ attachment 361

Table 2 Significant differences in mean ranks of ER and coping strategies in different

attachment styles in students
Secure 1 Fearful 2 Preoccupied 3 Dismissive 4 Kruskal–Wallis Mann–Whitney
R R R R

ER strategies
Social 119.37 96.52 141.36 55.17 χ2 (3) = 18.05 1 > 2,4
support p = .00 3 > 2,4
Suppression 106.31 132.33 100.94 93.50 χ2 (3) = 10.04 2 > 1,3
p = .02
Comfort 112.89 109.53 134.98 58.33 χ2 (3) = 8.51 4 < 1,2,3
eating p = .04
Coping strategies
Seek social 121.90 94.71 128.02 64.58 χ2 (3) = 13.05 1 > 2,4
support p = .01 3>2
Escape- 105.10 116.63 136.17 57.50 χ2 (3) = 10.51 2>4
avoidance p = .02 3 > 1,4

Note. R = mean rank; >the first group perceived ER and coping strategies as more frequently used than the
second; <the first group perceived ER and coping strategies as less frequently used than the second;
1 = secure attachment; 2 = fearful attachment; 3 = preoccupied attachment; 4 = dismissive attachment.

rarely. Physiological Response Modulation was
rarely used by the preoccupied students, while
the other three attachment-based groups used
it sometimes. The remaining ER strategies,
which are all defined as Behavior Response
Modulation (physical activation, suppression,
social support, comfort eating), were sometimes
used by most of the students in the various
attachment-based groups. However, social
support was frequently used by securely
attached and preoccupied students, while sup-
pression was frequently used by fearfully
attached students. On the other hand, the use
of food to comfort the emotions was a rarely
used ER strategy by the dismissively attached
students.
Significant differences between the
attachment-based groups of students (Kruskal–
Wallis test; p > .05) are confirmed for the use
of three ER strategies: social support, suppres-
sion, and comfort eating. According to Mann–
Whitney U-tests, securely attached and preoc-
cupied students used social support more fre-
quently than their colleagues with fearful or
dismissive attachment. Fearfully attached stu-
dents suppressed their emotions more fre-
quently than securely attached or preoccupied
ones. Lastly, dismissively attached students
used the ER strategy of comfort eating less
than each of the other attachment-based
groups.
With regard to coping strategies, pedagogi-
cal students with different attachment styles
sometimes used Distracting and Escape-
Avoidance. On the other hand, students with
secure and preoccupied attachment styles used
Seek Social Support frequently, while the
other two groups of students used this strategy
sometimes. Planful Problem-Solving was used
frequently by the securely and dismissively
attached students, while the other groups used
it sometimes. Lastly, Positive Reappraisal was
sometimes used only by dismissively attached
students, while the other groups used it
frequently.
Significant differences between the
attachment-based groups of students (Kruskal–
Wallis test; p > .05) were confirmed for the use
of two coping strategies: seeking social support
and escape-avoidance. Mann–Whitney U-tests
further indicated that securely attached and pre-
occupied students more frequently sought social
support than fearfully attached students.
Securely attached students also used this strat-
egy more than the dismissively attached group
of students. Fearfully attached and preoccupied
students escaped and avoided stressful situations
more than their colleagues with a dismissive

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.

362 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic
attachment style. Furthermore, preoccupied stu-
dents used the escape-avoidance coping strategy
more than securely attached ones.
Discussion
The pedagogical students in our study are
future human-relations professionals. As such,
their internal representations of self and others
within relationships – attachment styles
(Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1965) – are relevant to
them not only because of their private relation-
ships but also because of their future work com-
petencies (found in individuals with secure
attachment) of sensitivity to others, coopera-
tion, and trust in interpersonal relationships
(Razdevšek Pucko & Rugelj, 2006). As the
selection of the majority of study programs –
including pedagogical programs – in Slovenia is
based on students’ academic achievement in
secondary school, there is no information on
whether the selected students had all of the
aforementioned characteristics. The predomi-
nance of the secure attachment style is gener-
ally expected (Bowlby & Ainsworth, 1965).
Approximately half of the students included in
our study had a prevalent secure attachment,
which is in line with the results of some other
authors (Žvelc & Žvelc, 2006), yet it might be
somewhat concerning regarding their future
work orientation. In a further comparison of
students in our study with Slovenian psychology
students (Žvelc & Žvelc, 2006), the percentages
of students with fearful and preoccupied attach-
ment styles were similar while the percentages
of students with prevalent dismissive attach-
ment were lower in our study. However, it
should be noted that, despite the fact that each
individual usually has one prevailing attach-
ment style, a certain level of other attachment
styles may also be found (Broberg et al., 2001).
In the present study, we were also interested
in how pedagogical students with different
attachment styles used their ER and coping
strategies, as these may be closely intertwined
with attachment characteristics (Mikulincer
et al., 2003). Detailed analysis of ER strategies
selected in accordance with Gross and Thomp-
son’s model (2009) reveals that all of the
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
attachment-based groups of students most fre-
quently used strategies aimed at influencing
emotions when they had not yet emerged: Situ-
ation Selection and Situation Modification.
This implies an active relationship towards
potentially emotion-eliciting situations. How-
ever, the efficiency of such ER strategies
should be discussed within each context. In the
continuation, there was a discussion of ER
strategies aimed at emotions when they had
already emerged. Firstly, attentional deploy-
ment was used sometimes or frequently in all
of the attachment-based groups of students.
This may be due to the students’ experience
with applying this strategy when interacting
with children during their practical study expe-
rience, which they undertake as pedagogical
students. Since they may apply this strategy
when interacting with children quite often – as
this strategy is frequently used by teachers
(Sutton, Mudrey-Camino, & Knight, 2009) –
they may also use it more themselves. Further-
more, cognitive reappraisal of the situation’s
meaning and importance was predominantly
used sometimes by the attachment-based
groups of students. This strategy could be
encouraged in students, as it is generally con-
sidered to be an effective ER strategy con-
nected to well-being, self-esteem, and having
social support (Gross & John, 2003). Experien-
tial response modulation, including “turning
off” one’s emotional experience, was only
rarely used by any of the students, as it is prob-
ably difficult to achieve. Psycho-active sub-
stances were also rarely used by any of the
students, perhaps indicating their awareness of
the negative consequences. Other response-
oriented ER strategies were sometimes used
by most of the participants. Summarizing the
use of ER strategies aimed before or after the
experience of emotions, a clear distinction
between them could not be clearly recognized.
Significant differences between the
attachment-based groups of students appeared
in the use of three ER strategies: social support,
suppression, and comfort eating. Students
whose prevalent attachment style was secure or
preoccupied used social support frequently, sig-
nificantly more than their colleagues with
 Regulation regarding students’ attachment
fearful or dismissive attachment. This may be
connected to the fact that both attachment
styles – secure and preoccupied – include a pos-
itive evaluation of others (Bartholomew & Hor-
owitz, 1991), resulting in students with this kind
of attachment having a greater belief that
others may offer efficient help. Another ER
strategy in which differences between the
attachment-based groups appeared was sup-
pression, defined as the reduced or non-
expression of emotions (Gross, 1998). The fact
that fearfully attached students suppress their
emotions frequently – significantly more than
securely attached or preoccupied students –
may be due to their negative evaluation of
others, whom they may perceive as being criti-
cal towards them (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991). The question as to why this difference
does not apply to the group of dismissively
attached students, who also negatively evalu-
ated others, may be answered by the fact that
the latter group simply cared less about the
opinions of others, as they were not interested
in establishing close relationships, a characteris-
tic known as compulsive self-sufficiency
(Bowlby, 1997). This use of suppression may
be somewhat concerning, as the frequent use
of this strategy is considered less efficient and
negatively connected to well-being (John &
Gross, 2009; Karademas et al., 2010) and social
functioning (Gross & John, 2003), and posi-
tively connected to psychopathology (Aldao
et al., 2010). Lastly, the use of food to comfort
one’s emotions was rarely used and was signifi-
cantly less characteristic of the dismissively
attached group in comparison with all of the
other attachment-based groups of students.
This may be due to their somewhat self-
restricting way of functioning: these individuals
may not allow themselves to be comforted by
“external” means (Brennan & Shaver, 1995).
The coping regulatory process was also ana-
lyzed in pedagogical students with different
attachment styles. All of the attachment-based
groups sometimes used the majority of the
coping strategies included, with a number of
the strategies being used frequently. Signifi-
cant differences between the attachment-based
groups of students were confirmed for the use
363
of two of the coping strategies: seeking social
support and escape-avoidance. Seeking social
support is a frequently used coping strategy in
the group of students with a prevalent secure
attachment style, being used significantly more
than in the fearfully and dismissively attached
groups. Preoccupied students also used the
seeking social support coping strategy fre-
quently, significantly more than their fearful
colleagues. Securely attached and preoccupied
students shared a positive model of others
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), and their
more frequent search for help in stressful
situations than students in the other two
attachment styles was therefore to be
expected. However, why significant differences
were not confirmed between preoccupied and
dismissive students in their use of social sup-
port seeking remains unclear. Seeking social
support is described as a more active coping
strategy, and as such is generally considered to
be more efficient when dealing with stress
(Glasscock et al., 2013). Its more frequent use
in securely attached and preoccupied students
is therefore encouraging.
Escaping and avoiding stressful situations is
more present in fearfully attached and preoc-
cupied students than in their colleagues with a
dismissive attachment style. Given that both
fearfully attached and preoccupied students
share a negative internal representation of
themselves (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991),
this is probably why they do not want to face
others in stressful situations, unlike their col-
leagues with a dismissive attachment style. This
is not in line with some previous research
(Mikulincer, 1995), which claimed that dismis-
sive attachment is connected to avoidance of
problem-situations. Interestingly, preoccupied
students also use the escape-avoidance coping
strategy more than securely attached students,
implying that the negative self-representation
in preoccupied students leads to more frequent
escaping or avoiding stressful situations that
could evoke their negative evaluation of them-
selves. As escaping or avoiding stressful situa-
tions is considered a more passive and
therefore less efficient coping approach
(Glasscock et al., 2013), its significantly greater
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
364 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic
use in fearful and preoccupied students may be
of concern, and demands further attention.
To summarize, the less frequent use of
social support (as an ER and coping strategy)
in fearfully and dismissively attached students
should be addressed in particular, as these
students will also be modeling their ER and
coping approaches to people they work with
in their future profession. For the same rea-
son, the more frequent use of suppression in
students with fearful attachment could be
challenged. The coping strategy of escaping
and avoiding, which is more frequently used
by students with fearful and preoccupied
attachment styles, should also be discussed
with the students, and possibly replaced with
more effective strategies. This can be accom-
plished via the systematic inclusion of these
themes in university study programs. Theoret-
ical explanations for attachment, emotion reg-
ulation, and coping strategies are already a
part of some subjects within study programs
(e.g., developmental and educational psychol-
ogy), yet these themes could be further ana-
lyzed and processed within smaller groups of
students allowing for their more individua-
lized work. Even though the changes of
(especially) attachment style, ER, and coping
strategies are not an easy task to accomplish,
previously mentioned work in smaller groups
could encourage students’ reflection and pos-
sible changes of self and other representa-
tions, of dealing with emotions, and stressful
situations. Regarding specific ER and coping
strategies, positive group experience may
show the students the effects of the social
support strategy (thus enhancing its use), and
represent a safe environment for expressing
emotions (thus diminishing the use of
suppression).
Conclusion
The students participating in our study are
future human-relations professionals, a group
whose attachment, ER, or coping mechanisms
have been only rarely studied by other authors,
despite these areas being of special importance
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
to these students because of their future work.
The majority of ER strategies included in the
study were sometimes used by students, while
some were used frequently and a few used
rarely. Similarly, the majority of the coping stra-
tegies included in the study were used some-
times, while the others were used frequently.
The four attachment-based groups of students
(secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissive)
have somewhat different patterns of frequency
of ER and coping strategy use. The significant
differences between the attachment-based
groups of students were, however, confirmed in
their use of the ER strategies of social support,
suppression, and comfort eating, and in the cop-
ing strategies of seeking social support and
escaping or avoiding stressful situations. These
differences might be explained by the specifici-
ties of attachment styles that include positive or
negative self and other internal representations,
with the latter perhaps having an even more
important role. It may be concluded that,
despite the distinction between ER and coping
processes (Smrtnik Vitulic & Prosen, 2016),
both sets of processes were connected to rela-
tional schemas. Efficient ER and coping strate-
gies can be encouraged throughout study
programs, as these strategies are more suscepti-
ble to change in the period of late adolescence
(Diamond & Aspinwall, 2003; Skinner &
Zimmer-Gembeck, 2007).
The relatively high percentage of insecure
attachment styles among the participating stu-
dents was somewhat concerning, especially
considering their future work as human-
relations professionals. Although attachment
styles remain relatively stable during the indi-
vidual’s development, they can be altered at
important life-events or in long-term relation-
ships. Even though changing students’ inse-
cure attachment styles within a university
context is a difficult task, it is nonetheless
possible to provide information regarding
attachment and its importance for the estab-
lishment and maintenance of relationships.
Such information may encourage students
with insecure attachment styles to start trans-
forming their relational representations and
behaviors.
 Regulation regarding students’ attachment
In conclusion, some methodological improve-
ments to our study are suggested. Even though
the percentages of students in each of the four
attachment-based groups in our study were sim-
ilar to the previously obtained data, the num-
bers of students within some of these groups
(especially the dismissive group) were low –
representing a shortcoming of our study. Also,
attachment styles, ER, and coping strategies
could be assessed by other methods, such as
observations, providing external information on
the individual’s behavior. Furthermore, reas-
sessment of these psychological measures could
be undertaken at the end of the study program,
in order to determine whether and how the
study program has influenced them. ER and
coping strategies could also be studied in spe-
cific relationships, such as interactions with par-
ents, siblings, peers, or romantic partners.
References
Aldao, A., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Schweizer, S.
(2010). Emotion-regulation strategies across
psychopathology: A meta-analytic review. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 30, 217–237.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attach-
ment styles among young adults: A test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Bowlby, J. (1997). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.
Attachment (2nd ed.). London: Pimlico.
Bowlby, J., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1965). Child care
and the growth of love. London: Penguin.
Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1995). Dimensions
of adult attachment, affect regulation, and
romantic relationship functioning. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 267–283.
Broberg, A. G., Hjalmers, I., & Nevonen, L. (2001).
Eating disorders, attachment and interpersonal
difficulties: A comparison between 18- to 24-
year-old patients and normal controls.
European Eating Disorders Review, 9, 381–396.
Carr, S., Colthurst, K., Coyle, M., & Elliott, D.
(2013). Attachment dimensions as predictors of
mental health and psychological well-being in
the transition to university. European Journal
of Psychology of Education, 28, 157–172.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Compas, B. E., Jaser, S. S., Dunbar, J. P.,
Watson, K. H., Bettis, A. H., Gruhn, M. A., &
365
Williams, E. K. (2014). Coping and emotion
regulation from childhood to early adulthood:
Points of convergence and divergence.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 66, 71–81.
Cugmas, Z. (2003). Narisal sem sonce zate: Izbrana
poglavja o razvoju otrokove navezanosti in
samozaznave [I drew a sun for you: Selected
chapters on child’s attachment development].
Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnosticna sredstva,
d.o.o. (In Slovenian, translated by the authors
of this article.)
Diamond, L. M., & Aspinwall, L. G. (2003). Emo-
tion regulation across the life span: An integra-
tive perspective emphasizing self-regulation,
positive affect, and dyadic process. Motivation
and Emotion, 27, 125–156.
Ferligoj, A., Leskošek, K., & Kogovšek, T. (1995).
Zanesljivost in veljavnost merjenja [Reliability
and validity of measurement]. Ljubljana: FDV
(In Slovenian, translated by the authors of this
article.)
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., &
DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health
status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 571–579.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., &
Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress
and coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2,
171–184.
Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal
representations of attachment during pregnancy
predict the organization of infant-mother attach-
ment at one year of age. Child Development, 62,
891–905.
Glasscock, D. J., Andersen, J. H., Labriola, M.,
Rasmussen, K., & Hansen, C. D. (2013). Can neg-
ative life events and coping style help explain soci-
oeconomic differences in perceived stress among
adolescents? A cross-sectional study based on the
West Jutland cohort study. BMC Public Health,
13, 532.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion
regulation: An integrative review. Review of
General Psychology, 2, 271–299.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differ-
ences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 55, 348–362.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2009). Emotion regu-
lation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross &
R. A. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of emotion
regulation (pp. 3–24). New York, London: Guil-
ford Press.
Jacobsen, T., Edelstein, W., & Hofmann, V. (1994).
A longitudinal study of the relation between
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
366 S. Prosen and H. Smrtnik Vitulic
representations of attachment in childhood and
cognitive functioning in childhood and adoles-
cence. Developmental Psychology, 30, 112–124.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2009). Individual differ-
ences in emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross &
R. A. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of emotion
regulation (pp. 351–372). New York, London:
Guilford Press.
Karademas, E. C., Tsalikou, C., & Tellarou, M.-C.
(2010). The impact of emotion regulation and
illness-focused coping strategies on the relation
of illness-related negative emotions to subjec-
tive health. Journal of Health Psychology, 16,
510–519.
Lamovec, T. (1994). Psihodiagnostika osebnosti 1
[Psychodiagnostics of personality I]. Ljubljana:
Oddelek za psihologijo, Filozofska fakulteta
(In Slovenian, translated by the authors of this
article.)
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional
theory and research on emotions and coping.
European Journal of Personality, 1, 141–169.
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M.
(2005). Emotion regulation and the quality of
social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113–118.
Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and
change in adult attachment style over the first-
year college transition: Relations to self-confi-
dence, coping, and distress patterns. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 49, 355–364.
Mattanah, J. F., Hancock, G. R., & Brand, B. L.
(2004). Parental attachment, separation – individ-
uation, and college student adjustment: A struc-
tural equation analysis of mediational effects.
Journal of Counselling Psychology, 51, 213–225.
Mikulincer, M. (1995). Attachment style and the
mental representation of the self. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
1203–1215.
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003).
Attachment theory and affect regulation: The
dynamics, development, and cognitive conse-
quences of attachment-related strategies. Moti-
vation and Emotion, 27, 77–102.
Prosen, S., & Smrtnik Vitulic, H. (2014). Different
perspectives on emotion regulation and its effi-
ciency. Psihologijske Teme, 23, 389–405.
© Japanese Psychological Association 2016.
Razdevšek Pucko, C., & Rugelj, J. (2006). Kompe-
tence v izobraževanju uciteljev [Competencies
in primary teacher education]. In S. Tancig &
T. Devjak (Eds.), Prispevki k posodobitvi peda-
goških študijskih programov (pp. 30–44). Lju-
bljana: Pedagoška fakulteta (In Slovenian,
translated by the authors of this article.)
Schutte, N. S., Manes, R. R., & Malouff, J. M. (2009).
Antecedent-focused emotion regulation, response
modulation and well-being. Current Psychology,
28, 21–31.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind. New York,
London: Guilford Press.
Skinner, E. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2007).
The development of coping. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 119–144.
Smrtnik Vitulic, H., & Prosen, S. (2016). Coping and
emotion regulation strategies in adulthood: Spe-
cificities regarding age, gender and level of edu-
cation. Društvena istraživanja, 25, 43–62.
Sutton, R. E., Mudrey-Camino, R., & Knight, C. C.
(2009). Teachers’ emotion regulation and class-
room management. Theory Into Practice, 48,
130–137.
Thompson, R. A. (1999). Early sociopersonality
development. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: social, emotional, and per-
sonality development (5th ed., Vol. 3,
pp. 25–104). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, R. A., & Meyer, S. (2009). Socialization
of emotion regulation in the family. In
J. J. Gross & R. A. Thompson (Eds.), Hand-
book of emotion regulation (pp. 249–268).
New York, London: Guilford Press.
Zambianchi, M., & Ricci Bitti, P. E. (2014). The role
of proactive coping strategies, time perspective,
perceived efficacy on affect regulation, diver-
gent thinking and family communication in pro-
moting social well-being in emerging adulthood.
Social Indicators Research, 116, 493–507.
Žvelc, M., & Žvelc, G. (2006). Stili navezanosti v
odraslosti [Adult attachment styles]. Horizons
of Psychology, 15, 51–64 (In Slovenian, trans-
lated by the authors of this article.)
(Received December 23, 2015; accepted June 15, 2016)
Copyright of Japanese Psychological Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.