ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 1 How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin, Tome Saidon, Victoria Shaw Baruch College City University of New York Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin, Tome Saidon, or Victoria Shaw, Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch Way, New York, N.Y. 10010 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 1
How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance,
Engagement and Motivation
Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin,
Tome Saidon, Victoria Shaw
Baruch College City University of New York
Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tiffany E. Alexander, Amanda
De Nobrega-Alarcon, Linda Ottosson, Moreen Ramadhin, Tome Saidon, or Victoria Shaw,
Department of Psychology, Baruch College City University of New York, One Bernard Baruch
satisfaction also served as a mediator between transformational teaching and engagement.
Therefore, in our study we are interested in determining if a student’s level of attachment affects
perceptions of leadership and how they view their immediate educator and what effect this has
on a student’s engagement. We predict:
H1: Individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.
H2: Individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational leader.
H3: Individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.
H4: Individuals with a fearful attachment style will have positive perceptions, high performance and high engagement with transactional leader.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 32
Method
Participants
The participants in the study consisted of undergraduate students attending Baruch
College, CUNY. There were originally a total of 164 participants in the study, however after
examining the questionnaires and consent forms there were a final number of 100 participants
who qualified as a research subject, 61 females and 39 males. Participants were disqualified on
premises based on either incomplete data or unreturned consent. Out of the 64 disqualified
participants, 6 students had neglected to record their name either in Day One or Day Two
packets resulting in the loss of completed data. While 12 participants completed in entirety the
questionnaires in the study, they did not complete their consent forms. 8 participants were
eliminated from the study due to only consenting to the use of their grade and failing to complete
the section of the consent form pertaining to the use of their questionnaires. The remaining 38
participants either did not complete the Experiences in Close Relationships Survey or the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which were two of the essential surveys. All of the
participants were above the age of 18 and fell anywhere within the range from freshmen,
sophomore juniors, and seniors. All participants were enrolled in the winter session at Baruch
College, where each class averaged about 20 students. Participation in the study was completely
voluntary where participants were informed they would be enrolled in a raffle conducted by the
researchers offering compensation to 10 winners. Confidentiality was highly stressed to the
participants, informing them that their professors would not have access to the questionnaires.
Finally, they were instructed that if any of the questions on the survey made them feel
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 33
uncomfortable they were allowed to bypass the question or drop out from the study at any given
time.
Measures
Each participant was given a manila envelope containing the consent forms (Appendix A)
and questionnaires. The Day One envelop consisted of the demographic survey (Appendix B)
which contained eight items in regards to the participants, age gender, and class year for
instance, the Experiences in Close Relationships -Revised (ECR) survey which measured
attachment style, and two copies of the consent form, one for the student’s record and one for the
researchers. The ECR survey was created by Fraley, Waller, & Brennan (2000). The 36 item
survey included questions regarding personal relationships in which the participants rated how
strongly each statement related to them. When scored, the ECR contains subscales that measure
avoidance and anxiety. Scores result from a sum of all ratings; therefore, the higher the
participants rated the statements the higher the level of attachment avoidance and anxiety.
Examples of items in the ECR include “My desire to be very close sometimes scares people
away” and “It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.”
Day Two envelops contained two additional copies of the consent form as well as the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the Motivation and Engagement Scale-
University/College Survey (MES). The MLQ was designed to assess perceptions of leadership
style. Respondents rate the degree to which the leader possesses the qualities of a
transformational, transactional, or laissez faire leader. Transformational leaders are known to
influence positive change and motivate their followers to perform better whereas transactional
leaders believe in a give and take relationship, where the followers must put in effort for them to
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 34
be rewarded. Laissez faire leaders are not constructive leaders in comparison to the other two
styles. They tend to be passive in their approach which can lead to decreased performance and
commitment. Scores are computed for the different dimensions in the measure and are compared
to a percentile table in order to obtain a score for the different items. Examples of items in the
MLQ include “Is absent when needed,” “Spends time teaching and coaching,” and “Expresses
confidence that goals will be achieved.” The Motivation and Engagement Scale-
University/College Survey (MES), developed by Martin (2009), assesses positive and negative
thoughts in terms of planning, task management, anxiety, disengagement, and control. Booster
scores represent higher levels of motivation and engagement where Guzzler and Muffler scores
are associated with lower levels of motivation and engagement. Booster thoughts and behaviors
include self-belief, valuing, learning focus, planning, task management, and persistence. The
dimensions that make up negative thoughts include self-sabotage and disengagement (Guzzlers),
where negative behaviors such as anxiety, failure avoidance, and uncertain control comprise
Muffler scores.
Research Design and Procedures
Multivariate Analysis of Variance, MANOVA, was used for the within subjects design.
Participants for this study were recruited via email and in person through approaching professors
at Baruch College, where they were provided with a full description of the research procedures
and goals (Appendix C). A list of Winter 2015 Session classes, which ran from January 2, 2015
until January 23, 2015, was compiled. The professors were not being asked to participate in
research activities themselves but rather for access to their classroom and students. Email
addresses were obtained through Baruch College’s faculty directory. Those professors who
agreed to participate were sent a Participation Recruitment form (Appendix D) stating they were
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 35
granting the researchers access to their classroom where student participants would be recruited
for the study. The professors also agreed to leave the classroom once the researchers arrived to
ensure the confidentiality of the students participating in the study.
Upon entering the classroom, the students were read a script that explained the outline of
the study, the purpose of each survey, the consent form, and time duration of the study. We
explained that end of term grades would be collected as a measure of performance. All students
were assured that their professor would have no knowledge of who participated until the
semester had officially ended and grades were submitted to the Registrar's' office, indicating that
their participation in the study would have no impact on their final grade. The students were also
notified that by participating they were automatically enrolled into a raffle where they had the
opportunity to win a $10.00 gift card.
Once the students confirmed they fully understood the purpose of the study, as well as
their responsibilities, the researchers distributed the packets. On Day One, the students received
the two consent forms including the Permission for Access to Educational Records form from the
Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well consent to participate in the study,
the demographic questionnaire, and lastly the ECR survey which measured their attachment
style. Then one week later on Day Two, the students received the MLQ and the MES. Once all
materials were distributed, participants were informed to leave their completed items in the
sealed envelope on the front desk. The researchers then exited the classroom to avoid undue
influence. After the last student left the classroom, the researchers collected the packets After all
data was collected, we compiled a list of all incomplete surveys, any participants who may have
completed Day One but not Day two and vice versa, as well as any incomplete consent forms.
The participants falling in any of these categories were then contacted via email with a request to
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 36
complete any missing information. The last step in the data collection process was to email the
professors an Microsoft Excel sheet containing a list of student’s names who consented to submit
their final grades in the study. The professors then emailed back the Excel within two business
days with the student’s final grade listed next to their names. Finally, we notified the winners of
the raffle on February 23, 2015. Any participant who did not fill out necessary information was
then disqualified from the study and their responses were not included in the analysis.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 37
Results
A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was conducted in order to determine
the effect of our two independent variables; attachment style and perception of leadership, on our
tw0 dependent variables; final grade, and motivation and engagement. The Wilks’ Lambda row
indicated that the dependent variables do not indicate a statistically significant effect on Booster
scores (high motivation and engagement), F (8, 36)=2.12 p>.05. There was no statistical
significant effect of attachment style and perception on Guzzler and Muffler scores (low
motivation & engagement) F (6/ 36)= 1.96 p>.05 (Appendix 1). There was no statistically
significant difference found between attachment style and perception of leader on final grades, F
(2, 18)=3.09 p>.05 (Appendix 1). Overall, we did not find statistically significant results in the
MANOVA, as a result a Person’s correlation and Multiple Regression were conducted.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was run to determine the relationship between
final grade, Booster scores, Guzzler and Muffler scores, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ), and the Experience in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR). There
was a strong statistically significant, negative correlation between Booster scores and Guzzler
and Muffler scores, (r= -.218, n=100, p=-.22) (Appendix 2). Guzzler and Muffler scores show a
positive association with the MLQ (r=.246, n=97, p=.25) (Appendix 2). There was strong
positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and final grade (r=.289, n=79, p=.29)
(Appendix 2), showing the strong relationship between low motivation and final grade. There
was a strong positive correlation between Guzzler and Muffler scores and the ECR (r=.227,
n=99, p<.05) (Appendix 2), which shows the statistical validity of the Motivation and
Engagement Scale.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 38
We used a Multiple Regression to determine how much of the variance in grades could be
explained by the ECR and MLQ. When the ECR was isolated as the sole predictor of grades, a
positive correlation of .56 was obtained. For the first model its value is 0.003, which means that
attachment style accounts for .3% of the variation in final grades; however, when the MLQ was
included (model 2), this value increased to 0.036 or 3.6% of the variance in final grades
(Appendix 3). For model 1, we obtained an F ratio is of 0.241 and for model 2 the F ratio is
1.399. The table indicates that the independent variables, ECR and MLQ, are not significantly
predictive of the dependent variables, final grades and motivation and engagement, F (1,76) =
.241 p>.01 and F (2,75) = 1.39 p>.01(Appendix 4).In the estimated model coefficients, the
general form of the equation to predict final grade from the ECR (model 1) is predicted, Grade =
1.114 + (.023 x Experience in Close Relationships) (Appendix 5).In the estimated model
coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict final grades from the ECR and MLQ
(model 2) is predicted, Grade = .973 + (.019 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.088 x
MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire).These equations were obtained from the Coefficients
Table (Appendix 5). For complete display of means see (Appendix 18 and Appendix 19).
Attachment style (b=0.019): This value indicates that the more secure a student, the student’s
grade will increase by 0.019. This is only true if the effects of the student’s perception of
leadership are held constant. MLQ (b=0.088): This value indicates that as a student’s perception
of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to transformational, the student’s final grade increased by
0.088. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held constant. The
correlations are small thus given these coefficients we do not see evidence that the analysis
revealed significant association between variables.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 39
The regression model is not a good fit of our data, thus ECR and MLQ scores did not
predict final grade In conclusion, these variables in model 1 did not predict grade, F (1,76) =
.241 p> .005 R2 =.003 (Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). Experience in Close Relationships variable
in model 1 did not predict grade, p>.05 . The variables Experience in Close Relationships and
Multi-Factor Leadership in model 2 did not predict grade, F ( 2, 75) = 1.399 R2 = .036 p>.05
(Appendix 3 and Appendix 4). The ECR and the MLQ were not predictive of grade.
An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with ECR and MLQ and Booster
scores. When only the ECR is used as a predictor, the correlation between how secure a student’s
attachment style is and their Booster scores is 0.01. When the MLQ is included, the R value
remains at 0.01. For the first model the value is 0.000; attachment style accounts for 0% of the
variation in grades. When the other predictor, MLQ (model 2), was accounted for, the value still
remains at 0% of the variance in grades. Ultimately, our findings do not support our
hypothesized relationships (Appendix 6).
The ANOVA table shows that for model 1, the F ratio is 0.012 and for model 2 the F
ratio is 0.009. This means that the initial model did not significantly improve our ability to
predict Booster scores. The table shows that the independent variables (ECR and MLQ)
statistically are not significantly predictive of the dependent variable (Booster scores), F (1,97) =
.012 p>.05 and F (2,96) = .009 p>.05 (Appendix 7). The regression model is not good fit of the
data. For complete display of means (Appendix 12).For complete display of means see
(Appendix 15 and Appendix 16).
In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster
scores from the ECR (model 1) is, Booster scores = 81.938 - (.136 x Experience in Close
Relationships). ECR does not predict Booster scores (Appendix 8). In the estimated model
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 40
coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict Booster scores from the ECR and the
MLQ (model 2) is, Booster scores = 81.710 - (.149 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (.148
x MultiFactor Leadership Questionnaire). ECR and MLQ do not predict Booster scores
(Appendix 8). The b-values in the table show both a negative and positive relationship
exists. The b-value for attachment style is -0.149, which indicates that there is a negative
relationship between a student’s attachment style and their booster scores. However, the b-value
for MLQ is 0.148, which indicates that the greater a student’s perception of leadership, the
higher their Booster scores. Attachment style (b=-0.149): This value indicates that as the
dependent variable (Booster score) decreases, the less secure is a student’s attachment style will
be when holding all the other independent variables constant. MLQ (b=0.148): this value
indicates that as a student’s perception of leadership increases, the student’s Booster score
increases by 0.149. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held
constant. Another multiple regression was run to predict Booster Scores from the ECR and
MLQ. These variables in model 1 statistically did not predict Booster Scores, F (1,97) = .012 p>
.005 R2 =.000. The ECR variable in model 1 did not add statistical significance to the prediction
p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The variables ECR and MLQ in model 2, statistically did not predict
Booster Scores, F ( 2, 96) = .009 R2 = .000 p>.05 (Appendix 6 and 7).The ECR and MLQ were
not predictive of Booster scores.
An additional Multiple Regression was conducted with the ECR and MLQ and our dependent
variables: Guzzlers and Mufflers. When only the ECR was used as a predictor, the simple
correlation between a student’s attachment style and their guzzlers and mufflers scores equals
0.227 (Appendix 9).
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 41
When MLQ is included, the R value increased to 0.31 (Appendix 9), for the first model
(R2) is 0.05, which means that attachment style accounts for 5.2% of the variation in guzzlers and
mufflers score. When the other predictor is included (model 2), the value increases to 10% of the
variance in guzzlers and mufflers score (Appendix 9).
The ANOVA table shows that the ECR and the MLQ are significantly predictive of
Guzzlers and Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 and F (2,96) = 5.304. This means that the initial model
significantly improve our ability to predict the outcome. For complete display of means see
Appendix 17 and 18. In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to
predict Guzzlers and Mufflers from ECR (model 1) is predicted, Guzzlers/Mufflers = 40.191 +
(2.843 x Experience in Close Relationships). Describing the model 1 equation is as such, for
every incremental increase in the ECR there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.843
(Appendix 10). In the estimated model coefficients, the general form of the equation to predict
Guzzlers and Mufflers from the ECR and the MLQ (model 2) is, GuzzlersMufflers = 34.260 +
(2.495 x Experience in Close Relationships) + (3.865 x Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire)
(Appendix 10). Describing the model 2 equation is as such, for every incremental increase in the
ECR, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 and for every incremental increase
in MLQ scores, there is an increase in Guzzlers and Mufflers by 2.495 (Appendix 10). When
predicting Guzzlers and Mufflers scores from ECR and MLQ. In model 1, ECR statistically
predicted Guzzlers/Mufflers, F (1,97) = 5.291 p=.02 R2 =.052 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and
MLQ in model 2 statistically predicted Guzzlers and Mufflers, F ( 2, 96) = 5.304 R2 = .100 p=.04
and p=.03 (Appendix 9 and 10). The ECR and MLQ predicted Guzzler and Muffler scores.
The b -values in the table indicates a positive relationship exists for both predictors. The
b-value for attachment style 2.495 which indicates that the less secure a student’s attachment
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 42
style and the higher Guzzler and Muffler scores. In addition, the b-value obtained for the MLQ
was 3.865. This shows that as a student’s perception of leadership shifts from laissez-faire to
transformational, they will obtain lower Guzzler and Muffler scores. Attachment style has a b-
value of 2.495, indicating that as a student becomes less secure, their Guzzler and Muffler scores
with decrease by 2.495. This is only true if the effects of the student’s attachment style are held
constant (Appendix 9).
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 43
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine if a student’s academic performance and level
of motivation and engagement is influenced by their perception of leadership in relation to their
attachment style. In the current study we predicted that students who reported having a secure or
preoccupied attachment style would have a high level of motivation and engagement as well as
positive perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor they perceive as being
transformational. For dismissive or fearful students, we predicted they would have positive
perceptions of the leader and better performance with a professor that they perceived to be
transactional. These students would illustrate greater motivation and engagement with a leader
they perceived as transactional (compared with laissez-faire and transformational). While our
study did not show any meaningful significance in terms of our hypothesis, we did find several
patterns within our analysis that supported our predictions.
We used Mary Main and June Cassidy (1988)’s model of attachment style classification.
The model includes four levels of attachment style; secure, insecure dismissive, insecure fearful,
and insecure preoccupied. We proposed that attachment style affects one’s perception of
leadership style. Leadership style could be perceived to be either transformational, transactional,
or laissez faire. This perception of leadership was theorized to have an effect on midterm grades,
i.e., performance, and engagement in the class. Our analyses revealed results that were not
statistically significant. However, the results did show patterns that supported our predictions.
The Multiple Regressions and One-way ANOVAs were used to reveal the patterns that
existed between student’s attachment style, performance, and motivation and engagement.
Patterns were identified between a student’s performance and their perception of leadership.
Therefore, as a student’s grade shifted from A to B, their perception of the professor shifted
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 44
transformational to transactional to laissez faire. In addition, a pattern was found between a
student’s attachment styles and student performance. Thus, though our results were not
statistically significant, they are consistent with prior work. For example, Gore and Rogers
(2010) found that secure attachment style was positively associated with GPA scores.
In addition, we found a pattern between Booster scores, which is a measure of high
motivation and engagement, and attachment style. The results showed that secure and
preoccupied attachment styles scored higher Booster scores. These scores decreased as
attachment styles shifted towards dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we found a pattern
between Booster scores and perception of leadership. Students with high Booster scores were
more likely to perceive their professor as more transformational. However, Booster scores
decreased as attachment style shifted towards transactional and increased again when shifted to
laissez-faire.
Moreover, a pattern was observed between Guzzlers and Mufflers scores, which is a
measure for low motivation and engagement, attachment style, as well as perception of
leadership. The results show that students with a secure and preoccupied attachment styles
received lower Guzzlers and Mufflers score. As attachment styles shifted from dismissive to
fearful, Guzzlers and Mufflers score increased, indicating less motivation and engagement.
Additionally, the perception of the students’ professors shifted from transformational to
transactional as Guzzler and Muffler scores decreased. However, when Guzzlers and Muffler
scores increased, perceptions shifted from transactional to laissez-faire.
As previously mentioned, though our results were not statistically significant, we were
able to identify patterns that were consistent with our hypotheses. We will proceed to explain
these patterns found by discussing various attachment styles beginning with secure, preoccupied,
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 45
dismissive and fearful. Furthermore, we will discuss the patterns found with the various
perceptions of leadership.
Secure Attachment
Our first hypothesis stated individuals with a secure attachment style will have positive
perceptions, high performance and high motivation and engagement with a transformational
leader. The researchers found that students with a secure attachment style earned the second
highest final grade scores. Though the results in this study were not statistically significant, the
pattern is consistent with other studies such as Pashaeia (2014), which showed a positive
correlation between secure attachment styles and academic performance of students. Their
results showed that as a student’s score increases on the secure attachment scale, this leads to an
increase in academic performance (Pashaeia, 2014). Participant grades ranged from A’s to B
minus’. This may provide an explanation as to why the researchers were unable to find
significance in the relationship between the student’s attachment style and their performance. In
addition, it is theorized that those students who consented to the release of their final grade were,
in general, high performers and were confident in the final grade they would obtain.
With regards to the Motivation and Engagement Scale, the average Booster score earned
by the students was 81.68, which means that all the students who participated in the study were
highly motivated and engaged in their class; this score is based out of a total high score of 100.
Therefore, the students displayed positive thoughts in self-belief, valuing and learning focus and
positive behaviors in planning, task management and persistence. Students identified as having a
secure attachment style scored the second highest in Booster scores. On the other hand,
secured students scored the lowest in the Guzzler and Muffler scores on the Motivation and
Engagement Scale. This pattern was expected as we anticipated that the student’s with a secure
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 46
attachment style would not display negative thoughts in anxiety, failure avoidance and uncertain
control and negative behaviors in self-sabotage and disengagement. In addition, it has been
suggested that those students enrolled in winter courses tend to be more motivated and higher
performers due to the average student neglecting to enroll in extra courses during intersession.
Preoccupied Attachment
Our third hypothesis states that individuals with a preoccupied attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high levels of motivation & engagement, and high performance with a
transformational leader. Based upon the Experiences in Close Relationships and Performance
graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in performance;
therefore, students with a preoccupied attachment style had the highest grades in comparison to
secure, dismissive, and fearful students. In the Booster Scale versus Experiences in Close
Relationships graph we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked first in
their Booster scores indicating the highest levels of motivation and engagement. Finally, when
analyzing the Guzzler and Muffler scores in comparison to Experiences in Close Relationships
graph, we found that students with a preoccupied attachment style ranked second lowest in their
Guzzler and Muffler scores. This means that preoccupied students had the second lowest levels
of self-destructive or anxious behavior. It was unexpected to find that students with a
preoccupied attachment style obtained the highest final grades and the highest Booster scores
since the researchers predicted that the secure students would be the top performers.
This prediction was made in reason that secure individuals tend to be more confident and
have higher self-efficacy beliefs. However, according to Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)’s
classification of the different attachment styles, preoccupied students have a very low view of
self but have a high regard of relationships with others. Building off of this theory, preoccupied
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 47
individuals’ are consumed with gratifying and acting in accordance with other’s wishes in order
to maintain the relationship. It is their priority to please others before pursuing acts related to the
self. With that being said high levels of attentiveness as well as high performance in a classroom
will prove to be in accordance with the leader’s desire. Preoccupied students ultimately have a
higher desire to please than secure individuals do, and will therefore put more effort in their
behavior in the classroom.
Dismissive Attachment
Our third hypothesis stated that individuals with a dismissive attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high performance, and high motivation and engagement with a
transactional leader. Although there was unsupported evidence concerning the impact of type of
leadership, based on our findings, dismissive individuals scored the highest on Guzzler and
Muffler scores, indicating the lowest motivation and engagement. Furthermore, when comparing
Booster scores, dismissive individuals fell in between the highest (pre-occupied) and lowest
(fearful) scores. Research has found that individuals high in avoidance are more likely to inhibit
group cohesion and engage in counterproductive work behaviors, further supporting our patterns
(Rom and Mikulincer, 2003; Richards and Schat, 2007; as reported in Harms, 2011). Although
all participants obtained relatively high final grades, dismissive participants scored the lowest
grades. Gore and Rogers (2010) argued that attachment style describes an individual's
relationships more so than their personal interests. Therefore, it is reasonable to predict that those
individuals classified as secure are motivated to perform for reasons such as for their family
more so than those whom are classified as avoidant. These findings semi-support the results we
obtained which determined that dismissive-avoidant individuals had the lowest performance
when compared to the other attachment styles.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 48
Fearful Attachment
Our fourth hypothesis states that individuals with a fearful attachment style will have
positive perceptions, high performance and high levels of Motivation and Engagement with a
transactional leader. We found that students with fearful attachment had the second to lowest
performance, lowest Booster scores, and second to highest Guzzler and Mufflers scores
indicating low motivation and engagement. Although no findings showed statistically significant
results, the pattern of the findings does support the predictions of our hypothesis.
Previous studies by Nancy Collins and Steven Read (1990) support that fearful-avoidant
attachment styles are more likely to perform worse under pressure and stress, supporting the
observed patterns in our study. Samantha Reis and Brin Grenyer (2004) wrote in their study that
a fearful-avoidant person carries a deep distrust in their perception of others and a low regarded
view of self. Further on, such negative perceptions of others and of self could result in
motivational dysfunction, which supports the pattern of both our predictions and findings.
Perception scores
Results found that students who perceived their professor as being a transactional leader
were those who had lower Booster scores compared to those who perceived their leaders
identified as transformational or laissez-faire. These students were not as highly motivated and
engaged as those students who perceived their professors as being transformational or laissez-
faire. The students who perceived their professors as being laissez-faire leaders were reported to
have the highest Booster scores, meaning they were more highly motivated and engaged than
students who perceived their professors as being transformational or transactional.
In terms of a student’s perception of leadership in relation to their Guzzlers and Mufflers
scores, we found that students who perceived their professor as being laissez-faire scored the
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 49
highest compared to those students who perceived their professor as being transactional or
transformational. This means that these students who perceived their professor to be a laissez-
faire leader tended to be less motivated and engaged compared to students who perceived their
professors to be transactional or transformational.
In terms of a student’s perception of leadership and how well students performed, we
were not able to find a meaningful significance between perception and performance, however
we found that within our study, perception was a good predictor of performance. Research has
Tziner, A., & Tanami, M. (2013). Examining the links between attachment, perfectionism, and
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 59
job motivation potential with job engagement and workaholism. Revista De Psicologia
Del Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 29(2), 65-74. doi:10.5093/tr2013a10
VanSloten, J. A., & Henderson, M. (2011). Attachment Orientation and Leadership
Style: The Effect of Avoidant Attachment Priming on Relational Leadership.
Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.yale.edu/yrurp/issues/
VanSloten%20&%20Henderson%20%282011%29.pdf
Wilson, A. J., Liu, Y., Keith, S. E., Wilson, A. H., Kermer, L. E., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp,
M. R. (2012). Transformational teaching and child psychological needs satisfaction, motivation,
and engagement in elementary school physical education. Sport, Exercise, And Performance
Psychology, 1(4), 215-230. doi:10.1037/a0028635
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 60
Appendix A
BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY
Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department You are being asked to participate in this study because we are interested in the relationship between the attachment style of an individual and their perceptions of leadership. We are curious as to how this relationship will impact performance and self-engagement. Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if your perception of leadership is related your attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you volunteer to participate in this research study, we will ask you to do the following: The package you have received from the researchers includes a Demographic Questionnaire and the Experiences in Close Relationships Self-Report, which measures your attachment style. You will be asked to provide your name and e-mail address. Please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code. At no point prior to the completion of the semester will the professor have the knowledge of those students in their classroom that chose to participate in the study or not. Below you will be asked by the researchers to provide permission for the use of
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 61
your final grade for the study. The final grade will used as a measure of performance. Please note that the researchers will contact you at the closure of the semester to obtain your final grade. We will obtain your final grade strictly through self-reporting of which you may consent to below. Upon signing this consent form and completing the surveys in the package, we ask that you place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit. Secondly, we will meet with you for our second visit during the last week of this term. At that time, we will distribute another package in an envelope which will include another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures your perception of your professor’s leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures your level of engagement. Neither the researchers nor your professor will be present as you complete the questionnaire. Just as in time one, when the questionnaire is completed, we’ll ask you to place all the documents back into the envelope, and leave it at the front desk in the classroom and exit.
Please circle yes or no to the following: I approve to have my final grade disclosed to the researchers via self-report for the purpose of a performance measure for this study. Yes No Time Commitment: Your participation in this research study is expected to last for a total of one hour between the two sessions. We believe each session will require no more than 30 minutes. Potential Risks or Discomforts: Though procedures are in place to prevent brief of confidentiality, risk still exists. We will convert the names of all the participants into a numerical code in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided for the purpose of this study. All original forms aside from the Consent Form will be shredded in February 2018, three years after the study has been completed. All Consent Forms will be stored in a locked file cabinet of a faculty member. Compensation for Participation: As a token of appreciation, all participants will be entered into a raffle where each person has 5% chance of winning. At the completion of the semester/study and through the use of the numerical identification number assigned to you, ten participants will be selected randomly via the Excel random number generator. All winners will be contacted via e-mail on February 23, 2015, and given a $10.00 Visa gift card. Confidentiality:
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 62
We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect your confidentiality by inputting all of the completed survey and questionnaire scores and the final grades to a password-protected external hard drive. We will also be locking all hard copies in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In February of 2018, we will shred the original documents twice to ensure it is destroyed and delete the Excel file with your identifying information. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect your identity and the information you have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Participants’ Rights: Your participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You can decide to withdraw your consent and stop participating in the research at any time, without any penalty. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 63
Signature of Participant: If you agree to participate in this research study, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this consent form to keep.
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Participant
_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Participant
____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Participant Date
_____________________________________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Consent
____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent Date
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 64
Appendix B
Demographic Questionnaire Please circle the answer that applies to you. All questions must be answered. 1. Please provide your full name below: *Your name will be converted into a numerical code upon completing the study to protect your identity and your information. ____________________________ 2. What is your age range? *If you are under 18, unfortunately you are ineligible to participate in this study. Under 18 18 – 23
24 – 29 30 – 35 Above 35
3. Gender:
Male Female Prefer not to disclose
4. Marital Status:
Single In a relationship Married Divorced
5. What is your race/ethnicity?
Asian or Pacific Islander Black/African American Hispanic/Latino American Indian/Native American
White/Caucasian More than one race
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 65
Accountancy Ad Hoc Major Actuarial Science Art History and Theatre (Ad Hoc) Arts Administration (Ad Hoc) Asian & Asian American Studies (Ad Hoc) Biological Sciences Business Journalism Business Writing Communication Studies Computer Information Systems Corporate Communication Economics English Finance Graphic Communication History Industrial/Organizational Psychology International Business Journalism Management Management of Musical Enterprises Marketing Management Mathematics Modern Languages & Comparative Literature (Ad Hoc) Music
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 66
Natural Sciences (Ad Hoc) Philosophy Political Science Psychology Public Affairs Real Estate Religion and Culture (Ad Hoc) Sociology Spanish Statistics Statistics & Quantitative Modeling Undecided
Thank you for participating in our research study.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 67
Appendix C
Email Proposal for Professors
Subject: Research Participation Proposal
Date: Dear Professor, My name is ________________ and I am a Masters student at Baruch College in the Industrial/Organizational Psychology program. My colleagues and I are conducting a study under the supervision of Dr. Daniel Benkendorf an adjunct professor at Baruch College. Our study is about how attachment style and leadership perception impacts a students overall performance, engagement and motivation. Our intention is to contribute to the current literature available on the four adult attachment styles and on transformational and transactional leadership. We are currently seeking the participation of faculty who will be teaching during the Winter Session of 2015. We are asking faculty members to allow us to survey their students to obtain information on their attachment styles, leadership perceptions and of level of self-engagement. Please note that our study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Baruch College. Overall, this study will involve two visits to your class during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your allotted classroom time. The first visit would be during the first week of the term. In order to ensure the privacy of your students, we will kindly ask for you to leave the classroom for the day. Then we will distribute two surveys and two copies of the consent form in an envelope. The second meeting would take place in the final week of the Winter Session during the last 20 to 30 minutes of your classroom time. As the students complete both packages, we would wait outside the classroom until all students who wished to participate have placed the completed the questionnaires on the front desk and had left the classroom. Finally, students will consent (or not) to self-report their grades reported to us via e-mail. The final grade would be used as a measure of the students’ performance. As a token of our appreciation for the students’ participation, ten students will be randomly and given a $10 gift card after data have been collected. If you agree to work with us, you will be asked to sign a permission form which will be e-mailed to you. In addition, we would like to schedule a meeting either in-person or by phone to review the details of this study and address any questions or concerns you might have. We would greatly appreciate your participation in our study. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 68
Appendix D
BARUCH COLLEGE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Psychology Department
PERMISSION TO RECRUIT SUBJECTS
Title of Research Study: How Attachment Style and Leadership Perception Impacts
Students overall Performance, Engagement and Motivation Principal Investigator: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student Faculty Advisor: Dr. Daniel Benkendorf Adjunct Professor, Baruch College City University of New York Psychology Department
Purpose: The purpose of this research study is to find out how a student’s overall performance and self-engagement is impacted by their perception of their Professor’s leadership style which could be either transformational or transactional. A transformational leader is someone who inspires their followers and encourages them to aspire to go above and beyond what is required of them. A transactional leader provides rewards or punishments based upon the follower’s performance on a task. Transactional leaders’ management is often contingent on the situation, especially when a plan of action deviates from what was originally expected. In addition, we are seeking to find out if students’ perception of leadership are related to their attachment style. Attachment style can be defined as behavioral patterns formed during infancy between a parental figure and a child that affect future relationships. Procedures: If you grant us access to conduct the research study in your classroom, we will ask you to do the following: Allow us to access your classroom at the end of your lesson for two separate 30 minute sessions where we will be distributing questionnaires to your students. The first package, distributed on our first visit will include consent forms, a Demographic Questionnaire, and the Experiences in Close Relationship Self-Report, which measures attachment. During a second visit, we will
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 69
distribute another consent form, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, which measures the student’s perception of your leadership style, and the Motivation and Engagement Scale, which measures the student’s overall level of engagement in college. We ask that you not be present in the classroom while the surveys are being completed to ensure that students feel free to participate or not without any perceived coercion. Students will be asked to provide their names and e-mail addresses but please note that identifying information will be converted into a numerical code to protect confidentiality. You will not be aware of which students in your classroom chose to participate in the study. Students will be asked to self-report their final grade via e-mail only after they consented to self -repot. The final grade will used as a measure of performance for the research study. Confidentiality: We will make our best efforts to maintain confidentiality of any information that is collected during this research study, and that can identify you and/or your students. We will disclose personal information only with your permission or as required by law. We will protect student’s confidentiality by inputting all the completed surveys and test scores to a password protected external hard drive. Upon entering the data into an electronic file, we will shred the original documents, aside from the consent form, twice to ensure it is destroyed. This will occur in February 2018. All consent forms will be stored in a file cabinet located in a locked office. In addition, the names of the participants will be converted into numerical codes in order to protect their identity and the information they have provided. The research team, authorized CUNY staff, Baruch College, City University of New York, Psychology Department and government agencies that oversee this type of research may have access to research data and records in order to monitor the research. Research records provided to authorized, non-CUNY individuals will not contain identifiable information about you. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not identify you by name. Professors’ Rights: Your involvement in this research study is entirely voluntary. If you decide not to allow your class to participate, there will be no penalty to you, and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. Questions, Comments or Concerns: If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the research, you can talk to one of the following researchers: Tiffany E. Alexander, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Amanda De Nobrega-Alarcon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Linda Ottosson, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Moreen Ramadhin, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Tome Saidon, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected] Victoria Shaw, CUNY Graduate Student – [email protected]
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 70
If you have questions about your involvement or you have comments or concerns that you would like to discuss with someone other than the researchers, please call the CUNY Research Compliance Administrator at 646-664-8918. Alternately, you can write to: CUNY Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research Attn: Research Compliance Administrator 205 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10017 Signature of Professor: If you agree to allow the researchers to use your class in this research study during the Winter 2015 session, please sign and date below. You will be given a copy of this permission form to keep.
_____________________________________________________ Printed Name of Professor
_____________________________________________________ E-mail Address of Professor
_____________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Professor Date
Signature of Individual Obtaining Consent ______________________________________________ Printed Name of Individual Obtaining Permission
______________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Individual Obtaining Permission Date
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 71
Appendix 1: MANOVA
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 72
Appendix 2: Pearson Correlation
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 73
Appendix 3: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Final Grade; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Final Grade)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 74
Appendix 4: ANOVA (Model1: Final Grade and ECR; Model 2: Final Grade, ECR, and MLQ)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 75
Appendix 5: Multiple Regression Coefficients (DV: Final Grade)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 76
Appendix 6: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 77
Appendix 7: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Boosters; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Boosters)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 78
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 79
Appendix 9: Multiple Regression (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; Model 2: ECR, MLQ, and Guzzlers/Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 80
Appendix 10: ANOVA (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 81
Appendix 11: Multiple Regression Coefficients (Model 1: ECR and Guzzlers/Mufflers; and Model 2: ECR, MLQ and Guzzlers and Mufflers)
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 82
Appendix 12: Experiences in Close Relationships and Final Grades
Note. Final grades are displayed with an inverse relationship for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Preoccupied students had the highest means of final grades and were therefore the highest performers. Students with a Dismissive attachment style had the lowest means and therefore had the lowest final grades.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 83
Appendix 13: Leadership Styles and Students’ Final Grades
Note: Final grade means are displayed with an inverse relationship to the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders to be Transformational had the highest final grades over students who labeled their professors to be laissez faire.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 84
Appendix 14: Attachment Style and Engagement Levels
Note. Booster scores are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment style. Preoccupied participants had the highest levels of engagement in the classroom. Dismissive individuals displayed the lowest levels of engagement.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 85
Appendix 15: Engagement Levels and Leadership Style
Note. Engagement scores are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership Style. Transformational leader are coded as 1, Transactional leaders are coded as 2, and Laissez faire leaders are coded as 3. Students who identified their leader as Laissez faire had the highest levels of engagement scores, whereas students who labeled their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 86
Appendix 16: GuzzlerMuffler Scores and Attachment Style
Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the four levels of the Independent Variable of Attachment Style. Secure individuals had the lowest means indicating they displayed the lowest levels of self-sabotage and anxiety. Dismissive students on the other hand, had the highest means indicating high levels of self-sabotage and stress in school.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 87
Appendix 17: GuzzlerMuffler Means and Leadership Style
Note. GuzzlerMuffler means are displayed for the three levels of the Independent Variable of Leadership style. Students who identified their leaders as Laissez faire had the highest GuzzlerMuffler scores indicating highest levels of self-sabotage or anxiety in the classroom. Students who rated their leaders to be Transactional had the lowest levels of self-sabotage behaviors.
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 88
Appendix 18: Mean of Final Grades and ECR
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 89
Appendix 19: Mean of Final Grades and MLQ
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 90
Appendix 20: Mean of Boosters and ECR
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 91
Appendix 21: Mean of Booster scores and MLQ
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 92
Appendix 22: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and ECR
ATTACHMENT, PERCEPTION, PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT 93
Appendix 23: Mean of GuzzlerMuffler Scores and MLQ