Interaction 3: Relationships with others: a tool for investigating attachment and

The  third  Interaction  comprised  the  completion  of  an  online  questionnaire  that   had  been  adapted  and  piloted  during  my  previous  Masters-­‐level  project  (Levine   and  Edwards,  2014).                  

  The  questionnaire  was  based  on  the  Adolescent  Attachment  Questionnaire     (AAQ)  (West  et  al.,  1998)  (see  Appendix  2  for  the  adapted  tool  and  introductory  

text).  I  chose  this  tool  because:  

-­‐ It  has  been  tested  within  the  field  of  psychology  and  is  relatively  robust   (although  there  are  inevitably  issues  with  this  that  manifest  more  seriously   in  a  conventional  survey  setting  than  in  the  study  reported  here).    

-­‐ It  is  relatively  brief,  and  given  the  time  commitment  asked  from  

participants  over  the  data  gathering  period,  I  wanted  to  keep  each  tool  to  a   focused,  core  minimum  of  questions.    

   The  AAQ  gathers  data  against  three  attachment-­‐related  parameters:  ‘Angry   Distress’,  ‘Availability’  and  ‘Goal-­‐Corrected  Partnership’.  The  Angry  Distress  scale   measures  levels  of  anger  towards  the  parent.  For  example:  

My  parent  only  seems  to  notice  me  when  I  am  angry.   I  often  feel  angry  with  my  parent  without  knowing  why.  

I  get  annoyed  at  my  parent  because  it  seems  I  have  to  demand  his/her  caring   support.  

The  Availability  scale  measures  the  extent  to  which  the  respondent  believes  that   the  attachment  figure  is  available  to  them,  and  vice  versa.  For  example:  

I’m  confident  that  my  parent  will  listen  to  me.  

I’m  confident  that  my  parent  will  try  to  understand  my  feelings.   I  talk  things  over  with  my  parent.    

The  Goal-­‐Corrected  Partnership  scale  measures  the  extent  to  which  the  

respondent  reflects  on  others’  perspectives,  differentiates  those  perspectives  from   their  own,  and  works  with  others  to  construct  the  relationship.  For  example:   I  enjoy  helping  my  parent  whenever  I  can.  

I  feel  for  my  parent  when  he/she  is  upset.  

It  makes  me  feel  good  to  be  able  to  do  things  for  my  parent.    

My  adaptation  was  to  include  parameters  for  online  and  offline  friendships,   thereby  providing  a  technological  and  non-­‐technological  comparator  for  each   participant,  as  well  as  an  insight  into  their  relationships  with  each  parent.  For  

example,  the  opening  Angry  Distress  question  became  four  options:   My  mother  only  seems  to  notice  me  when  I  am  angry.  

My  father  only  seems  to  notice  me  when  I  am  angry.  

My  closest  offline  friend  only  seems  to  notice  me  when  I  am  angry.   My  closest  online  friend  only  seems  to  notice  me  when  I  am  angry.  

Each  dimension  contained  three  paired  sets  of  questions.  Each  question  was   rated  on  a  five-­‐point  Likert-­‐type  scale.  Goal-­‐Corrected  Partnership  and  Availability   were  reverse  scored.  Scores  are  combined  to  provide  a  sub-­‐score  for  each  

attachment  for  the  dimension  (West  et  al.,  1998,  Levine  and  Edwards,  2014).  

  I  used  Kwiksurveys  to  deliver  the  questionnaire.  Kwiksurveys  was  chosen   for  its  ease  of  use  and  clean  layout  options.  As  with  my  Masters-­‐level  work,  the   questions  were  grouped  in  pairs,  with  linked  questions  sharing  a  page.    

  Although  the  AAQ  is  a  questionnaire  that  can  be  run  in  large  samples,  and   produces  a  quantifiable  result,  I  used  it  in  a  new  way  in  this  study.  Given  that  these   sorts  of  tools  can  be  used  in  clinical  psychology  to  evaluate  clients,  it  did  not  seem   too  outlandish  to  use  a  survey  research  tool  in  a  more  intimate  way.  Thus,  instead  

of  using  a  survey  to  gather  data  across  a  large  sample,  the  survey  became  the   beginning  of  an  exchange  about  relationships  with  each  participant,  a  source  of   discussion  during  the  interview,  and  a  way  of  looking  at  relationships  in  the   analysis  stage.  I  piloted  this  approach  during  my  Masters  study  and  found  it  to  be   both  conducive  to  a  pragmatic  epistemology  (i.e.  outside  the  qualitative/  

quantitative  paradigm),  and  was  also  a  rich  source  of  ensuing  email  exchange   (Levine  and  Edwards,  2014).  As  a  result,  I  used  the  same  tool  in  the  same  way  in  

this  study.  Limitations  to  using  surveys  in  this  way  are  outlined  in  Table  9  below.    

Limitation   Mitigation  

Although  I  could  use  the   tool  to  explore  participants’   attachment  types,  I  could   say  almost  nothing  about  

why  those  types  resonated   for  them,  whether  the  types   were  stable  or  in  flux,  or  

how  they  came  about.        

I  used  the  survey  as  the  beginning  of  an  email   exchange  to  explore  participants’  perspectives  of   these  contextual  matters,  and  for  discussion  during   the  interview.    

Surveys  cannot  easily   demonstrate  trends  over   time.    

As  with  all  of  the  Interactions  described  in  this   study,  if  I  could  have  found  a  way  of  gathering   continuous,  or  at  least  periodic  data  on  all  of  the   socio-­‐cognitive  parameters  throughout  the  entire   data  gathering  period,  without  being  too  intrusive   on  participants  and  their  families,  that  would  have   been  a  wonderful  opportunity  to  explore  the   stability  of  these  parameters  over  time.  It  was,   however,  outside  the  scope  of  this  initial  study  to   do  so.    

Participants  may  not  have   felt  ready  to  provide  open   or  accurate  responses  to  the   survey.  In  addition,  because   the  survey  was  delivered   online  for  all  bar  the   youngest  of  the  

participants,  there  was  no   way  of  knowing  whether  a   friend  or  parent  had  been   present  during  the  

Interaction  completion,   with  implications  for  the   replicability  of  the  data.    

Asking  participants  to  respond  on  sensitive  matters   such  as  their  relationships  with  parents  and  friends   raises  issues  around  gatekeepers,  access  and  

accuracy  of  response  (Cohen,  Manion  and   Morrison,  2007).  This  is  compounded  when   responses  are  completed  online,  outside  of  the   immediate  control  of  the  researcher.    

I  addressed  this  issue  in  two  ways.  Firstly,  I  made  it   clear  at  the  consent  stage  that  we  would  be  

covering  some  potentially  problematic  areas,  and   communicated  the  process  for  dealing  with   disclosure  issues  clearly  (see  Appendix  8).  I  also   explained  to  participants  that  I  would  protect  their   anonymity  outside  of  the  disclosure  sphere.  I   repeated  this  at  the  start  of  the  Interaction.     Secondly,  at  the  coding  stage,  I  introduced  an   ‘accuracy’  code  that  would  flag  up  any  possible   discrepancies,  that  might  suggest  social,   environmental  or  parental  pressure  across  the   initial  survey,  email  exchanges  and  during  the   interview.  No  issues  were  raised.    

However,  if  I  were  to  run  the  survey  again  in  any   context,  I  would  include  a  question  that  asks   whether  the  respondent  is  completing  the  survey   in  private,  with  someone  else  in  the  room,  or   sitting  together  with  someone  else.      

Table  9:  Limitations  of  using  an  established  survey  tool  in  a  qualitative  context  

The  AAQ  served  a  useful  purpose  in  opening  a  discussion  about  

consideration  of  those  relationships.  However,  it  could  not  stand  alone  –  it  needed  

the  additional  email  exchanges  and  discussion  during  the  interview  to  become  a   whole  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.    

4.5  Interaction  4:  Strange  Stories:  a  tool  for  investigating  theory  of