The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style 45Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.91098 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style La relación entre las características demográficas y el estilo de apego de profesores iraníes de inglés como lengua extranjera Mansoor Ganji1 Farzane Safarzade Samani Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran This study investigated Iranian English as a foreign language teachers’ attachment styles and possible influential factors such as age, teaching experience, gender, and educational degree. The participants were 108 female and 79 male Iranian English teachers, chosen through convenience and snowball sampling. Using Google forms, a researcher-made questionnaire was sent to the participants. There was a positive relationship between age and a secure style, and a negative relationship between fearful and preoccupied styles and age. Further, there was a positive correlation between a secure style and teaching experience, and a negative relationship between fearful and preoccupied styles and teaching experience. Male teachers were more secure, and educational degree made no difference in secure and preoccupied styles. Keywords: attachment style, demographic features, English language teachers Este estudio investigó los estilos de apego de profesores de inglés como lengua extranjera iraníes y los posibles factores influyentes como edad, experiencia docente, género y nivel educativo. Los participantes fueron 108 mujeres y 79 hombres, seleccionados por el muestreo de conveniencia y en cadena. Se elaboró un cuestionario en línea que se envió a los participantes. Las respuestas revelaron que, en cuanto a la edad, existía una relación positiva con el estilo seguro y una negativa con los estilos temerosos y preocupados. Además, en cuanto a la experiencia docente, hubo una correlación positiva con el estilo seguro y una negativa con los estilos de miedo y preocupación. Los hombres indicaron sentirse más seguros y el nivel educativo no mostró diferencia para los estilos seguro y preocupado. Palabras clave: características demográficas, estilo de apego, docentes de inglés 1 Mansoor Ganji  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0352-8404 · Email: ganji@cmu.ac.ir Farzane Safarzade Samani  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7384-5245 · Email: samani@mail.cmu.ac.ir How to cite this article (apa, 7th ed.): Ganji, M., & Samani, F. S. (2022). The relationship between demographic features and Iranian efl teachers’ attachment style. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 24(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.91098 This article was received on October 21, 2020 and accepted on September 8, 2021. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.Consultation is possible at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.91098 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0352-8404 mailto:ganji@cmu.ac.ir https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7384-5245 mailto:samani@mail.cmu.ac.ir https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v24n1.91098 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras46 Ganji & Samani Introduction The first relationship that children establish is with parents and siblings in their homes. The children’s daily interactions with adults and peers propel their future learning and development (Choi & Dobbs-Oates, 2016; Krstić, 2015). After a child begins to dis-attach him or herself from the parents or other siblings, the other adults with whom a child builds meaningful relationships are often the teachers. The positive relationship between teacher and children provides them the emotional security needed for engaging in learning activities and improving their social, behavioral, and self-controlling competencies (Barker, 2015; Granot & Mayseless, 2001). Thus, the attachment styles of teachers and students deserve some attention, and it is a topic worth researching because the quality of early attachments determines the quality of adults’ academic, emotional, and social abilities (de Castro & Pereira, 2019). Attachment style, as a kind of relationship initiated by a person with others, is usually formed during the first years of life, but it goes on throughout that person’s life (Bowlby, 1973). It is not synonymous with dependency as it is the anchor from which children begin to explore their world (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). In a family setting, both mother and father are understood as “attachment figures”; and “although considerably more attention in the attachment field has been given to mothers, interest in fathers emerged very early in the development of attachment theory” (Bretherton, 2010, p. 9). However, the main point is that, in school, this attachment figure is usually a teacher. Children failing to bond with their attachment figures in their early life may later develop significant attachments with their teachers (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; de Castro & Pereira, 2019; Polek, 2008). Several factors are involved in the formation of attachment styles. Hazan and Shaver (1987) maintain that the perceptions about children’s relationships with parents, and their parents’ relationship with each other, are the best predictors of adult attachment styles. A few studies attribute children’s cognitive skills and school achievements to their secure attachment to parents (Cassidy et al., 2013; de Castro & Pereira, 2019; Granot & Mayseless, 2001). Gervai (2009) mentions that envi- ronmental and biological factors may exert influence on adulthood’s attachment style, and there is also the number of significant relationships, which increase as children mature (Veríssimo et al., 2017). Thus, the attachment style of adults is logically to a large extent a function of the amount of care and emotion they received during childhood (Ackerman, n.d.; Granot & Mayseless, 2001). On the other hand, attachment styles may exert effects on students’ success and behaviors in educa- tional contexts (de Castro & Pereira, 2019). Attachment relationships with parents and teachers can impact both school adjustment and success (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Granot & Mayseless, 2001; Krstić, 2015). Negative teacher–student attachment may cause withdrawing from school (de Castro & Pereira, 2019; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007). Furthermore, teachers usually depend on their students’ mental representations, which help them maintain their professional identity (Riley, 2009). Although there exists a large body of studies which investigate the factors influencing attachment styles of elementary and middle school children (Bergin & Bergin, 2009; Cassidy et al., 2013; Choi & Dobbs-Oates, 2016; Granot & Mayseless, 2001; Ogelman & Seven, 2012; O’Connor & McCartney, 2007; Stevenson-Hinde & Ver- schueren, 2002; Verissimo et al., 2017) and adult students (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; de Castro & Pereira, 2019; Simpson & Rholes, 2017; Tagay & Karataş, 2012), there exists little research focusing on teachers’ attach- ment style, English language teachers in particular, and how it may vary according to commonly known factors. Considering all the above-mentioned factors, this study aims to focus on Iranian English as a foreign lan- guage (efl) teachers’ attachment styles and examine the factors that influence these styles. The factors included in this study are age, teaching experience, gender (women vs. men), and educational degree (e.g., ba, ma, phd). The 47Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style research question is as follows: Is there any relationship between the attachment styles of Iranian efl teachers and (a) their age, (b) their experience, (c) their gender, and (d) their educational degrees? Literature Review Background The theory of attachment can be viewed from environmental and psychological perspectives. Gervai (2009) believes that Bowlby’s attachment theory could be truly environmental because it has explained indi- vidual differences by individual variation in relation to caregivers’ behavior. Ainsworth et al. (1978) assert that optimal secure behavior could be related to sufficient sensitive responsiveness at home. Gervai also mentions factors such as income and size of the family; age and education of parents; major nerve-wracking events like loss of a parent, birth of a sibling, severe illness, marital relationships; and relationship breakdowns seem to exert an effect on the standard of attachment relationships. Several studies suggest the existence of a strong link between the adolescents’ attachment styles and psychological functioning (Allen & Land, 1999; Gervai, 2009; Simpson & Rholes, 2017). An adolescent’s preoc- cupied style, for instance, has a close relationship with internalizing problems, in particular to the degree of self-reported depression (Allen & Land, 1999). “The attachment system . . . motivates vulnerable individuals to seek close physical and emotional proximity to their primary caregivers” (Simpson & Rholes, 2017, p. 19). Nevertheless, attachment formation, either environmen- tally or psychologically, is considered a developmental process that goes far beyond infancy and early childhood (Shumaker et al., 2009). Categorization of Attachment Styles Ainsworth and Bell (1970) identify three major styles of attachment: secure, ambivalent-insecure, and avoidant-insecure. On the other hand, Moss and St- Laurent (2001) identify four types: secure, insecure/ avoidant, insecure/resistant, and insecure/disorganized or controlling. Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) divide the attachment styles in adulthood to four categories: secure, fearful, dismissive, and preoccupied. These four attachment styles are defined according to a mixture of a person’s positive or negative self-image and the image provided by others (again positive or negative). Since our study uses the four attachment styles developed by Bartholomew and Horowitz, we briefly define them next. Secure: It is relatively easy for people belonging to this category to develop intimacy with or become emotionally close to others. Relying on others and having others rely on them is also quite usual for them. They do not worry about being alone, do not have problems with needing others’ approval or not being accepted by others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Polek, 2008). They also act better to control their emotions and impulses (de Castro & Pereira, 2019). Teachers with a secure attachment style use warm, positive words when talking to their students and do not resort to corporal punishment; they are less controlling and demonstrate more positive moods and enjoyment (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Dismissing: Adults with the dismissing style tend to live comfortably without enjoying a close emotional relationship. Being independent and self-sufficient is extremely important for them, and they have low anxiety but show high avoidance of relationships (Polek, 2008; Toffoli, 2015). Teachers high in avoidance are less inclined to compromise in a conflict situation with students. They may avoid helping the students with difficult tasks (Stevenson-Hinde & Verschueren, 2002), and they may not be available when the children are in emotional turmoil (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Preoccupied: Preoccupied adults very much tend to be quite intimate with others but may think others are reluctant to get to them as much as they would like. These people need others’ opinions to feel worthy and feel uncomfortable in their life when having no Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras48 Ganji & Samani close relationships (Polek, 2008; Toffoli, 2015). A preoccupied person may show exaggerated feelings and is difficult to soothe (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Teachers with this attachment style may be demanding and preoccupied with their students (Stevenson-Hinde & Verschueren, 2002). This group of people may also get mad at their students even while trying to please them and may seem dependent on their approval (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). Fearful: Individuals with this style are somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others, anxious within relationships, and highly need to be accepted in a rela- tionship (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Segal et al., 2009). These people question their self-worth and expect the other person to abandon them or harm them in some way. They find it very hard when they want to trust or depend on others (Polek, 2008; Simpson & Rholes, 2017; Toffoli, 2015). As teachers, fearful adults are apprehensive, and their stressful behaviors may even be worse when attending their classes. These teachers may try to reduce uncertainty and may seem confident, but still are sensitive and anxious (Stevenson-Hinde & Verschueren, 2002). Related Studies The studies investigating the association between attachment styles and education are mostly conducted on children. Bergin and Bergin (2009) show how attach- ment to parents was connected to school achievements. These authors gave 12 suggestions on how to improve student–teacher relationships and how school bonding could be fostered. These suggestions include: Increase sensitivity and warm, positive interactions with students . . . Be well-prepared for class and hold high expectations for students . . . Be responsive to students’ agendas by providing choice whenever possible . . . Use induction rather than coercive discipline . . . Help stu- dents be kind, helpful, and accepting of one another . . . Implement interventions for specific, difficult relation- ships. (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, pp. 158–159). Krstić (2015) focuses on the quality of attachment between students and teachers and teachers’ practices. Results showed that attachment to teachers greatly influ- enced the students’ opinions about school and the learning process in both fourth and fifth grades, and it also affected their school marks. The quality of the support provided in teaching influenced students’ academic attachment, and teachers’ warm relationship with learners impacted their school marks and attitudes towards school and learning. Riley (2009) worked on adults’ attachment perspec- tive, the relationships between student and teacher, and classroom management difficulties. In his study, the attachment styles of 291 preservice and experienced elementary and secondary school teachers were investi- gated. The results showed that the experienced teachers were more secure than their inexperienced colleagues and the elementary teachers were more secure than their secondary colleagues. Elementary teachers tended to be less anxious and less avoidant of close relationships. As their experience increased, this difference became more pronounced for both men and women; however, male teachers were highly sensitive in this regard. de Castro and Pereira (2019) worked on the early school dropout rate of Portuguese students and intro- duced the Alternative Curricular Course (acc), which enhances the basic learning skills. In their study, they compared students in acc to students in regular educa- tion (re), examining aspects such as students’ internal working models and student–teacher relationships, and the association of these factors with school performance. The results revealed that students of the acc enjoyed a less secure internal working model than students in re, and that the quality of the student–teacher relationship was correlated with a better educational attainment. Although the previous studies mainly focus on children, they show evidence that teachers’ attitudes inside the classroom are an important factor in students’ academic success. Thus, it is worth knowing and exploring teachers’ attachment styles as this may help identify their impact on students’ learning achievements. 49Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style Method Design This study follows descriptive and correlational design. As no experimental or control group or treat- ment was defined, a quantitative and non-experimental approach was utilized. The researchers collected data by administering the attachment style questionnaire (see Appendix) and entered the numerical data into spss (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences). The teachers’ attachment style was the target variable and teachers’ age, gender, teaching experience, and educational degree were studied for their possible correlation with the attachment style. The strength of association between attachment styles and age, and attachment style and experience (two continuous variables) were measured by a cor- relation test, while the difference between attachment styles of different genders and educational degrees (one continuous and one nominal variable) was determined via comparison. Participants Data were obtained from 187 Iranian English teach- ers working in different cities of Iran and whose teaching experience ranged from 1 to 25 years. Table 1 shows the demographic information of the participants. Table 1. Demographic Information of the Partici- pants Educational degree n Men Women Diploma holders/ba students 5 2 3 ba holders 56 25 31 ma holders 95 42 53 phd students 7 4 3 phd holders 24 6 18 Total 187 79 108 The participants worked as teachers in private language institutes (n = 98) and in state high schools (n = 62) or as lecturers in state universities (n = 19). A small proportion (n = 8) chose not to report their place of work as this was optional. The participants’ first language was Persian, and their ages ranged from 20 to 59 years. Data Collection Instrument A researcher-made and validated questionnaire was used to find out about the teachers’ attachment style. The researchers developed the questionnaire based on two different questionnaires by Van Oudenhoven et al. (2003) and Poole Heller (2014). The researchers added 20 items of Poole Heller and 22 items of Van Oudenhoven et al., and then narrowed them down, deleting some items which were vague, cutting long statements into half to make them simpler and more understandable, and rephrasing three to four items in each category. This was done until the items related well to the goals of the research. The final version of the questionnaire was sent for two experts in the field to check for the validity of the items. This piloting resulted in the rephrasing of several items, and the addition of five items since they were double-barreled in the previous version. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 45 short statements, out of which nine items related to the secure attachment style, 10 items to the fearful attachment style, 14 items to the preoccupied attachment style, and 12 items to the dismissing attachment style. The statements addressed how the participants felt in emotionally intimate relationships. Moreover, the participants were asked to answer questions about their age, gender, teaching experi- ence, and educational degree. The scale ranged from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree, see Appendix). Data Collection and Analysis Procedure The questionnaire was prepared using Google Forms, and its link was sent to the participants using WhatsApp, Telegram, and email. The participants were identified through convenience and snowball sampling techniques. The participants answered the questionnaire statements anonymously, so they felt at ease in answering them. As Riley (2009) suggested, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras50 Ganji & Samani to increase the chances of valid responses to the instrument, it was determined that participants would be more likely to see the benefit of honest responses to the questionnaire, which contains a number of challenging statements, only after they had gained some knowledge of attachment theory and its connection to their professional lives. (p. 628) In light of the foregoing, the attachment style was defined, its different types were explained, and the respon- dents were promised that the results of the research would be sent to them later. Consequently, the researchers pro- vided their emails at the end of the questionnaire so that the respondents could contact them. Some of them, whom the researchers could visit, signed a consent form, but for those who were living in other cities, it was explained at the beginning of the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using the spss statistical pack- age (version 23). Statements are scaled from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), educational degree from 1 (diploma holders/ba students) to 5 (phd) as well as gender as 1 (men) and 2 (women). For age and experience, no scales were defined. Then statements under each category of four attachment styles were computed and merged; and new variables (e.g., secure, fearful, preoccupied, and dismissing) were created. The final result was the mean score of each attachment style for each participant. The data, then, were checked for normality assumption. The test showed that, except for preoccupied style, the rest of the scores and means were not normally distributed. However, researchers decided to run a non-parametric test for all variables since there was not any significant difference between the final results. For answering the first and second research questions—the relationship between attachment styles and age and teaching experi- ence—Spearman’s rank–order correlation was run. To answer the third research question which compares men’s and women’s attachment styles, the Mann-Whitney u test was run. Finally, for comparing participants’ attachment styles regarding their educational degree, the Kruskal Wallis Test was administered. Results The data were initially checked for normality assumption, and Table 2 presents the results from the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-Wilk test. As the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is more appropriate for large sample sizes (< 50 samples), this test was used as a numerical means of assessing normality. Table 2 shows that the significant values of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for “secure,” “fearful,” and “dismissing” attachment styles were .000, .014, and .000, respectively. Thus, they deviated from a normal distribution and, non-parametric tests were used. Regarding “preoccupied” style, the significant value of .200, which was greater than 0.05, showed that the data were normally distributed and a parametric test could be used. However, since there existed no differ- ence between parametric and non-parametric results for this variable, the researchers preferred to use a nonparametric test. Table 2. Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnov a Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. Secure .094 187 .000 .984 187 .036 Fearful .074 187 .014 .981 187 .012 Preoccupied .052 187 .200* .990 187 .214 Dismissing .095 187 .000 .973 187 .001 a Lilliefors Significance Correction. *This is a lower bound of the true significance. 51Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Attachment Styles F % Valid percent Cumulative percent Valid Secure 103 43.1 55.1 55.1 Fearful 13 5.4 7.0 62.0 Preoccupied 28 11.7 15.0 77.0 Dismissing 43 18.0 23.0 100.0 Total 187 78.2 100.0 Missing System 52 21.8 Total 239 100.0 Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of four attachment styles. Among 187 participants, 103 chose secure style (43.1%), 13 fearful (5.4%), 28 preoccupied (11.7%), and 43 were of dismissing style (18%). Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics of age and experience and four attachment styles. Age groups were divided into eight groups from 20 to 59 years old. Except for the 25–29 and the 45–49 age groups, the percentage of secure style among participants increased as the age increased, whereas the percentage of fearful and preoccupied styles decreased by increasing age. The most fearful (14.8%) and the most preoccupied (22.2%) participants were among the 20–24 age group. Years of experience were divided into five groups ranging from 1–25 years. The results showed that as the teaching experience increased, the percentage of the secure styles increased too. Participants who had 16 to 25 years of experience (77% to 80%) were the most secure. Whereas teachers with 1 to 5 years of experience were among the most fearful (8.7%) and the most preoccupied ones (19.7%), and teachers with 6 to 10 years were the most dismissing (27.5%). Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Age and Experience Age range 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Secure 15 55.5 19 35.1 32 58.1 23 71.8 11 84.6 2 50 1 100 0 0 Fearful 4 14.8 4 7.4 2 3.6 2 6.2 1 7.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Preoccupied 6 22.2 10 18.5 8 14.5 4 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dismissing 2 7.4 21 38.8 13 23.6 3 9.3 1 7.6 2 50 0 0 1 100 Total 27 100 54 100 55 100 32 100 13 100 4 100 1 100 1 100 Years of experience 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 f % f % f % f % f % Secure 43 47.2 34 58.6 15 62.5 7 77.7 4 80 Fearful 8 8.7 3 5.1 2 8.3 0 0 0 0 Preoccupied 18 19.7 5 8.6 4 16.6 1 11.1 0 0 Dismissing 22 24.1 16 27.5 3 12.5 1 11.1 1 20 Total 91 100 58 100 24 100 9 100 5 100 Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras52 Ganji & Samani Table 5. Descriptive Statistics of Gender and Educational Degrees Gender Educational Degrees Men Women Diploma holders/ba students ba ma phd student phd f % f % f % f % f % f % f % Secure 52 65.8 51 47.2 2 40 30 53.5 50 52.6 5 71.4 16 66.6 Fearful 3 3.7 10 9.2 0 0 5 8.9 7 7.3 0 0 1 4.1 Preoccupied 9 11.3 19 17.5 2 40 9 16 14 14.7 1 14.2 2 8.3 Dismissing 15 18.9 28 25.9 1 20 12 21.4 24 25.2 1 14.2 5 20.8 Total 79 100 108 100 5 100 56 100 95 100 7 100 24 100 Table 5 presents the descriptive statistic for gender and degrees with regard to the four attachment styles. Out of a total of 187 participants, 79 were men and 108 were women. Among the men, 52 participants preferred a secure style (65.8%), 15 dismissing, nine preoccupied, and three fearful. Among the women, 51 participants had a secure style (47.2%), 28 dismissing, 19 preoccupied, and 10 fearful. Thus, men showed more security than women. Regarding educational degrees, the more secure participants were among phd students (71.4%) and phd holders (66.6%). ba holders showed secure slightly more than ma holders (53.5%). The ba group also showed the most fearful one (8.9%) in comparison to their ma counterparts. The ba group turned out to be more preoccupied than the ma group and phd group, while the ma group was the most dismissing one. For finding out the relationship between attachment styles and age, a correlation test was run. The results are presented in Table 6. A Spearman’s rank–order correlation showed that there was a strong negative correlation between fearful style and age (r s (8) = -.160, p = .029); and preoccupied style and age (r s (8) = -.172, p = .018). That is, as age increases, people become less fearful and less preoc- cupied. There was also a negative relationship between dismissing style and age, which was not statistically significant (r s (8) = -.078, p = .286). The results showed no significant correlation between secure style and age (r s (8) = .023, p = .755). Table 6. Correlation Between Attachment Styles and Age (N = 187) Age Spearman’s rho Secure Correlation coefficient .023 Sig. (2-tailed) .755 Fearful Correlation coefficient -.160* Sig. (2-tailed) .029 Preoccupied Correlation coefficient -.172* Sig. (2-tailed) .018 Dismissing Correlation coefficient -.078 Sig. (2-tailed) .286 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 53Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style Table 7. Correlation Between Attachment Styles and Experience (N = 187) Experience Spearman’s rho Secure Correlation coefficient .074 Sig. (2-tailed) .311 Fearful Correlation coefficient -.133 Sig. (2-tailed) .069 Preoccupied Correlation coefficient -.107 Sig. (2-tailed) .146 Dismissing Correlation coefficient .015 Sig. (2-tailed) .842 *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). A Spearman’s rank–order correlation was run to determine the relationship between the four attachment styles and experience (see Table 7). As the results show, there was a negative correla- tion between fearful style and experience (r s (8) = -.133, p = .069), and preoccupied style and experience (r s (8) = -.107, p = .146). There was a positive correla- tion between secure style and experience which was not statistically significant (r s (8) = .074, p = .311). There was not any significant relationship between dismissing style and experience (r s (8) = .015, p = .842). Then, the differences between men and women were investigated. As the researchers aimed to compare differ- ences between these two groups concerning attachment styles, which were continuous but not normally distributed, they used the Mann-Whitney u test. Table 8 provides the test statistic, u statistic, and the asymptotic significance (2-tailed) p-value. It can be concluded that men and women were significantly different in secure style (u = 4201.500, p = .859) with men showing more secure than women. They possessed the least difference in fearfulness (u = 3471, p = .029) with men again showing they are less fearful teachers than women. Finally, the study looked for the differences between educational degrees (i.e., diploma holders/ba students, ba, ma, phd student, and phd) and attachment styles, thus, a non-parametric (i.e., Kruskal-Wallis) test was run. Table 9 shows that these five groups of educational degrees showed significant difference in preoccupation, χ2 (2) = 9.530, p = 0.049 (diploma holders/ba students were more preoccupied than the others) and not any statistically significant difference in the secure (χ2 (2) = 8.125, p = 0.087), fearful (χ2 (2) = 5.977, p = 0.201), and dismissing styles (χ2 (2) = 7.411, p = 0.116). Table 8. Mann-Whitney Test Comparing Men and Women Styles Secure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Mann-Whitney u 4201.500 3471.000 3722.000 3601.500 Wilcoxon w 7361.500 6631.000 6882.000 6761.500 z -.177 -2.178 -1.489 -1.821 Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .859 .029 .136 .069 Note. Grouping variable: Gender. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras54 Ganji & Samani Table 9. Kruskal Wallis Test Comparing Educational Degrees Secure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Chi-Square 8.125 5.977 9.530 7.411 df 4 4 4 4 Asymp. Sig. .087 .201 .049 .116 Note. Grouping variable: Educational degree. Discussion The present study addressed whether attachment styles of Iranian English teachers were associated with their age, gender, teaching experience, and educational degree. In total, among the 187 participants, 103 selected secure style, 13 fearful, 28 preoccupied, and 43 dismissing style. It is worth mentioning that although in this study individuals were conceptualized and placed into one category and a dominant style was considered as their attachment style, Segal et al. (2009) mention that attachment style cannot be viewed as a categorical construct, and thus must be measured dimensionally. The following paragraphs discuss each research question by investigating attachment styles from the dimensional point of view. Concerning the correlation between the four styles and age, it was revealed that except for the 25–29 and the 45–49 age groups, there was a positive relationship between age and secure style and a strong negative relationship between fearful and preoccupied styles and age. Investigating responses of 27 teachers who were in their early twenties revealed that they had mainly a secure style. After that, preoccupied and fearful styles were dominant. In addition, the results of 55 teachers in their early thirties indicated that the dominant styles were secure (58.1%) and dismissing (23.6%) styles. As feeling independent and self-sufficient, not depending on others, and focusing on their own needs are the salient characteristics of dismissing individuals, the incidence of this style at this age group or older ones is predictable. An individual with the dismissing style is considered to have high self-esteem (Akbağ & İmamoğlu, 2010). This may be another reason why older Turkish teachers showed a dismissing style. Similarly, Segal et al. (2009) also found a lower number of persons with preoccupied and ambivalent (fearful) attachment styles and came up with a higher number of dismissing attachment styles in older adults in comparison to younger adults. They believed that “it is likely the differences found were a consequence of the unique social, cultural, and historical forces that have affected differently the two groups” (p. 128). To be more exact, younger adults are more likely to have higher rates of mental discomfort than older adults, or older adults may be less willing to report uneasy feelings than those in the younger group. Regarding the relationship between attachment styles and experience, there was a positive correlation between the secure style and the experience of teachers. Riley (2009) reported that teachers with more than five years of experience were significantly more secure than novice teachers. For teachers, Riley (2012) considered experience a more effective predictor of attachment style than age. Furthermore, he believed that “the internal working model (iwm), a largely unconscious attach- ment mechanism, changes in teachers as a result of their classroom experience” (p. 12). The results of this study also showed that there was a negative relation- ship between fearful and preoccupied styles on the one hand and teaching experience. These results are in line with de Castro and Pereira’s (2019) study, conducted in Portugal. They asserted that insecure attachment is due to the lack of experience in the executive functions such as difficulty in organizing, monitoring, evaluat- ing, and planning actions, as well as being weak in abstract thinking, initiation, and working memory. Experienced teachers show confidence and acceptance to their students which promote positive relationships and learning experiences. The results also showed a statistically significant difference between men and women in secure style. Men were more secure than women, but women 55Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style proved more preoccupied and more dismissive than men. These results were supported by Tagay and Karataş’s (2012) study where Turkish women were more fearful and dismissing than men. They concluded that Turkish men were usually in charge of the family and were expected to meet the needs of other family members more than their own needs; therefore, they were expected to experience a higher preoccupied attachment level covering the idea that others are more important. According to Tagay and Karataş, Turkish women are usually afraid of and anxious about their close relationships in their lives, so their generally submissive character and obedient behaviors are supported. In another study conducted in Turkey, women showed to be more affected by their mistakes and more interpersonally sensitive than men, which may make them more fearful and preoccupied (Akbağ & İmamoğlu, 2010). In Riley’s (2009) study, young Australian female teachers showed a less secure style compared to young men teachers. He believed that women usually gain more benefits from their work experience than their men counterparts. In general, researchers have proposed that gender differences in an attachment style may be predictable. Studies with Czech and Slovak women showed that they develop anxiety-related attachments, while men show avoidance-related attachments (Rozvadský-Gugová & Heretik, 2011; Scharfe, 2017). However, Del Giudice (2011) named geographic region and effect of age as the variables that may confound these results. Finally, regarding the differences between indi- viduals in relation to different educational degrees, there was not any statistically significant difference in educational degrees between the secure, fearful, and dismissing styles, but there was a significant difference in the preoccupied style, where diploma holders/ba students showed to be more preoccupied than oth- ers. Teachers who were phd students and teachers holding phd degrees were more secure than other groups. Teachers holding ba degrees were either the fearful or preoccupied ones, while teachers with ma degrees were the most dismissing teachers. In Choi and Dobbs-Oates’s (2016) research, teachers holding a higher-education degree showed lower teacher–student closeness (dismissing style) compared to other teachers. Teachers having higher education reported an equitable level of close relationship with boys and girls, whereas younger teachers whose degree was lower than ma or phd displayed a higher closeness with girls than with boys. Their findings suggested that more educated teachers may act as a buffer for learners who have the potential to form less close teacher–student relation- ships based on their gender. Riley (2009) concluded that “pre-service training that emphasizes relationship building may have long-lasting positive effects on teach- ers” (p. 634). The chances are high that these mostly collegial relationships will be much longer-lasting than teacher–student relationships as they provide the cor- rective experiences for teachers. Conclusion This study set out to determine Iranian efl teachers’ attachment styles and investigate the factors which might have a correlation with or effect on them. Teachers’ ages was shown to be one of the factors that were related to teachers’ secure bonding with students. As revealed in this study, the more mature teachers were more secure and less fearful and preoccupied. However, teaching experience turned out to be among the most effective factor since it had a more positive correlation with the secure style and a strong negative correlation with the fearful and preoccupied styles. Furthermore, the responses to the questionnaire indicated that men teachers saw themselves very secure and not fearful, while the female teachers self-described as more preoccupied and dismissing. Educational degrees, however, did not make any statistically significant difference between the secure and preoccupied styles, but teachers holding phd degrees were more secure than other groups. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras56 Ganji & Samani It can be concluded that attachment styles are not stable over time. Thus, teachers with insecure style problems (e.g., being uncertain, stressful, and anxious) tend to keep a distance from students, usually withdraw from helping their students, and struggle with feelings of low self-esteem. However, these teachers might later reach a secure attachment style as their age and teaching experience grows. Teachers can facilitate ways to cope with insecure styles through practices like cognitive- behavioral therapy, which is a “short-term therapy technique that can help people find new ways to behave by changing their thought patterns [and by focusing] on their present-day challenges, thoughts, and behaviors” (Davis, 2018, paras. 1–4); or mindfulness therapy, which is a technique for relieving and improving symptoms of stress and anxiety, mental health concerns, physical pain, and so on (Hoffman et al., 2010). The fact that higher educated teachers showed a more secure style suggested that, by upgrading their education, teachers can cultivate a secure style. The fact that teachers having a higher- education degree may display a dismissing style cannot be ignored, though. To help student teachers overcome insecure style problems, a tool called the Recovery Assessment Scale is recommended to be included in in-service education programs. This tool, developed by Hancock et al. (2015), incorporates ideas like self-esteem, feeling powerful, receiving support from society, and living standard. Finally, regarding gender differences, and if women can compete with men to be more secure, it may seem unlikely because it largely depends on societal conditions which are beyond the scope of this study and, as noted above, women usually are the ones who exhibit more fearful attitudes, and avoid close relationships in certain cultures (such as the Iranian one), because in their culture it is the men who usually make most of the decisions to start, continue, or end a relationship such as marriage. Therefore, women are often worried about losing relationships and more likely than men to consider the consequences of getting involved in a close relationship (Pourmohseni-Koluri, 2016). Therefore, as long as the attitudes of society are unchanged, women’s attachment styles will also remain unchanged. Like all survey studies, verifying the results depended largely on the accuracy and honesty of the participants’ responses. Although the researchers encouraged par- ticipants to read and answer the questions carefully and assured them their answers would be strictly confidential, inaccuracy in answering the questions seems inevitable. There were also some limitations in finding teachers over 50 years old as most of them were either retired or not available, or they were university chancellors who refused to fill out the questionnaire. Due to the limited works done in this area in Iran and around the world, there was not much literature at hand for researchers with which to compare the results in the discussion section. Further research can be done on teachers’ attach- ment styles and students whose English teachers have both secure and insecure styles to see how teachers’ attachment styles can affect students’ performance in learning different language skills. This line of research needs to be complemented by qualitative data collected through observation and focus group interviews. More research can be carried out regarding the men and women issues mentioned above. In addition, research can be conducted on planning strategies to help teach- ers overcome their attachment difficulties, and teacher educators who oversee preservice and in-service teacher education might benefit from including these strategies in their curriculums. It must be kept in mind that such studies need to benefit from follow-up data collection cycles in which data are collected at least six months after the training since changing a behavior takes time. The obtained results of the study would be useful for teachers, teacher educators, curriculum designers, and administrators. However, since quantitative data and research might not be able to give a complete picture of the situation, future researchers are encouraged to conduct qualitative and mixed-methods studies while researching the change of behaviors in teachers. 57Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style References Ackerman, C. E. (n.d.). What is attachment theory? Bowlby’s 4 stages explained. PositivePsychology.com. https:// positivepsychology.com/attachment-theory/ Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year- olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41(1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127388 Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum. Akbağ, M., & İmamoğlu, S. E. (2010). The prediction of gender and attachment styles on shame, guilt, and loneliness. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10, 669–682. Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (1st ed., pp. 319–335). Guilford Press. Barker, E. S. (2015). Promoting positive teacher–child interactions through implementation of a social emotional learning curriculum with performance feedback [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Massachusetts Amherst, usa. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 141–170. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0 Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger (Vol. 2). Basic Books. Bretherton, I. (2010). Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1–2), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903414661 Cassidy, J., Jones, J. D., & Shaver, P. R. (2013). Contributions of attachment theory and research: A Framework for future research, translation, and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0954579413000692 Choi, J. Y., & Dobbs-Oates, J. (2016). Teacher-child relation- ships: Contribution of teacher and child characteristics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 30(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1105331 Davis, K. (2018, September 25). How does cognitive behav- ioral therapy work? Medical News Today. https://www. medicalnewstoday.com/articles/296579 de Castro, R. M., & Pereira, D. I. F. (2019). Education and attachment: Guidelines to prevent school failure. Mul- timodal Technologies and Interaction, 3(1), 1–17. https:// doi.org/10.3390/mti3010010 Del Giudice, M. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193–214. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167210392789 Gervai, J. (2009). Environmental and genetic influences on early attachment. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-3-25 Granot, D., & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment security and adjustment to school in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(6), 530–541. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000366 Hancock, N., Scanlan, J. N., Honey, A., Bundy, A., & O’Shea, K. (2015). Recovery assessment scale—domains and stages (rasds): Its feasibility and outcome measurement capacity. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7), 624–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414564084 Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptu- alized as an attachment process. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi. org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.511 Hoffman, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169–183. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0018555 Krstić, K. (2015). Attachment in the student–teacher rela- tionship as a factor of school achievement. Teaching Innovations, 28(3), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.5937/ inovacije1503167K https://positivepsychology.com/attachment-theory/ https://positivepsychology.com/attachment-theory/ https://doi.org/10.2307/1127388 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0 https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903414661 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000692 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000692 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1105331 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/296579 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/296579 https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3010010 https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3010010 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210392789 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210392789 https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-3-25 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000366 https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000366 https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414564084 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.511 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.511 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018555 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018555 https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije1503167K https://doi.org/10.5937/inovacije1503167K Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras58 Ganji & Samani Moss, E., & St-Laurent, D. (2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.863 O’Connor, E., & McCartney, K. (2007). Examining teacher– child relationships and achievement as part of an ecological model of development. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 44(2), 340–369. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831207302172 Ogelman, H. G., & Seven, S. (2012). Investigating preschool children’s attachment styles and peer relationships. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 765–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.731 Polek, E. (2008). Evaluating the replicability of the Bar- tholomew and Horowitz Model of attachment in one native Dutch and four immigrant samples. In E. Polek (Ed.), Attachment in cultural context: Differences in attachment between Eastern and Western Europeans (pp. 16–33). University of Groningen/umcg research. Poole Heller, D. (2014). Attachment style quiz. Retrieved July 2020, from https://dianepooleheller.com/attachment-test/ Pourmohseni-Koluri, F. (2016). Gender differences in attach- ment style and personality traits in prediction of love styles in university students. Research in Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, 6(1), 17–32. Riley, P. (2009). An adult attachment perspective on the student–teacher relationship and classroom management difficulties. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 626–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.018 Riley, P. (2012). Attachment perspectives on classroom relationships: Helping ourselves through helping others? (ed542248). eric. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED542248.pdf Rozvadský-Gugová, G., & Heretik, A. (2011). Gender differ- ences in attachment styles using Slovak version of the experiences in close relationships – Revised (ecr-r). Acta Technologica Dubnicae, 1(2), 29–36. https://doi. org/10.1515/atd-2015-0043 Scharfe, E. (2017). Sex differences in attachment. In T. K. Shackelford, & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3592-1 Segal, D. L., Needham, T. N., & Coolidge, F. L. (2009). Age differences in attachment orientations among younger and older adults: Evidence from two self-report measures of attachment. Aging and Human Development, 69(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.69.2.c Shumaker, D. M., Deutsch, R. M., & Brenninkmeyer, L. (2009). How do I connect? Attachment issues in adolescence. Journal of Child Custody, 6(1–2), 91–112. https://doi. org/10.1080/15379410902894866 Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2017). Adult attachment, stress, and romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2016.04.006 Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Verschueren, K. (2002). Attachment in childhood. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (pp. 182–204). Blackwell. Tagay, Ö., & Karataş, Z. (2012). An investigation of attach- ment styles of college students. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. sbspro.2012.06.728 Toffoli, D. (2015). Attachment theory: Insights into student postures in autonomous language learning. In C. Gkonou, D. Tatzl, & S. Mercer (Eds.), New directions in language learning psychology (pp 55–70). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-23491-5_5 Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Hofstra, J., & Bakker, W. (2003). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de Hechtingstijllijst [Development and evaluation of the Attachment Styles Questionnaire]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 58, 95–102. Veríssimo, M., Torres, N., Silva, F., Fernandes, C., Vaughn, B. E., & Santos, A. J. (2017). Children’s representations of attachment and positive teacher–child relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2017.02270 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.863 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207302172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.731 https://dianepooleheller.com/attachment-test/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.11.018 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542248.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542248.pdf https://doi.org/10.1515/atd-2015-0043 https://doi.org/10.1515/atd-2015-0043 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3592-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3592-1 https://doi.org/10.2190/AG.69.2.c https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410902894866 https://doi.org/10.1080/15379410902894866 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.728 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.728 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23491-5_5 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23491-5_5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02270 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02270 59Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style About the Authors Mansoor Ganji is an assistant professor in the English department of Chabahar Maritime University, teaching at the ba, ma, and phd levels since 2007. He has published several papers in international journals, mostly on corrective feedback, teacher education, and English for academic purposes. He has also supervised several ma and phd theses. Farzane Safarzade Samani obtained her ma in tefl at Chabahar Maritime University. Her field of interest is interdisciplinary issues which deal with combining English teaching and learning with different branches such as management, engineering, literature, and psychology. Currently, she is a phd candidate in tefl at Chabahar Maritime University. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias Humanas, Departamento de Lenguas Extranjeras60 Ganji & Samani Appendix: Attachment Style Questionnaire This questionnaire, which is based on Van Oudenhoven et al. (2003) and Poole Heller (2014), is designed to gather data about attachment styles of Iranian efl teachers. The questionnaire consists of 45 items in which you have to carefully read each item and check what best describes you. The statements concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships and how you generally experience relationships. Your answers to the questions will be strictly confidential. A. Please complete personal information. Age: Gender: Years of teaching experience: Degree: Place of work: B. Please respond to each statement by marking a circle to indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). 1 2 3 4 5 1. I feel at ease in emotional relationships. 2. I would like to be open in my relationships, but I can’t trust other people. 3. I feel uncomfortable when relationships with other people become close. 4. I find it difficult to fully trust other people in close relationships. 5. I prefer that others are independent of me. 6. I am preoccupied with what others think of me. 7. I usually avoid close relationships with people around. 8. I feel that I like others better than they like me. 9. I like it when other people can rely on me. 10. I am often afraid that other people don’t like me. 11. It is important for me to be independent. 12. I find it easy to get engaged in close relationships. 13. I feel at ease in intimate relationships. 14. I like to be self-sufficient. 15. I find myself ready to apologize or take responsibility for things I did not do. 16. I think it is important that people can rely on each other. 17. I don’t worry about being alone. 18. I am afraid that I will be deceived when I get too close with others. 19. I usually find other people more interesting than myself. 20. I trust that my partner will be there for me when I need him/her. 21. I am afraid to get hurt if I get engaged in a close relationship. 22. It is important to me to know if others like me. 23. I act like I don’t need reassurance or encouragement. 61Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev., Vol. 24 No. 1, Jan-Jun, 2022. ISSN 1657-0790 (printed) 2256-5760 (online). Bogotá, Colombia. Pages 45-61 The Relationship Between Demographic Features and Iranian EFL Teachers’ Attachment Style 24. I am not able to repair and receive repair attempts from others in relationships. 25. I usually trust in others and in the future realistically. 26. I prefer the company of animals instead of people. 27. I need constant reassurance about the reliability of my relationships. 28. I am concerned if other people value me. 29. When love happens or is available, I reject it because it is too good to be true. 30. I feel I actively reject opportunities for connection. 31. I have trouble saying no to people when needed. 32. It is difficult for me to be clear about my feelings. 33. I focus more on work and hobbies than relationships. 34. I have obsessive thoughts about how to keep the relationship going. 35. I minimize the importance of close relationships. 36. I predict catastrophic outcomes and events. 37. I always feel superior and that I don’t need others. 38. I have trouble setting boundaries in my relationships. 39. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me. 40. I don’t worry whether people like me or not. 41. I don’t need other people very much. 42. I am afraid of losing my partner. 43. I often wonder whether people like me. 44. I cannot think clearly most of the time. 45. I like that I am independent of others. Thank you so much for your cooperation.