E it cannot get to its Mommy) problems. Given this design, it is 
possible that different participants were attending to different aspects of interaction. To address this consideration, and explore the extent to which attachment security affects the interpretation of complex/ambiguous problems, we modified our videos to make them more similar to Johnson et al. (2007). Specifically, we created a new video in which both the hill and social goals 
were equally salient.Measures Largely identical to the previous two studies, the only modification was the content of the videos. Specifically, we moved the large ball from the bottom of the hill to the top thus combining the small ball’s instrumental and social goals (Figure 1C). In order to make both varieties of goals equally salient, and comparable to Studies 1A/B, the small ball attempts to climb the hill once, expands and contracts once, then, at the bottom of the hill, expands and darkens in color, appearing to cry. The larger ball remains motionless at the top of the hill for the duration of the video. Consistent with the previous videos, both balls had faces but maintained a neutral expression. Following the video participants completed the ECR. Again, all reports were coded by a secondary, blind coder and agreement was high (97 , = 0.79), hill (94 , = 0.84), and social (98 , = 0.93).PM01183 custom synthesis Results and Discussion Attachment ClassificationBoth attachment T807 site anxiety and avoidance were lower in the secure group (N = 29, 31.2 , 11 female) than the insecure group [N = 64, 68.8 , 34 female; anxiety, t(91) = 5.74, p < 0.001; avoidance, t(91) = 5.98, p < 0.001].StudyStudy 2 aimed to determine if individual differences in attachment security affected participants' recognition of instrumental need versus social-emotional distress in complex scenes. To that end, participants watched a video that included both the instrumental "hill" goal of Kuhlmeier et al. (2003), and the social "reunion" goal of Johnson et al. (2010). Because the video was complex and included both an instrumental and social goal, we predicted that although all participants should be able to recognize goal directed2 Again,Verbal Reports Both groups of participants were equally likely to discuss the ball's behavior in agentive, goal-directed language [2 (1, N = 93) = 0.16, p = 0.69, = 0.04; Figure 2C]. Moreover, both groups were equally likely to recognize and report the instrumental "hill" goal [2 (1, N = 93) = 1.78, p = 0.18, = 0.14]. However, consistent with our hypotheses, the groups differed in their tendency to report the "social" goal [2 (1, N = 93) = 10.89, p = 0.001, = 0.34]3 ; specifically, insecurely attached participants were significantly less likely than securely attached participants to report the Baby's social goal of reuniting with the Mommy. To determine whether it was attachment insecurity in general or one of the continuous attachment dimensions in particular that affected participant's tendency to report the social goal, we conducted a logistic regression with attachment anxiety, avoidance, and their interaction as continuous, independent3 We analyze the three varieties of attachment insecurity separately the patternthe pattern of results remains the same when the three varieties of attachment insecurity are treated as separate groups: Goals: 2 (3, N = 90) = 2.31, p = 0.51, = 0.16; Hill: 2 (3, N = 90) = 3.32, p = 0.34, = 0.19; Social: 2 (3, N = 90) = 1.25, p = 0.74, = 0.12.of results is identical: Goals: 2 (3, N.E it cannot get to its Mommy) problems. Given this design, it is possible that different participants were attending to different aspects of interaction. To address this consideration, and explore the extent to which attachment security affects the interpretation of complex/ambiguous problems, we modified our videos to make them more similar to Johnson et al. (2007). Specifically, we created a new video in which both the hill and social goals were equally salient.Measures Largely identical to the previous two studies, the only modification was the content of the videos. Specifically, we moved the large ball from the bottom of the hill to the top thus combining the small ball's instrumental and social goals (Figure 1C). In order to make both varieties of goals equally salient, and comparable to Studies 1A/B, the small ball attempts to climb the hill once, expands and contracts once, then, at the bottom of the hill, expands and darkens in color, appearing to cry. The larger ball remains motionless at the top of the hill for the duration of the video. Consistent with the previous videos, both balls had faces but maintained a neutral expression. Following the video participants completed the ECR. Again, all reports were coded by a secondary, blind coder and agreement was high (97 , = 0.79), hill (94 , = 0.84), and social (98 , = 0.93).Results and Discussion Attachment ClassificationBoth attachment anxiety and avoidance were lower in the secure group (N = 29, 31.2 , 11 female) than the insecure group [N = 64, 68.8 , 34 female; anxiety, t(91) = 5.74, p < 0.001; avoidance, t(91) = 5.98, p < 0.001].StudyStudy 2 aimed to determine if individual differences in attachment security affected participants' recognition of instrumental need versus social-emotional distress in complex scenes. To that end, participants watched a video that included both the instrumental "hill" goal of Kuhlmeier et al. (2003), and the social "reunion" goal of Johnson et al. (2010). Because the video was complex and included both an instrumental and social goal, we predicted that although all participants should be able to recognize goal directed2 Again,Verbal Reports Both groups of participants were equally likely to discuss the ball's behavior in agentive, goal-directed language [2 (1, N = 93) = 0.16, p = 0.69, = 0.04; Figure 2C]. Moreover, both groups were equally likely to recognize and report the instrumental "hill" goal [2 (1, N = 93) = 1.78, p = 0.18, = 0.14]. However, consistent with our hypotheses, the groups differed in their tendency to report the "social" goal [2 (1, N = 93) = 10.89, p = 0.001, = 0.34]3 ; specifically, insecurely attached participants were significantly less likely than securely attached participants to report the Baby's social goal of reuniting with the Mommy. To determine whether it was attachment insecurity in general or one of the continuous attachment dimensions in particular that affected participant's tendency to report the social goal, we conducted a logistic regression with attachment anxiety, avoidance, and their interaction as continuous, independent3 We analyze the three varieties of attachment insecurity separately the patternthe pattern of results remains the same when the three varieties of attachment insecurity are treated as separate groups: Goals: 2 (3, N = 90) = 2.31, p = 0.51, = 0.16; Hill: 2 (3, N = 90) = 3.32, p = 0.34, = 0.19; Social: 2 (3, N = 90) = 1.25, p = 0.74, = 0.12.of results is identical: Goals: 2 (3, N.
