Attachment Theory: Understanding Adult Relationships and Parenting Differences, Lecture notes of Literature

Download Attachment Theory: Understanding Adult Relationships and Parenting Differences and more Lecture notes Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Crowell, J.A. & Treboux, D. (1995) A review of adult attachment measures: Implications for theory and re- search. Social Development. 4. 294-327. A Review of Adult Attachment Measures: Implications for Theory and Research Judith A. Crowell and Dominique Treboux State University of New York at Stony Brook Abstract There has been increasing interest in adult attachment from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. Be- cause the test of a theory is based on our ability to assess theoretical constructs, the review is organized around assessment techniques. Delineating the content, focus, assumptions, and correlates of different attachment measures highlights central issues and problems in conducting research in adult attachment. In this review, we present theoretical issues related to adult attachment, in particular, individual differences, working models, and the role of attachment in adult life. A summary of the measures commonly used in the study of adult at- tachment follows. The literature review is organized by measure, examining topics such as relations between childhood experiences and adult attachment status, and adult attachment and adult personality and function- ing, parenting and partnership behavior. Studies which explore relations between measures are discussed be- fore concluding with thoughts about future directions. Key words: attachment, adult attachment, marriage, working models Acknowledgments: We thank Everett Waters for his provocative and challenging ideas which have led to greater understanding of attachment theory and issues of adult attachment, and Kim Bartholomew and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dominique Treboux, Ph.D., Psychology B, SUNY-Stony Brook, NY, 11794 2 A Review of Adult Attachment Measures: Implications for Theory and Research The past few years have seen a rise in interest in adult attachment from both theoretical and empirical perspec- tives. The research draws upon Bowlby's theory of attachment (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Bowlby, 1973; Bowlby, 1980), and has gone in several directions, examining (1) the relation between childhood attachment experiences and parenting behavior, and intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns, (2) the impact of childhood attachment experiences on adult relationships, and the role of attachment in adult-adult relationships, and (3) the role of working models or representations of attachment in influencing thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the two domains of adult functioning: parenting and romantic relationships. This review addressed some key issues in adult attachment which have arisen from the recent proliferation of research and controversy about the topic. Because the test of a theory is based on our ability to assess theoretical constructs, the review is organized around assessment techniques. Delineating the content, focus, assumptions, and correlates of different attachment meas- ures highlights central issues and problems in conducting research in adult attachment. Moreover, it forces us to look closely at Bowlby's theory and its postulates, and reminds us that the theory makes specific hypotheses about the attachment behavior system, and it is not a theory of parenting, infant development, personality, relationships, or a general theory of all good things. In this review, we present theoretical background, including issues related to individual differences, working models, and the role of attachment in adult life. A summary of the measures used in the study of adult attach- ment follows, including a table of basic information allowing comparisons among the measures. The literature review is organized by measure, examining topics such as relations between childhood experiences and adult at- tachment status, and adult attachment and adult personality and functioning, parenting and partnership behavior. Studies which explore relations between measures are discussed, before concluding with thoughts about future directions. Theoretical Background What is the attachment behavior system? Bowlby described the attachment behavior system as a motivational control system which has the goal of promot- ing safety and felt security in infancy and childhood through the child's relationship with the attachment figure or caregiver (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Attachment behaviors are the observable elements of the system (crying, calling, clinging, searching, etc.), and reflect "the activation of an inferred and not directly observable attachment behav- ior system (Stevenson-Hinde, 1994), p. 62. The system is activated in times of danger, stress, and novelty, and has the outcome of gaining and maintaining proximity to and contact with the attachment figure. The attachment figure promotes attachment behavior by being available, responsive, protective, and comforting when a threat or stressor presents itself (Waters,Kondo-Ikemura,Posada, & Richters, 1991). The availability, responsiveness, and active support of the caregiver allows the child to confidently explore the environment under ordinary circum- stances, secure in the knowledge that the attachment figure is there should any need arise. What are individual differences in attachment behavior? Individual differences in organization of attachment behavior and in expectations regarding attachment relation- ships are hypothesized to be related in large part to behavior of the attachment figure (versus child characteristics such as temperament), and the patterns of attachment are broadly characterized as secure and insecure (Ainsworth,Blehar,Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bretherton, 1985). The secure pattern fits the description above in that the infant seeks and receives protection, reassurance, and comfort when stressed. Confident exploration is optimized because of the support and availability of the care- giver. The insecure patterns (avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized) develop when attachment behavior is met by rejection, inconsistency, or even threat from the attachment figure, leaving the infant "anxious" about the care- giver's responsiveness should problems arise. To reduce this anxiety, the infant's behavior comes to fit or comple- 5 adults often serve a wide variety of other functions, including sexual bonds, companionship, sense of competence, and shared purpose or experience (Ainsworth, 1985; Weiss, 1974). The Study of Adult Attachment What has been assessed in adult attachment research? Infant attachment behaviors are easily observable in naturalistic and laboratory situations because attachment be- havior is readily provoked in infancy and it is expressed through action rather than language (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Waters & Deane, 1985). In contrast, the attachment behavior system is not so easy to assess in adult rela- tionships. For example, how does one operationalize secure base behavior? What does it look like in the every day life of adult partners? The reciprocal nature of the relationships complicates the picture. Perhaps because of these difficulties, researchers have tended to focus on individuals rather than couples in assessments of adult at- tachment, and they have emphasized assessments which utilize language and perceptions, that is, interviews and self-report measures, rather than behavioral observations (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). Studies of adult attachment can roughly be divided into (1) those which focus on individual differences (eg., see (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Cohn,Silver,Cowan,Cowan, & Pearson, 1992b; Crowell & Feldman, 1988; Fonagy,Steele, & Steele, 1992; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Kobak,Ferenz-Gillies,Everhart, & Seabrook, 1991; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Owens,Crowell,Pan,Treboux,O'Connor, & Waters, in press), and (2) those which ex- amine dimensions of attachment, such as security or availability (eg., see (Borman,Allen,A.,Cole, & Hauser, 1993; Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hauser, 1992; Kobak et al., 1991; Simpson, 1990; West & Sheldon-Keller, 1992). What methods have been used to assess adult attachment? Different aspects of attachment theory and of adult relationships have led to development of a variety of assess- ment methods. The following summary describes some of the measures of "adult attachment", meaning instru- ments which attempt to classify models of attachment or attachment styles, or which identify characteristics of models of attachment, attachment styles, or behaviors of adult attachment relationships. The measures were all developed using ideas from attachment theory, and are self-report or interview measures. Direct observation of adult attachment behavior is gathering interest, but the systems for scoring the behavior are under development (eg., see (Crowell & Waters, 1993; Wampler, 1994). Summary of Measures The measures described are of three general types: Interviews, q-sort assessments, and questionnaires. Basic de- scriptions of the measures are presented in Table 1. ______________________ Insert Table 1 here ______________________ Interviews 1. Adult Attachment Interview (George,Kaplan, & Main, 1985). In an effort to capture a generalized representa- tion of attachment, Mary Main and colleagues developed a semi-structured interview about childhood attachment relationships, and the meaning which the individual currently gives to past experiences. The narrative is exam- ined for material purposely expressed by the individual, and for material the individual seems unaware of, eg., apparent incoherence and inconsistencies of discourse, thus aiming to assess elements of the attachment represen- tation which are not conscious. Scoring is based upon (a) descriptions of childhood experiences, (b) language used in the interview, and (c) ability to give an integrated, believable account of experiences and their meaning. The language and discourse style used is considered to reflect the state of mind with respect to attachment. The AAI scoring system was developed using interviews of parents and knowledge of the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978) classifications of their infants. It has been refined and expanded since that time, see (Main & Goldwyn, 1994). The AAI is scored from a transcript using scales which characterize childhood experi- ence with each parent: Mother and father loving, rejecting, neglecting, involving, and pressuring. Other scales 6 assess discourse style: Overall coherence of transcript and of thought, idealization, insistence on lack of recall, active anger, derogation, fear of loss, metacognitive monitoring, and passivity of speech. Scale scores are used to assign the adult to one of three major classifications: secure/autonomous, insecure/dismissing, and insecure/ preoccupied. Individuals classified as secure/autonomous describe diverse childhood experiences, maintain a balanced view of early relationships, value attachment relationships, and view attachment-related experiences as influential in de- velopment. Adults are classified as insecure on the basis of incoherency, meaning they fail to integrate memories of experience with assessments of the meaning of experience. Adults classified as insecure/dismissing deny or devalue the impact of early attachment relationships, have difficulty with recall of specific events, often idealize experiences, and usually describe an early history of rejection. Adults classified as insecure/preoccupied display confusion about past experiences, and current relationships with parents are marked by active anger or with pas- sivity. Individuals may be classified as unresolved in addition to a major classification. These adults report attachment- related traumas of loss and/or abuse which have not been reconciled. The unresolved classification is given precedence over the major classification in classifying the individual, and is considered an insecure classification. A “can’t classify” category is assigned when scale scores reflect elements rarely seen together in an interview, eg., high idealization of one parent and high active anger at the other. Such interviews are highly incoherent and in- secure. Stability has been demonstrated in a number of studies (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 1993; Benoit & Parker, 1994; Crowell & Treboux, 1991; Crowell,Waters,Treboux, & O'Connor, 1995; Fonagy,Steele, & Steele, 1992; Sagi,van IJzendoorn,Scharf,Koren-Karie,Joels, & Mayseless, 1994), and there are no gender differ- ences in distribution of classifications (van IJzendoorn & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, in press). Discriminant va- lidity of the AAI has been demonstrated with respect to intelligence, memory, cognitive complexity, social desir- ability, and overall social adjustment (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 1993; Crowell,Waters,Treboux, Feider,O'Connor,Posada, et al., submitted for publication; Sagi et al., 1994) (see Table 1). 2. Attachment Interviews (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The interviews assess prototypes of adult attach- ment. The prototypes were based on Bowlby's idea that an attachment model involves ideas concerning both self and other. Differing from Bowlby's original postulate, the scoring system views the models of self and other as independent (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b), and hence a four category system is delineated. The secure proto- type reflects an individual who is comfortable in relationships, values relationships, and can be both intimate and autonomous (positive view of self and others). The preoccupied prototype is characterized by anxiety and emo- tionality, and overinvolvement and dependency in relationships (negative re: self, positive re: others). The dis- missing prototype is characterized by an person who values independence (positive self) and denies a desire for intimacy (negative re: others). The fearful individual is anxious, distrustful, and fearful of rejection (negative re: self and others). The Peer Attachment Interview inquires about friendships, romantic relationships, and the significance of close relationships. A parallel version asks for relationships with parents, experiences of separations and upsets, as well as an overview of childhood experiences and their influences on the subject. The interviews are scored by two coders who describe the degree to which the subject matches the prototypes using 9-point scales. Coders' scores are averaged, and subjects are assigned to prototypes for peer and family relationships. The Peer Interview is also rated on 15 dimensions which include (a) descriptions of the interview, (b) descriptions of friendships and romantic relationships, (c) self-descriptions, and (d) behavior in relationships. The Peer Interview has been found to be moderately stable (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994). Gender differences have been found: Women were more likely to be preoccupied, and men were more likely to be rated dismissing (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Models of self and other derived from the interview and using the Relation- ship Questionnaire (described below) are unrelated (Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). Discriminant validity has not been specifically assessed. 7 3. Current Relationship Interview (CRI) (Crowell, 1990). The interview investigates the attachment representa- tion within the adult partnership by examining descriptions of the attachment behavior of the self and partner us- ing a format similar to the AAI. The scoring system (Owens & Crowell, 1992) parallels the AAI scoring system in that experiences with the partner, discourse style, and believability/coherence are assessed using a number of scales. Rating scales are used to characterize (a) the partner’s behavior, (b) the subject behavior, and (c) the sub- ject's discourse style: anger, derogation, idealization, passivity of speech, fear of loss, and overall coherence. The interview is scored from a transcript and the subject is classified into one of three major patterns. The Se- cureCRI interview is characterized by coherence, i.e., the subject describes convincing loving behavior by the partner, or can coherently discuss negative partner behavior. The subject expresses the idea that an adult rela- tionship provides support for the individuals and for the joint development of the partners. The DismissingCRI classification is given when there is little or no evidence that the individual finds support and comfort within the relationship. The relationship may be idealized, the need for autonomy and separateness may be emphasized, and/or there may be an emphasis on materialism. The PreoccupiedCRI classification is given when the subject expresses strong dependency or a need to control the partner, and/or may be dissatisfied or anxious about the partner’s ability to fulfill his/her needs. The subject expresses ambivalence or confusion about the relationship, the partner, and/or the self. An unresolved classification is given with a major classification if a previous roman- tic relationship is exerting a disorganizing influence on the individual currently. Moderate stability of classifications has been found (Crowell,Treboux,Owens, & Pan, 1995; Owens,Crowell,Pan, Treboux,O'Connor, & Waters, in press). Security was unrelated to subjects' education, gender or duration of rela- tionship; there was a significant relation between intelligence scores and security (Owens, 1993). Q-Sort Assessments 4. Adult Attachment Q-sort (Kobak, 1989). The Q-sort is an alternative method of scoring the Adult Attachment Interview and was derived from the original scoring system. It emphasizes the relation between affect regulation and attachment style by examining the use of minimizing versus maximizing emotional strategies. The interview is scored from transcripts using a forced distribution of descriptors in two dimensions: Security/anxiety and deac- tivation/hyperactivation. Security reflects coherence and cooperation within the interview, and memories of sup- portive attachment figures. Deactivation strategies correspond to dismissing strategies, whereas hyperactivating strategies reflect the excessive detail and active anger seen in many preoccupied subjects. The individual's sort is correlated with a prototypic sort, and the individual can be classified into a Secure, Dismissing or Preoccupied category on the basis of the correlations with the prototypes. Using the Q-sort method of scoring, men were more likely to be described as dismissing (Borman-Spurrell,Allen, Hauser,Carter, & Cole-Detke, submitted for publication). Discriminant validity assessments were not included in the studies reviewed. 5. Marital Q-sort (Kobak & Hazan, 1991). The Q-sort assesses two dimensions of attachment within the current relationship: Reliance on the partner and psychological availability. The reliance scale assesses use of the part- ner as a secure base/safe haven, whereas availability assesses being a secure base/ safe haven to a partner. Each subject completes a self-report q-sort and a sort of his/her partner's behavior. Attachment security is the com- bined score of self-reports of reliance on the partner and of partner's availability. Husbands and wives report that wives are more reliant on husbands than the reverse, but there were no gender differences with respect to availi- bility (Kobak & Hazan, 1991). Information regarding stability and discriminant validity of the measure was not provided in the studies reviewed. Questionnaires and Rating Scales 6. Adult Attachment Styles (AAS) (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and adaptations (Collins & Read, 1990; Davis, Kirkpatrick,Levy, & O'Hearn, 1994; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Simpson, 1990). Drawing upon the concept of in- fant attachment patterns, Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed a self-selection measure to capture adult attach- ment styles with respect to feelings about the self in relationships, especially romantic relationships. The secure style characterizes the subject as comfortable with intimacy, dependency, and reciprocity in relationships, as well 10 loving and nonrejecting were described as more loving and less rejecting by their fiancees. 3. Adult Attachment Q-sort. A German study of infant attachment security and attachment assessed at age 16 years with the Q-sort method of scoring the AAI found no relation between the two assessments (Zimmermann,Fremmer-Bombik, Spangler, & Grossman, 1995). Maternal AAI assessed when the children were six years old showed 71% corre- spondence with adolescent security status. 3. Adult Attachment Styles and adaptations. Retrospective reports of childhood experiences and self-reports of attachment style are associated in that subjects who classify themselves as secure report their parents to be warmer, more responsive and supportive than dismissing subjects (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1993). Dismissing subjects report their parents to be rejecting. Feeling that their fathers were unfair was charac- teristic of the ambivalent group. Separations from parents and parental divorce were not related to attachment style. Examining a particular type of experience with a parent, one study found subjects who identified them- selves as insecure were more likely to report one of their parents had a drinking problem (Brennan et al., 1991). In a study of dating couples, Collins and Read (1990) found women who reported positive relationships with fa- thers were more likely to date men who were comfortable with closeness and dependency than women who re- ported cold or inconsistent relationships with fathers. Men with problematic relationships with their mothers were more likely to be dating anxious women and/or those who felt they could not count on others. 4. Relationship Questionnaire. Subjects who identified themselves as fearful were more likely to report one of their parents had a drinking problem (Brennan et al., 1991). Subjects who were victims of incestuous abuse were most likely to be fearful (Alexander, 1993). What is the relation between adult attachment status and adult personality and functioning? Many studies have explored relations between personality characteristics and functioning and adult attachment assessments. Social competence and adaptive functioning have been theoretically and empirically linked to at- tachment, insofar as a child who can use the parent as a secure base is free to comfortably explore the environ- ment and new relationships and to return for comfort or reassurance in times of doubt or failure without concern for the parent or preoccupation with her availability (Allen & Crowell, 1995; Bretherton, 1985; Waters & Sroufe, 1983). Studies of adult attachment and personality and functioning assess several domains: (1) self-esteem and personality traits, (2) peer relationships and loneliness, (3) social adjustment, (4) physiological measures, and (5) psychopathology and feelings of depression. 1. Adult Attachment Interview. Self-esteem and personality traits. Studies of self-esteem and AAI classifications yield mixed results. College students classified as secure viewed themselves as more lovable and likable than insecure subjects, and reported higher self-esteem overall (Treboux,Crowell, & Colon-Downs, 1992). Similarly, in a sample of low SES mothers with ill children, secure women scored higher on feelings of competence, likability, self-approval, iden- tity, and integration than insecure mothers (Benoit,Zeanah, & Barton, 1989). However in another sample of women (Zeanah,Benoit,Barton,Regan,Hirshberg, & Lipsett, 1993), a sample of engaged couples (Waters & Crow- ell, 1994), and in two samples of young adults (one psychiatrically hospitalized, one comparison) (Borman- Spurrell,Allen,Hauser,Carter, & Cole-Detke, 1994), no relation between classifications and self-esteem has been found. Peer relations and loneliness. College students classified as secure were rated by peers as more ego- resilient, less anxious, and less hostile than insecure students (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Secure students reported less distress and higher levels of social support than insecure students. Dismissing subjects were rated by peers as hostile and anxious; they reported less support from families, and more loneliness in the spring of the first year than secure students. The preoccupied group was rated by peers as most anxious, and they endorsed the most symptoms on a psychiatric symptom checklist. 11 In a study of female college students, women classified as secure reported less loneliness and anxiety than inse- cure students (Smith & George, 1993). Preoccupied and unresolved students reported feeling anxious, and dis- missing women reported loneliness and depression. Secure and preoccupied students reported continued prefer- ence for parents and family members as attachment figures, as opposed to peers or romantic partners. Students classified as unresolved reported feeling isolated from attachments of any sort. A study of pregnant adolescents found secure subjects had higher levels of relatedness (the ability to view others as individuals and understand their thoughts and feelings) than insecure subjects (Levine,Tuber,Slade, & Ward, 1991) Adjustment. AAI classifications were not related to balanced, uninvolved, or overinvolved attitudes to- ward jobs in a sample of women recruited from the general population; however, a moderate relation was found between security and ratings of social adjustment (Crowell et al., submitted for publication). No differences were found among AAI groups on a measure of general interpersonal trust (Crowell et al., 1993). Adult psychopathology. Several studies have found associations between insecurity and self-reports of anxiety, depression, and psychiatric symptoms including alcohol abuse. Clinical populations have a much higher proportion of insecure classifications than the general population (van IJzendoorn & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, in press), but no specific relation between AAI classification and psychopathology has emerged. In one study, depressive symptoms related to ratings of negative past and present relationships with parents, but were unrelated to coherence in the AAI (Pearson et al., 1993). This suggests that awareness of difficulties in one's past, i.e. the capacity to self-report problems, may be related to depressive symptoms regardless of attach- ment status. A study of male criminal offenders admitted to forensic psychiatric hospitals in the Netherlands found 95% of the subjects were insecure, with 53% unresolved/can't classify, and 20% preoccupied (van IJzendoorn,Feldbrugge, Derks,de Ruiter,Verhagen,Philipse, et al., submitted for publication). The nature of the crime was unrelated to classification, although preoccupied men tended to be more violent and more likely to choose a victim known to them, and they were more likely to have personality disorder diagnoses. Subjects designated "can't classify" were more likely to have been raised in institutions. 2. Attachment Interviews Self-esteem and personality traits. Subjects classified as secure and dismissing scored higher than preoc- cupied and fearful subjects on measures of self esteem and self acceptance, and lower on reports of distress (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Those classified as secure and preoccupied had higher sociability ratings. Peer relations and loneliness. Interpersonal issues identified by self and peers were assessed along axes of warmth and dominance, and were examined with respect to the four classifications (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Horowitz,Rosenberg, & Bartholomew, 1993). The secure group showed no pattern of problems, and were rated as interpersonally warm, nurturant, exploitable, and expressive. The dismissing group was characterized by coldness, introversion and hostility. The preoccupied group was rated as overly expressive and seeking domi- nance, whereas the fearful classification was associated with lack of assertiveness and social inhibition. The lat- ter two groups expressed the most interpersonal distress. The interview about family was moderately correlated with the Peer Attachment Interview (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Using the interviews to predict interper- sonal problems, the peer interview scores accounted for dominance aspects of interpersonal difficulties, whereas both peer and family ratings contributed to the warmth aspects of interpersonal relationships. 3. Adult Attachment Q-sort. Physiological measures. Dozier and Kobak (1992) reported that college students who used deactivating (dismissing) strategies showed an increase in skin conductance during the interview when asked about separa- tions, rejection, effects of childhood on current personality, why their parents behaved as they did, and changes in the relationship with parents since childhood. Despite subjects’ efforts to minimize negative aspects of childhood and the importance of early relationships, they nevertheless showed signs of physiological distress and arousal when challenged with these topics (Dozier & Kobak, 1992). 12 4. Adult Attachment Styles and adaptations. Self-esteem and personality traits. Self-classified secure subjects report higher self-esteem than insecure subjects (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994; Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Feeney et al., 1994). Attachment styles are related to the personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness, but not to openness to experience or conscientiousness (Shaver & Brennan, 1992). The styles were more effective than per- sonality traits in predicting the subject being in a relationship 8 months later, and satisfaction and commitment to the relationship. Peers and loneliness. Subjects who classifed themselves as ambivalent reported feeling most lonely, and secure subjects had the lowest loneliness scores (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Security was associated with self-reports of dating assertiveness and social competence (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994). Secure subjects reported themselves to be more expressive and trusting than avoidant subjects, and more positive about the social world than ambivalent subjects (Collins & Read, 1990). Baldwin and colleagues (1993) found a relation between attachment styles and expectations about interpersonal relations by self-report and a word recog- nition task. High self-disclosure and attraction to high disclosing partners were related to security and ambiva- lence in a study of Israeli college students (Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991). Observations of these subjects in a disclosure task revealed that secure students were more responsive to partners' disclosures. Preliminary analyses of attachment behaviors with parents and peers assessed by interview found that children who reported having no safe haven were most likely to classify themselves avoidant (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). Insecure adolescents were more likely to report having had a romantic relationship. The same interview with adults found those who were avoidant reported less proximity seeking and safe haven behavior with partners, and ambivalent subjects were more likely to report seeking support outside of their romantic relationships. College students who identified themselves as secure were more positively oriented to their support networks than avoidant or ambivalent subjects (Wallace & Vaux, 1993). Interdependence with the network was lowest for the avoidant group, and mistrust was characteristic of both insecure groups. Adjustment. Ego resiliency and under-control were associated with attachment style in young adults, with the avoidant group scoring most poorly for each dimension (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994). Ego develop- ment was not related to attachment style. Drawing upon the theoretical link between attachment and exploration, the relation between attachment style and questionnaire responses about love and work was examined (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). Individuals who classified themselves as secure reported high work satisfaction, while ambivalence was associated with feelings of insecu- rity at work. Avoidant subjects reported interpersonal difficuties at work but were satisfied with the job itself. Secure subjects were more likely to value relationships above work, whereas avoidant subjects emphasized the importance of work. The ambivalent group most often reported that relationships interfered with work. Psychopathology. Comparison of women with clinical depression and those without symptoms found that depression was associated with attachment style, specifically greater fearful avoidance (Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994). In a study of young adults, reports of delinquent behavior and drug use were not related to attachment styles, but symptoms of anxiety and depression were associated with insecurity, especially ambivalence (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994). Israeli students were assessed following the Gulf War: By self-report, ambivalent subjects were most distressed, and avoidant subjects were more hostile, somaticizing, and avoidant of trauma compared with secure subjects (Mikulincer,Florian, & Weller, 1993). In another sample of students, attachment styles were associated with par- ticular fears regarding death: Secure students expressed the least fear of death, ambivalent subjects feared that they would not be missed (loss of social identity), and avoidant subjects feared the unknown aspect of death (Mikulincer,Florian, & Tolmacz, 1990). 15 interest in romantic relationships. It is a relatively new area for developmental psychologists whose interest in adults came out of attachment research with infants and parents. Studies of adult attachment and adult partner- ships address a variety of issues, 1) attitudes about love and relationships, 2) concordance or matching of classifi- cations within couples, 3) marital satisfaction, commitment, and love, 4) conflict and other relationship behav- iors, and 5) observed couples interactions. 1. Adult Attachment Interview Concordance of attachment status. Meta-analysis of attachment classifications of 226 couples showed concordance between partners for attachment status which is accounted for by the secure/secure pairings (van IJzendoorn & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, in press). The percentage of concordant couples in this and other studies is ranges between 50-60% (Crittenden,Partridge, & Claussen, 1991; O'Connor,Pan,Waters, & Posada, 1995). Although there is some evidence for assortative mating, attachment status based on childhood experiences does not appear to be a dominant factor in choosing a partner. Marital satisfaction and reports of the relationship. No relation between marital satisfaction and AAI classification has been found in several studies of couples (Cohn,Silver,Cowan,Cowan, & Pearson, 1992b; O'Con- nor,Posada,Waters, & Crowell, 1994; Zeanah et al., 1993). One study of low SES mothers of ill infants found a relation between marital satisfaction and security (Benoit et al., 1989) . A study of married women who rated feelings of trust and love for their husbands found no differences among attachment classifications (Crowell et al., 1993). Conflict behavior. Associations between AAI classifications and reports of conflict behavior have been found. Insecure women reported more disagreements with husbands on topics related to time spent together and maintenance of the household, but not on leisure and time with family and friends. They reported higher verbal aggression and threats of abandonment from spouses than secure women (O'Connor,Pan,Treboux,Waters, Crowell,Teti, et al., submitted for publication). In a sample of engaged couples, insecure women reported their fiances used more verbal and physical aggression (O'Connor et al., 1995). If the woman was insecure, both part- ners reported heightened jealousy. The couples were reassessed after 15-18 months of marriage, and premarital insecurity predicted later reports of physical aggression (Gao,Treboux,Owens,Pan, & Crowell, 1995). Crittenden and colleagues (1991) administered the AAI jointly to couples from a high-risk poverty sample, and then scored the interview separately for wife and husband. Seventy percent of couples with one partner dismiss- ing and the other preoccupied reported physical violence between partners. In a sample of battered women (Sullivan-Hanson, 1990), 94% were classified as insecure (70% unresolved). Forty-two percent of a sample of men in distressed, violent marriages were classified as unresolved or can't classify, and 78% were insecure (Holtzworth-Munroe, 1993a). Couples’ interactions. Interactive behavior of husbands (but not wives) was related to AAI classifica- tions in one study: Men classified as secure were in better functioning marriages (assessed during home visits) and had more positive interactions in structured task situations (Cohn et al., 1992b). “Insecure-insecure” couples showed more conflict and negative affect than "secure-secure" couples. The “insecure-secure” couples did not differ in interactions from "secure-secure" couples (in 8/10 the man was the secure partner). 2. Current Relationship Interview. Concordance of attachment status. In a study of 45 engaged couples, partners were significantly concor- dant for the CRI (78% matching) (Owens et al., in press). Marital satisfaction and reports of the relationship. Subjects classified as secureCRI reported greater sat- isfaction in the relationship, greater commitment and feelings of love overall, and fewer problems in the relation- ships than insecureCRI subjects (Owens, 1993). Relationship behavior. First year college students were interviewed about their best friendships and ro- mantic partnerships (Treboux,Crowell,Owens, & Pan, 1994). Security with the best friend and romantic partner 16 was associated with self-reports of attachment feelings and behaviors in that relationship (communication, con- tact seeking when stressed, etc.). 3. Adult Attachment Q-sort Marital satisfaction and reports of the relationship. Marital satisfaction and attachment status were re- lated for men in a study of couples (Kobak & Hazan, 1992). Couples’ interactions. The attachment status was examined with respect to observed interactions in problem solving and self-disclosing tasks (Kobak & Hazan, 1992). Husbands rated secure were more supportive in the tasks; those who used hyperactivating (preoccupied) strategies were rated as poor listeners. No direct rela- tion was found between security and the behavior of women. 4. Marital Q-sort. Couples’ interactions. Attachment security within the marriage was related to problem solving behavior and marital adjustment in a study of couples' interactions (Kobak & Hazan, 1991). Subjects who felt their spouses were psychologically available were less rejecting. Secure men and women were less rejecting and more supportive in problem solving. Security was also related to good marital adjustment, as was agreement about at- tachment models within couples. 5. Adult Attachment Styles and adaptations. Attitudes about love and relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that subjects with different at- tachment styles had different ideas about romantic relationships, with self-designated secure subjects focusing on the enduring aspects of relationships. Avoidant subjects expressed feelings that highly romantic relationships were fictional, and true love rare. Ambivalent subjects agreed that true love was rare, but also felt it is easy to fall in love. Feeney and Noller (1990) examined attachment styles in college students and attitudes and styles of love. The avoidant group scored lowest on a scale of love and endorsement of a romantic ideal. Ambivalent subjects were characterized by emotional dependency, preoccupation, having ideas of all-encompassing love, and low scores on friendship. Secure subjects scored highest in self-confidence, avoidant subjects highest on avoidance of intimacy, and ambivalent subjects had the highest scores on neurotic love and lowest scores on circumspect love. Love styles were examined in another study of college students in which secure and ambivalent subjects endorsed ro- mantic ideas and avoidant subjects endorsed logical ideas about love (Collins & Read, 1990). Concordance of attachment status. The Carolina Couples Study found no matching of insecure types, i. e., insecure pairings were always avoidant/ambivalent combinations (Davis et al., 1994).. Individuals were most likely to be paired with a partner who was secure. Collins and Read (1990) recruited dating couples and found that couples matched on comfort with closeness and tended to match on feeling they could count on others, but no matching for fear of abandonment (anxiety) was found. Subjects who were comfortable with closeness were unlikely to have anxious partners. Marital satisfaction and reports of the relationship. Subjects who classified themselves as secure re- ported their most significant love relationship as being more positive, trusting, supportive, and enduring than avoidant or ambivalent subjects (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Avoidant subjects reported more fear of closeness and jealousy, whereas self-classifed ambivalent subjects described high intensity of emotion and obsession in a num- ber of domains, including sexual attraction, jealousy, and desire for union. Four years later subjects who origi- nally described themselves as secure were most likely to be married, ambivalent subjects were most likely to be currently unattached, but looking, and avoidant subjects were most likely to be dating more than one person, or unattached and not looking (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994). Anxious subjects reported more experience with rela- tionship breakup than secure subjects, but were not less likely to still be with their original partner, suggesting that these relationships "were more volatile, but in the end, no less enduring (p. 137)". 17 A study of college dating couples found subjects who rated themselves high in security were in relationships which they characterized as interdependent, and they felt greater commitment, trust and satisfaction (Simpson, 1990). The converse was found for those who scored high in avoidance. Anxious women were more likely to date men who reported lower commitment, interdependence, trust and satisfaction, and those high in avoidance had partners who reported less commitment and trust. Collins and Read (1990) and Davis, et al., (1994) reported similar findings. In follow-up of these subjects six months later, 36% of the couples had broken up (Simpson, 1990), and distress associated with the breakup was examined. Men and women did not differ in reported dis- tress. However, high avoidance in men was associated with low emotional distress with breaking up. Another study of college students also reported differences in affective responses to relationship breakup with am- bivalent subjects being most distressed and avoidant subjects expressing the most relief (Feeney & Noller, 1992). Avoidant subjects were most likely to have experienced a breakup. In contrast, a study of relationship stability found anxious ambivalent women and avoidant men reported the highest stability despite negative reports of the relationships (Davis et al., 1994). Couples’ interactions. Simpson and colleagues (1992) observed dating college couples in a situation de- signed to be anxiety provoking for the women. Secure women sought more support as their anxiety increased, whereas avoidant women's support seeking behavior decreased. Observed anxiety and reports of anxiety to the partners were unrelated to attachment style. Secure men gave support when the woman was overtly anxious and avoidant men withdrew support, independent of women's help-seeking behavior. Women were soothed by their partners if the partners made supportive remarks, and avoidant women appeared to be particularly benefited by supportive discussion. In contrast, the women overall tended to be resistant to physical contact, and this was most true for avoidant women. In this situation the attachment behavior system of the women was activated and the men were placed in the role of the attachment figure: Secure status was associated with using a secure base for the women and being a secure base for the men (responding to overt anxiety). 6. Relationship Questionnaire Conflict behavior. A fearful attachment style was more common in men referred for treatment after as- saulting their wives than in a comparison group, and this style (and to a lesser extent, the preoccupied style) was related to wives' reports of verbal abuse, and self-reports of borderline personality organization, anger, jealousy, and trauma symptoms (Dutton,Saunders,Starzomski, & Bartholomew, 1994). 7. Reciprocal Attachment Questionnaire Conflict behavior. In a study of attachment and coercive control, a happily married group of men and two distressed groups, maritally discordant nonviolent and maritally discordant violent, were assessed, (Rathus, 1994). The distressed groups differed from the happily married group on reciprocity, but did not differ from each other. Separation anxiety and severe discord in the family of origin predicted the use of controlling behaviors to maintain proximity to the partner in the distressed groups. How do the measures of adult attachment relate to one another? Testing theoretical constructs is based on methodology. Therefore it is important to know whether the measures which purport to assess adult attachment are in fact measuring the same or different phenomena. Studies which have utilized more than one assessment of adult attachment are limited in number. The studies reviewed above suggest that a number of them measure very different constructs or aspects of adult attachment, and studies which utilize more than one measure tend to demonstrate important differences rather than similarities among the meas- ures. The Adult Attachment Interview (Main & Goldwyn and Q-sort scoring) and Adult Attachment Styles (AAS) In a study of two groups of young adults, one psychiatrically hospitalized as young adolescents and a comparison group (Borman-Spurrell et al., 1994; Borman-Spurrell et al., submitted for publication), the AAS was compared with the AAI scored with the original system and with the q-sort. The two interview scoring techniques were found to be highly related, although the q-sort method does not assess unresolved status. 20 on discrimination of individual differences and the relation of attachment within and between different types of relationships (Bartholomew, 1994; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). However, the Family Interview has not been used as extensively as the Peer Interview and the Relationship Questionnaire, and unfortunately this limits our understanding of how the systems relate to one another. This scoring system has been used in a study with the AAI, and hence we do not know the relation between these interviews which utilize similar questions but very different approaches to scoring. The AAS (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and its adaptations are self-report measures of feelings and perceptions of rela- tionships, and they relate to other self-reports about adult relationships. They are associated with self-reports of anxiety and depressive symptoms, and many aspects of self-perceived social competence, but correspond less well to others' reports of deviant or pathological behavior. The few studies which examine the AAS with respect to behavior, eg., (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Kobak & Hazan, 1992; Mikulincer & Nachshon, 1991; Simpson,Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992) suggest interesting relations between self-perceptions and relationship behavior. There is some suggestion that these measures assess the dynamics of current relationships or at least are strongly influ- enced by them (Bartholomew, 1994), and that rather than being attachment specific, they assess a more general personality trait (de Haas et al., in press). The marital q-sort, the CRI, and the Reciprocal Attachment measure are different from the other measures de- scribed as they assess aspects of the attachment behavior system within specific current relationships. The CRI and marital q-sort have associations with attachment behaviors in those relationships, and also have connections to the AAI, which is presumably an assessment of a generalized or prototypic model of attachment. These two measures have not been utilized in the same sample to know if they are equivalent or not. Future issues related to adult attachment Many issues remain for the study of adult attachment and the role of the attachment behavior system across the life span. Attachment theory itself can be enriched and refined by exploring such issues. As will surely be clear to the reader, our own bias is to explore attachment as a very specific developmental phenomenon which allows us to understand fundamental yet specific aspects of close relationships. Given this perspective, the continued exploration of the prototype hypothesis is of interest, and in particular, how past attachment experiences of both partners influence the relationship. There appear to be interesting differences between men and women in the correlates of attachment and how elements of past experience are relevant for each sex. The reciprocal nature of the attachment relationship between partners lends an increased complexity to the attachment behavior system in adults which deserves further exploration including understanding of the developmental processes which lead to the capacity to serve as a secure base. The attachment behavior system is closely linked to behavior, to emotional expression, and to cognitive processes associated with memory and narrative production. Among other things, knowledge of the mechanisms which connect these systems may help us to understand what working models are, how they develop, and how they might evolve with experience, particularly with a partner. Perhaps the most important conclusion to this review is that collaborations across disciplines in research on adult attachment are vital at this point in time and provide many exciting opportunities for research investigating methodological issues, theoretical issues, particularly de- velopmental processes, and mechanisms which connect basic processes. 21 Bibliography Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 61(9), 792-811. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes,J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33-51). London: Routledge. Ainsworth, M. D. S.,Blehar, M.,Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Eichberg, C. (1991). Effects on infant-mother attachment of mother's unresolved loss of an attachment figure, or other traumatic experience. In P. Marris,J. Stevenson-Hinde, & C. Parkes (Eds.), Attach- ment across the life cycle (pp. 161-183). New York: Routledge. Alexander, P. (1993). The differential effects of abuse characteristics and attachment in the prediction of long- term effects of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(3), 346-362. Allen, J., & Crowell, J. A. (1995) Reports of Parents, Peers, Partners and Self: Attachment and Social Compe- tence. Paper symposium presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, Indiana. Allen, J. P., & Hauser, S. T. (1991) Prediction of young adult attachment representations, psychological distress, social competence and hard drug use from family interactions in adolescence. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA, April 1991. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., & van IJzendoorn, M. (1993). A psychometric study of the Adult Attachment Inter- view: Reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 870-879. Baldwin, M.,Fehr, B.,Keedian, E.,Seidel, M., & Thompson, D. (1993). An exploration of the relational schemata underlying attachment styles: Self report and lexical decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 19(6), 746-754. Bartholomew, K. (1994). Assessment of individual differences in adult attachment. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 23-27. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244. Beckwith, L.,Cohen, S., & Hamilton, C. (1995) Mother-infant interaction and marital divorce predicts attach- ment representation at late adolescence. Paper, presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Indi- anapolis, IN. Benoit, D., & Parker, K. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three generations. Child Devel- opment, 65(5), 1444-1456. Benoit, D.,Zeanah, C., & Barton, M. (1989). Maternal attachment disturbances in failure to thrive. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 185-202. Borman-Spurrell, E.,Allen, J.,Hauser, S.,Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. (1994) Attachment in young adulthood: How different measures of adult attachment relate to adjustment. Manuscript in preparation, Harvard University. Borman-Spurrell, E.,Allen, J.,Hauser, S.,Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. (submitted for publication). Assessing 22 adult attachment: A comparison of interview-based and self-report methods. Personality and Social Psychology. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness, and depression. New York: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A.,Shaver, P., & Tobey, A. (1991). Attachment styles, gender, and parental problem drinking. Jour- nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 451-466. Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research (pp. 3-35). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop- ment, Nos. 1-2, Serial No. 209. Carnelley, K.,Pietromonaco, P., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working models of others, and relationship func- tioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 127-140. Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child De- velopment, 65, 971-991. Cohn, D.,Cowan, P.,Cowan, C., & Pearson, J. (1992a). Mothers' and fathers' working models of childhood at- tachment relationships, parenting style, and child behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 4(3), 417-431. Cohn, D.,Silver, D.,Cowan, P.,Cowan, C., & Pearson, J. (1992b). Working models of childhood attachment and couples relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13(4), 432-449. Collins, N., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment relationships, working models and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-683. Cowan, P.,Cohn, D.,Cowan, C., & Pearson, J. (in press). Parents' attachment histories and children's externaliz- ing and internalizing behavior: Exploring family systems models of linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Crittenden, P.,Partridge, M., & Claussen, A. (1991). Family patterns of relationships in normative and dysfunc- tional families. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 491-512. Crowell, J.,O'Connor, E.,Wollmers, G.,Sprafkin, J., & Rao, U. (1991). Mothers' conceptualizations of parent- child relationships: Relation to mother-child interaction and child behavior problems. Development and Psycho- pathology, 3, 431-444. Crowell, J., & Treboux, D. (1991) Attachment processes in late adolescence: The first year of college. Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, San Francisco, October. Crowell, J.,Treboux, D.,Owens, G., & Pan, H. (1995) Is it True the Longer You're Together the More You Think Alike? Examining two hypotheses of attachment theory. Paper, presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, March 1995, Indianapolis, Indiana. Crowell, J.,Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1993) Alternatives to the Adult Attachment Interview? Self-reports of at- tachment style & relationships with mothers and partners. New Orleans, LA, Presented at the biennnial meeting of the Society of Research in Child Development. Crowell, J., & Waters, E. (1993) Attachment scoring of marital interactions. Unpublished document, SUNY- 25 Kobak, R.,Cole, H.,Ferenz-Gillies, R., & Fleming, W. (1993). Attachment and emotional regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64(1), 231-245. Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1991). Attachment in marriage: Effects of security and accuracy of working models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 861-869. Kobak, R. R., & Hazan, C. (1992) Parents and spouses: Attachment strategies and marital functioning. Unpub- lished manuscript, University of Delaware and Cornell University. Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models , affect regulation and rep- resentations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. Levine, L.,Tuber, S.,Slade, A., & Ward, M. J. (1991). Mothers' mental representations and their relationship to mother-infant attachment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 55(4), 454-469. Main, M. (1981). Avoidance in the service of proximity: A working paper. In K. Immelmann,G. Barlow,L. Petri- novitch, & M. Main (Eds.), Behavioral development: The Bielefeld interdisciplinary project (pp. 651-693). New York: Cambridge University Press. Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) versus multiple (incoherent) models of attachment: Findings and directions for future research. In P. Marris,J. Stevenson-Hinde, & C. Parkes (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127-159). New York: Routledge. Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age six: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a one-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415-426. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother's representation of her own ex- periences: A preliminary report. Monograph of the International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203-217. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1994) Adult attachment rating and classification system, Manual in Draft: Version 6.0. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley. Main, M.,Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security of infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research (pp. 66- 106). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mikulincer, M.,Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 273-280. Mikulincer, M.,Florian, V., & Weller, A. (1993). Attachment styles, coping strategies, and posttraumatic psycho- logical distress: The impact of the Gulf War in Israel. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 817- 826. Mikulincer, M., & Nachshon, O. (1991). Attachment styles and patterns of self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 321-331. O'Connor, E.,Pan, H.,Treboux, D.,Waters, E.,Crowell, J.,Teti, D., & Posada, G. (submitted for publication). Women's adult attachment security status and quality of marriage. . O'Connor, E.,Pan, H.,Waters, E., & Posada, G. (1995) Attachment classification, romantic jealousy, and aggres- sion in couples. Poster, Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indi- anapolis, Indiana. 26 O'Connor, E.,Posada, G.,Waters, E., & Crowell, J. (1994) [Family behavior survey scores of engaged couples]. Unpublished raw data, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Olmsted, M.,Treboux, D.,Crowell, J., & Waters, E. (1995) Insecurity and alcohol, a potentially dangerous combi- nation. Poster, Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, Indiana. Owens, G. (1993) An interview-based approach to the study of adult romantic relationships. unpublished manu- script, State University of New York. Owens, G.,Crowell, J.,Pan, H.,Treboux, D.,O'Connor, E., & Waters, E. (in press). The prototype hypothesis and the origins of attachment working models: Child-parent and adult-adult romantic relationships. In E. Waters,B. Vaughn,G. Posada, & k. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Constructs, Cultures and Caregiving: New Growing Points of Attachment Theory Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Owens, G., & Crowell, J. A. (1992) Scoring manual for the Current Relationship Interview. Unpublished docu- ment, SUNY-Stony Brook. Pearson, J.,Cowan, P.,Cowan, C., & Cohn, D. (1993). Adult attachment and adult child-older parent relation- ships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 606-613. Posada, G.,Waters, E., & Crowell, J. (in press). Is it easier to use a secure mother as a secure base? Attachment q- sort correlates of the Adult Attachment Interview. In E. Waters,B. Vaughn,G. Posada, & k. Kondo-Ikemura (Eds.), Constructs, Cultures and Caregiving: New Growing Points of Attachment Theory Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rathus, J. (1994) Attachment, coercive control, and wife abuse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, SUNY-Stony Brook. Sagi, A.,Aviezer, O.,Joels, T.,Korne-Karje, N.,Meyseless, O.,Scharf, M., & van IJzendoorn, M. (1992) The corre- spondence of mother's attachment with infant-mother attachment relationship in traditional and non-traditional kibbutzim. Presented at the XXV International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, Belgium, July. Sagi, A.,van IJzendoorn, M.,Scharf, M.,Koren-Karie, N.,Joels, T., & Mayseless, O. (1994). Stability and dis- criminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: A psychometric study in young Isreali adults. Developmen- tal Psychology, 30(5), 771-777. Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns. Personal relation- ships, 1, 23-43. Shaver, P., & Brennan, K. (1992). Attachment styles and the "big five" personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 536-545. Shaver, P., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. Advances in personal relation- ships, 4, 29-70. Simpson, J. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971-980. Simpson, J.,Rholes, W., & Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support giving within couples in an anxiety- provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. . Skolnick, A. (1986). Early attachment and personal relationships across the life span. In T. Balthes,D. Feather- 27 man, & R. Lerner (Eds.), Life Span Development and Behavior (pp. 173-206). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Smith, J., & George, C. (1993) Working models of attachment and adjustment to college: Parents, peers and ro- mantic partners as attachment figures. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child De- velopment, New Orleans, LA, March. Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1994). An ethological perspective. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal of Peer Commentary and Review, 5(1), 62-65. Sullivan-Hanson, J. (1990) The early attachment and current affectional bonds of battered women: Implications for the impact of spouse abuse on children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Treboux, D.,Crowell, J., & Colon-Downs, C. (1992) Self-concept and identity in late adolescence: Relation to working models of attachment. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence, Washington, DC, March. Treboux, D.,Crowell, J.,Owens, G., & Pan, H. (1994) Attachment behaviors and working models: Relations to best friendships and romantic relationships. Presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Ado- lescence, San Diego, CA. van IJzendoorn, M. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review of studies in non-clinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99. van IJzendoorn, M., & Bakersmans-Kranenburg, M. (in press). Attachment representations in mothers, fathers, adolescents and clinical groups: A meta-analytic search for normative data. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology. van IJzendoorn, M.,Feldbrugge, J.,Derks, F.,de Ruiter, C.,Verhagen, M.,Philipse, M.,van der Stark, C., & Rik- sen-Walraven, M. (submitted for publication) Attachment, personality disorders, and staff-patient interactions in mentally disturbed criminal offenders. Manuscript, Leiden University. Wallace, J., & Vaux, A. (1993). Social support network orientation: The role of attachment style. Journal of So- cial and Clinical Psychology, 12(3), 354-365. Wampler, K. (1994) Attachment based scoring of couples interactions. Unpublished document, Texas Tech Uni- versity. Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (in press). Associations among adult attachment representations, maternal sensi- tivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development. Waters, E. (1978). The reliability and stability of individual differences in infant-mother attachment. Child De- velopment, 49, 483-494. Waters, E. (1989) The attachment q-sort. Unpublished manuscript, State University of New York at Stony Brook. Waters, E. (1994) Importance of working models for attachment theory. Personal communication, SUNY-Stony Brook. Waters, E., & Crowell, J. (1994) [Self-esteem and attachment classification]. Unpublished raw data, SUNY-Stony Brook. Waters, E.,Crowell, J.,Treboux, D.,Merrick, S., & Albersheim, L. (1995) Attachment Security from Infancy to Early Adulthood: A 20-Year Longitudinal Study. Poster, Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child