self report adolescents attachment

Journal of Relationships Researchhttp://journals.cambridge.org/JRR

Additional services for Journal of Relationships Research:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Self-Report Assessment of Adolescent Attachment: ASystematic Review and Critique

Jessica M. Wilson and Ross B. Wilkinson

Journal of Relationships Research / Volume 3 / December 2012, pp 81 - 94DOI: 10.1017/jrr.2012.7, Published online: 30 October 2012

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1838095612000078

How to cite this article:Jessica M. Wilson and Ross B. Wilkinson (2012). The Self-Report Assessment of Adolescent Attachment: ASystematic Review and Critique. Journal of Relationships Research, 3, pp 81-94 doi:10.1017/jrr.2012.7

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JRR, IP address: 128.233.210.97 on 14 Oct 2014

Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 81–94c© Cambridge University Press 2012. doi 10.1017/jrr.2012.7

The Self-Report Assessment of AdolescentAttachment: A Systematic Review and CritiqueJessica M. Wilson and Ross B. WilkinsonThe Australian National University, Australia

The assessment of attachment beyond infancy remains a controversial issue. Over the past 20 years adolescentattachment has been assessed in a variety of ways but no ‘gold standard’ for its measurement has emerged.Considering the complexity of attachment theory and the implications for measuring such relationships duringadolescence, this article undertakes a review of self-report attachment measures utilised for this age group.Results of a comprehensive PsycInfo literature search are examined with regard to studies reporting themeasurement of adolescent attachment. A total of 822 citations were retrieved for the years 1990 to 2012;394 of these abstracts were further scrutinised for use in the current review. Descriptive data from citationsare reported for the measure of attachment used, sample size, age range, and psychometric properties.Following this, the most commonly used self-report measures of attachment for adolescents are reviewedin detail. Theoretical and methodological concerns regarding the measurement of adolescent attachmentare discussed and recommendations made regarding key issues to consider for the development of newinstruments grounded in contemporary theory and evidence.

� Keywords: adolescence, attachment, assessment, self-report, relationship quality

Adolescence is a period of significant cognitive, social,psychological, and biological change as individuals movefrom the relative security of childhood to meet the chal-lenges of adulthood. An essential element of the ado-lescent experience is the transformation of interpersonalrelationships involving individuation from the family, in-creasing independence, the growing importance of peerrelationships, and the development of romantic bonds(Heaven, 2001; Steinberg, 1996). While adolescents gen-erally retain close bonds with those within the family, thenature of these relationships undergo major changes andnew bonds are formed with those outside the family. Eventhough most adolescents may still live with their family oforigin they spend increasing amounts of time with peers(Heaven, 2001; Sieffe-Krenke, 1993) and report a pref-erence for their friends’ company (Markiewicz, Lawford,Doyle, & Haggart 2006).

Conceptualising the evolving network of relationshipsin adolescence is a challenge to attachment theory for-mulations of the role of intimate relationships and tostrategies for assessing individual differences in expecta-tions of those relationships. This article presents a sys-tematic review and critique of self-report measures ofadolescent attachment to offer clarity and organisationaround this considerable body of literature. Before dis-

cussing the specific area of adolescent attachment, how-ever, it is necessary to consider the broader context ofsome of the existing controversies in the attachmentliterature.

Key Controversies in Attachment ResearchAttachment theory offers a framework from which todescribe and study specific elements of close, endur-ing bonds with significant others. Attachment bonds arethose key dyadic relationships that provide us with asense of psychological and physical security and aid inthe regulation of distress. The theory describes a specific‘behavioural system’ with evolutionary and biological un-derpinnings (Bowlby, 1969, 1979; Mikulincer & Shaver,2007a) that is designed to elicit care and promote prox-imity with a caregiver. It is important to note that at-tachment is not synonymous with close relationships ingeneral, but refers to relationships possessing particular

ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Ross B. Wilkinson,Research School of Psychology, Building 39, The AustralianNational University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia. Email:[email protected]

81

JESSICA M. WILSON AND ROSS B. WILKINSON

elements, such as ‘ . . . specific functions, including com-fort in times of distress and a secure base from whichexploration can occur’ (McElhaney, Allen, Stephenson &Hare, 2009, p. 361). There are a number of strengths ofthe attachment framework, including a clear and precisedefinition of the relationship under study, a strong the-oretical basis, a large empirical evidence base, strong tieswith psychological adjustment, and the provision of anexplanatory framework for the consideration of a rangeof relationship types (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 a).

The current state of attachment theory and researchmay be best elucidated through a discussion of several fun-damental controversies that serve as organising themes.First, it is important to recognise that both theoretical andempirical evidence in the area of attachment research is in-fluenced by the professional allegiances and traditions ofrespective attachment theorists (Bartholomew & Shaver,1998). Two dominant research traditions have arisenwithin attachment theory: the social/personality approachand the clinical/developmental approach (Bartholomew &Shaver, 1998; Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Waters, Crowell,Elliot, Corcoran, & Treboux, 2002). Social and person-ality psychologists largely focus on adult romantic re-lationships and predominately use self-report measures(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Hazan & Shaver,1987) to assess individual differences in attachmentworking models. More recent developments in this tra-dition involve the use of experimental methodologiesand the examination of contextual elements of attach-ment (e.g., Cassidy, Shaver, Mikulincer, & Lavy, 2009;Ein-Dor, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011; Gillath,Giesbrecht & Shaver, 2009). The clinical and develop-mental tradition, on the other hand, primarily draws onAinsworth’s observational methodologies and individualdifference typologies and has largely focused on uncon-scious aspects of attachment such as ‘attachment state ofmind’ (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). This traditionhas concentrated mostly on the nuclear family, and re-lies on observation, interview and projective methodolo-gies such as the Strange Situation paradigm (Ainsworth,Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and the Adult Attach-ment Interview (AAI; Main et al., 1985) and has mainlyfocussed on methodologies other than self-report (e.g.,Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Jacobvitz, Curran & Moller,2002; McCarthy & Maughan, 2010).

A central disagreement between these two traditionsis whether self-report is a valid strategy for assessing at-tachment constructs. Researchers from the clinical anddevelopmental tradition assert that because self-reportmeasures are based on conscious, deliberate responses,they are ‘probably limited to accessing conscious aspectsof attachment’ (Jacobvitz et al., 2002). This is prob-lematic considering that internal working models arethought to be at least partially unconscious (Collins &Read, 1990). In response to this objection, researchersfrom the social and personality tradition have argued that

the evidence demonstrates that self-reports are accuratereflections of the individual’s actual attachment-relatedbehaviour (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Mikulincer &Shaver, 2007 a). Further, results from experimental workhave demonstrated that self-report assessments align withhypotheses concerning unconscious activation of the at-tachment system (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2009; Ein-Doret al., 2011; Milkulincer & Shaver, 2007b).

While it is appropriate that a variety of methodologiesshould and have been used to measure attachment rela-tionships, the current review is restricted to consideringself-report measures. This restriction is due to both spacelimitations and to the presence of existing literature onalternative approaches to attachment assessment in ado-lescents such as the Adult Attachment Interview (e.g.,Allen & Land, 1999; Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 2008;George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985).

A second debate in the literature concerns the categor-ical versus dimensional conceptualisations of individualdifferences in attachment. Attachment research in the late1980 s and early 1990 s, irrespective of approach, focusedon a categorical formulation of attachment styles (e.g.,Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; George et al., 1985;Hazan & Shaver, 1987). From this perspective, individ-uals could be placed into one of three or four attachmentstyle groups based on their responses to either interviewsor self-report scales. Subsequent research has argued thatattachment is best measured with dimensions, not cat-egories (Fraley & Waller, 1998; Mikulincer & Shaver,2007 a). Further, the dimensional approach is arguedto be more sensitive to the measurement of individualdifferences, that is, the movement of individuals withincategories (Ducharme, Doyle, & Markeiwicz, 2002;Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 a). Attempts to reconcilethese conceptualisations of individual differences have re-vealed two major dimensions that are thought to underlieattachment categories: model of self and model of other(i.e., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) or avoidance andanxiety (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). These dimen-sions have been argued to fit best with theoretical no-tions of attachment activation and deactivation, as wellas empirical findings relating to behavioural strategies(Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 a).

A further controversial issue is whether to consider at-tachment as a personality or interpersonal variable. Tra-ditionally, attachment styles have been viewed as global,individual-difference constructs, emphasising the conti-nuity of attachment patterns across one’s life(Zimmerman & Becker-Stoll, 2002). Internal workingmodels, the putative basis for individual differences inattachment styles, are thought to function as personal-ity characteristics that are relatively consistent across en-vironments and relationships (Pietromonaco & Barrett,2000). There are, however, several limitations of framingattachment as a personality construct. These include anemphasis on stability rather than change, the abstraction

82 Journal of Relationships Research

ASSESSMENT OF ADOLESCENT ATTACHMENT

of the attachment system from a relationship context,and disregard of the context specificity of attachmentbehaviour (Kobak, 1994). Overall, Fletcher, and Friesen(2003) suggest that while people may have an overarch-ing global working model, they also have relationship-domain models resulting in variation in styles betweenrelationships. Such styles are somewhat flexible, withrelationship specific representations and models devel-oped within different dyads in one’s attachment network(Overall et al., 2003). Ross and Spinner (2001) observethat adults form attachment relationships with a numberof people and most adults endorse more than one at-tachment style in these relationships. An example of thisearlier in life is the observation that an individual’s attach-ment style with one parent does not necessarily predicttheir attachment style with the other parent (Cozzarelli,Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000).

Unfortunately these key controversies remain largelyunresolved due to entrenched schisms in the attachmentliterature (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 a). Notwithstand-ing the confusion generated in the literature by thesedisagreements, the more specific area of adolescent at-tachment presents its own set of complexities.

Attachment in AdolescenceIn the 1980 s, around the same time as seminal work wasbeing done on applying attachment theory to adult rela-tionships (e.g., Main et al., 1985; Hazan & Shaver, 1987),researchers began to recognise the unique and distinctiveaspects of attachment relationships in adolescence, suchas the directing of attachment behaviour towards non-parental figures (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Weiss,1982) and the balance between exploration, attachment,and individuation (Allen, 2008). Because of the transfor-mation of relationships during this life phase, the assess-ment of attachment has been seen as both conceptuallyand methodologically challenging, with uncertainty as tothe validity of reliance on either parental or romantic re-lationships as reference points for assessing attachmentworking models (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994).

Attachment relationships during adolescence are in astate of flux (Friedelmeier & Granqvist, 2006; Trinke &Bartholomew, 1997; Wilkinson, 2010b), and because ofthe changing nature and role of parental and peer re-lationships, Bowlby’s (1969) contention that there is aclear primary attachment figure within the attachmentnetwork becomes less certain. Lewis (1994) argues thatthe preoccupation in the attachment literature with themother as the primary attachment figure is detrimentalto our understanding of attachment given that ‘supportfor singularity of attachment is lacking’ (p. 49). There area range of individuals in an adolescent’s social networkwho can serve as attachment figures and while the impor-tance of parents as attachment figures remain, relianceon friends and peers as sources of support increases (Do-

herty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).Most adolescents have a best friend, usually of the sameage and sex, who may display some characteristics of anattachment figure (Wilkinson, 2006) and, as individualsreach late adolescence, romantic partners are increasinglylikely to take on attachment attributes (Feeney, 2004;Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). Thus, adolescent attachmentresearchers have frequently sought to consider relation-ships beyond the parental and romantic, which may alsoreflect attachment processes.

A further complication for assessment is that adolescentattachment is less likely to be sought through observable,direct physical contact with an attachment figure, butrather by expressing feelings and concerns to the attach-ment figure when needed (Zimmerman & Becker-Stoll,2002). Buist, Dekovic, Meeus, and van Aken (2004) sug-gest that throughout adolescence the affective-cognitivecomponent of attachment (i.e., internal working mod-els) remains relatively stable; however, the behaviouraldimension of attachment evolves with developmentalmaturation. Therefore, the affective-cognitive aspect ofattachment, measured via self-report, may offer betterprediction of adolescent functioning compared with thebehavioural component (Buist et al., 2004; Zimmerman& Becker-Stoll, 2002). Research results demonstrate thatself-report measures of attachment show theoreticallypredictable relationships with various behavioural con-structs as well as unconscious processes (Shaver, Belsky, &Brennan, 2000). Freeman and Brown (2001) suggest thatadolescent perceptions are valid representations of theirown experience regardless of whether they accurately rep-resent actual behaviours. For the purposes of this discus-sion it is argued criticisms of self-report approaches donot negate their utility. However, they provide impor-tant guidelines for the establishment of their validity. It isevident that as internal working models may operate par-tially outside of conscious awareness, self-report psycho-metric validation will most likely require a multi-methodmethodology (Collins & Read, 1990).

A final issue is that the demarcation of adolescenceas a life stage is complex because it contains within itmajor developmental changes over relatively short timeperiods (Steinberg, 1996). Despite the generally acceptedview that adolescence commences at the onset of puberty,there is no clear indication as to its end (Reber & Reber,2001), and what holds true for younger adolescents maynot for older adolescents. Most adolescents still live withthe family of origin and many young adults live withtheir own nuclear families and one would suspect that at-tachment relationships could be quite different for bothgroups. Undergraduate samples are often employed toresearch both adults and adolescents (e.g., Armsden &Greenberg, 1987) and this may be dictated by conve-nience rather than empirical rigour. This is an importantconsideration when studying attachment relationships asrelying on one age group as the development sample for

Journal of Relationships Research 83


adolescent psychometric research may be problematic ingeneralising to other age groups.

The Present StudyThe purpose of the current review is to organise the litera-ture and provide a critical evaluation of existing self-reportmeasures of adolescent attachment. A number of reviewsof some extant attachment measures for adults and chil-dren have been published (Crowell & Treboux, 1995;Dwyer, 2005; O’Connor & Byrne, 2007; Schneider,Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001). However, this has not beendone comprehensively for adolescents since Rice (1990),prior to major developments in the attachment litera-ture which have since influenced more contemporaryattachment measurement strategies (i.e., Bartholomew& Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al., 1998; Griffin &Bartholomew, 1994). Limited overviews have been con-ducted by Lopez and Gover (1993) and Lyddon, Brad-don, and Nelson (1993). However, these papers are notcomprehensive and include extraneous measures of re-lated constructs (e.g., parental bonding, object relations).

This review includes measures developed specificallyfor adolescents as well as those originally designed foruse with other age groups (i.e., young adults), but whichhave been frequently used with adolescents. Measureswhich have not been specifically developed from attach-ment theory but have been interpreted as representing at-tachment have been excluded. Research which exclusivelyuses undergraduate or older samples is not considered indetail.

MethodThe Ovid PsycInfo database was used to locate Englishlanguage articles published from 1990 to February, 2012.The keywords adolescent, adolescence and attachment wereused and this retrieved 822 citations; 428 citations wereremoved from the sample as they were not peer reviewedarticles (i.e., book reviews, dissertation abstracts, cor-rections, commentaries, rejoinders, reprinted articles) orthey did not include a measure of adolescent attachment(i.e., non-adolescent sample, therapeutic interventions,case studies, review articles). Seventeen full-text articleswere not available. Full-text articles for the remaining377 citations were retrieved and form the basis for thisreview. The following information was gleaned from eachpaper: the measure of adolescent attachment used, sampleage range, sample size, key outcome variables, the attach-ment relationship measured, modifications made to theoriginal scale (including scoring), validity informationand details of reliability.

ResultsSixty-six different measures of adolescent attachmentwere cited. Of these, 50 did not meet criteria for classi-

fication as a self-report adolescent attachment measure(see Table 1). Additionally, 55 citations used unspeci-fied/unnamed measures of attachment (i.e., 1–9 itemsmeasuring ‘attachment’; qualitative ‘interviews’; ‘ethno-graphic’ and ‘projective’ methods) and these are not con-sidered further in the review.

Of the 16 remaining measures (see Table 2),1 ninewere only cited once in the literature and will not be re-viewed here. Several of these were developed for specificpurposes; for example, the Adolescent Unresolved At-tachment Questionnaire (West, Rose, Spreng, & Adam,2000), and two were specific secure base measures. Twoof the citations refer to unpublished scales. The WHO-TO (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994) is the only measure ofattachment networks included in Table 2. Because thisinstrument does not attempt to assess individual differ-ences in attachment security it will not be reviewed indetail here. The remaining six measures of attachmentstyle listed in Table 2 are reviewed below.

The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)The IPPA was by far the most frequently cited measureof adolescent attachment in the literature reviewed. De-veloped by Armsden and Greenberg (1987), the originalIPPA has a 28-item Parent scale (IPPA-Pa) and a 25-itemPeer scale (IPPA-Pe) designed to evaluate ‘ . . . the generalaffective/cognitive dimensions of attachment’ (Armsden& Greenberg, p. 431). These two scales each have threesubscales: Trust (IPPA-Pa α = .91, IPPA-Pe α = .91),Communication (IPPA-Pa α = .91, IPPA-Pe α = .87),and Alienation (IPPA-Pa α = .86, IPPA-Pe α = .72). Be-cause of the high correlations between the subscales,Armsden and Greenberg created summary parental andpeer scores by summing the Trust and Communicationscores and then subtracting the Alienation scores. TheIPPA was developed and normed on 179 US college stu-dents aged between 16 and 20 years. The majority of thissample of late adolescents (75%) also lived away fromhome. Three week test–retest scores for each of thesesummary scores was found to be high (IPPA-Pa = .93;IPPA-Pe = .86). It should be noted that various short-form versions and modifications of the IPPA are com-monly used in the literature (see Table 2).

Although the most widely used of all self-report mea-sures of adolescent attachment, the IPPA has some majorlimitations, particularly in the context of current modelsof attachment individual differences. These limitationsinclude ambiguity over what particular relationships arebeing assessed, the fact that its development was based ona sample that is unrepresentative of adolescents in general,and a failure to relate to currently established attachmentdimensions (i.e., attachment anxiety and avoidance).

Armsden and Greenberg (1987) deliberately chose notto discriminate between mother and father attachmentand between different kinds of friendship relationships



TABLE 1

Meaures Excluded From the Current Review

Not self-report measures fNot developed from attachment

theory f Not adolescent scales f

Adult Attachment Interview 49 Parental Bonding Instrument 21 Adult Attachment Scale 20Separation Anxiety Test 4 National Longitudinal

Adolescent Health data set9 Experiences in Close

Relationships9

Bartholomew AttachmentInterview

4 Network of RelationshipsInventory

8 Security Scale 5

Separation Story 2 Attachment Scale 4 Attachment Questionnaire forChildren

4

Strange Situation 2 Love Schemas Scale 1 Maternal–Fetal AttachmentScale

3

Adolescent Separation AnxietyInterview

1 Offer Self Image Questionnaire 1 People in My Life (Children) 2

Attachment Interview forChildhood and Adolescence

1 Perceptions of Family ClosenessScale

1 Child Attachment Scale 1

Adolescent Separation AnxietyInterview

1 Separation-Individuation Test ofAdolescence

1 Children in the CommunityScale

1

Adolescent Separation AnxietyTest

1 Adolescent InterpersonalCompetence Questionnaire

1 Parents of AdolescentsSeparation Anxiety Scale

1

Attachment BehaviourClassification Procedure

1 FACES-111 1 Parental Attachment Scale 1

Attachment PrototypeQuestionnaire — AdolescentVersion (Clinician report)

1 Index of parent attitudes andthe child’s attitude towardsmother scale

1 Revised Inventory of ParentAttachment (Parents)

1

Adolescent AttachmentInterview

1 Mother–Daughter RelationshipScale

1 Pathology of Adult Attachment 1

Child Attachment Interview 1 Social DescriptionQuestionnaire

1 Revised Adult Attachment Scale 1

Family Attachment Interview 1 Relationship Questionnaire —Children

1

Family Interaction Task 1 Adult Relationship ScalesQuestionnaire

1

Inventory Schedule for SocialInteractions

1 Parental Understanding Scale 1

Late Childhood AttachmentInterview

1 Attachment Style ClassificationQuestionnaire (Children)

1

Attachment Story CompletionTask

1

Attachment Style Interview 1Space Between Us 1

when constructing the wording for the IPPA. This deci-sion, however, can lead to ambiguity in the interpretationof whom is the source of the attachment relationship. At-tachment is generally considered to be dyadic and torelate to a specific class of other, if not a particular per-son (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Pierce & Lydon, 2001). Theevidence is clear that mothers and fathers have quite dif-ferent relationships with their adolescent children (Cook,2000; Wilkinson, 2006) and that the roles of best friend,friend, peers, and ‘clique’ relationships in adolescence arealso varied (Heaven, 2001; Seiffe-Krenke, 1993). In re-sponse to these criticisms later authors have modified theIPPA to have specific scales for assessing maternal andpaternal attachment (e.g., Buist et al., 2004; Dekovic,1999; Wilkinson, 2006).

The development and initial psychometric validationof the IPPA would also seem to be problematic. The

generalisability of this measure to younger adolescents,the vast majority of whom do live with their parents,would seem to be questionable. Leaving home is consid-ered a major developmental transition that distinguishesadolescence from young adults (Fraley & Davis, 1997;Lapsley, Rice & Fitzgerald, 1990). Further, Brennanet al. (1998) failed to replicate Armsden and Greenberg’s(1987) original factor structure and note specificallythat the IPPA may be deficient in assessing attachmentanxiety. Mikulincer and Shaver (2007 a) similarly reportthat while the IPPA gives an adequate measure of generalinsecurity and avoidance it does not capture attachmentanxiety satisfactorily. Recent confirmatory factor analyticstudies of both short form (Wilkinson, 2012) and longform versions (Pace, Martini, & Zavattini, 2011) of theIPPA have found support for the original three-factorconceptualisation. However, both studies argue that the



TABLE 2

Summary of Adolescent Attachment Scales, Modifications and Psychometric Properties1

Measure f Relationship Scale summary Subscales Reliability2 Validity

Inventory of Parent &Peer Attachment(Armsden &Greenberg, 1987)

74 ParentsPeersFatherMotherSiblingMentor

28 parent items; 25 peeritems; 5-point scaleShort forms: 15, 14, 12,10, 9, 6, 4 item versions‘short form’ with nodetails Reworded itemsfor younger sampleReworded for variousrelationships

TrustCommunicationAlienation Totalscore for eachrelationshipQuartiles frommost secure toleast secure Cutscore for lowattachment

.48–.96 Factor analysisCorrelation withself-reports ofrelationships ScaleintercorrelationsVarious psychologicalhealth/adjustmentvariables Clinicalsamples Item totalcorrelations

RelationshipsQuestionnaire(Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991)

14 GeneralMotherFatherBestFriendRomanticPartnerPeers

4 paragraphs; 7-pointscale Reworded forvarious relationshipsLikert scale rating(5 and 7 points), globalendorsement of onestyle

Secure DismissingPreoccupiedFearfulDimensions ofattachmentanxiety &avoidance foreach parentDimensions ofself & other

Test–retest.44–.68

Correspondence withinterviewCorrespondencebetween self andfriend ratingsSociability,self-concept Proportionof styles endorsed

AttachmentPrototypes (Hazan& Shaver, 1987)

14 GeneralRomanticpartnersFriend-shipsPeersMotherFatherParents

3 paragraphs; 7-pointscale; forced choiceand Likert scale rating13 items drawn fromoriginal for each parent15 items based onoriginal paragraphs

Secure AnxietyAvoidanceScored forsecure/insecure

.61–.88 formulti-itemversions

Proportion of stylesendorsed AttachmenthistoriesCorrespondence withlove-experiencesscale; lonelinessPrevious study linking tospouse reports, motherattachment style Notcorrelated with parenteducation; higher scoresfor intact families

Parental AttachmentQuestionnaire(Kenny, 1987)

8 ParentsMotherFather

70 items; 5 point scale55-item version

AvailabilityUnderstandingAcceptanceRespect forindividualityFacilitateindependenceReunion:interaction andaffectHelp-seekingbehaviourSatisfaction withparental helpAdjustment toseparation

Test–retest .92.72–.94

Principal ComponentsAnalysis Correlateswith Parent IPPA, FamilyEnvironment Scale,Family Adaptability andCohesion

AdolescentAttachmentQuestionnaire(West et al., 1998)

5 PrimarycaregiverGeneralParentMotherFather

9 items; 5-point scale Availability AngrydistressGoal-correctedpartnershipScored forsecure/insecure

.59–.85 3 monthtest-retest.66–.74

Correspondence withAAI Clinical sampleAnalysis for genderScale intercorrelations

WHO-TO (Hazan &Zeifman, 1994)

4 N/A;networkmeasure

12 items Fraley & Davis(1997) version mostfrequently used. 6items. Scored% eachitem; frequency andcategories for eachrelationship

Proximity seekingSeparationprotest Safehaven Securebase

.46–.75 Correspondence withrelationship lengthLink with attachmenttransfer Link withattachment style



TABLE 2

(Continued)

Measure f Relationship Scale summary Subscales Reliability2 Validity

Attachment StyleQuestionnaire(Feeney, Noller &Hanrahan, 1994)

4 General 40 items; 6-point scale Discomfort withclosenessRelationships assecondary Needfor approvalPreoccupationwithrelationshipsConfidence (inself and others)2, 3, 4, 5 factormodelsreported in theliterature

.71–.85Test–retest.67–.80

Discriminant functionanalysis Correlationwith categoricalmeasure Clusteranalysis Family func-tioning/personalityvariables Sexdifferences Factoranalysis

Secure Base (Lee &Bell, 2003)

1 MotherFather

14 items for eachrelationship; 5 pointscale

Secure base .90–.92 Not reported

AdolescentUnresolvedAttachmentQuestionnaire(West et al., 2000)

1 Primarycaregiver

12 items; 3-point scale Failed protectionDysregulationFear

.66–.73 Clinical sample; AAIclassifications; scaleintercorrelations;test–retest

Attachment andObject RelationsInventory (Buelow,McClain, &McIntosh, 1996)

1 PeersParentsRomanticPartners

60 items; 5-point scale Closeness SecurityIndependence

.89–.95 PCA conducted anddemonstrated somecrossloading

Behavioural SystemsQuestionnaire(Wehner &Furman, 1999)

1 RomanticpartnersBestfriends

20 items for eachrelationship; 5-pointscale

Secure DismissingPreoccupied

.78–.84 Not reported

Father/ MotherAttachmentQuestionnaire(Matos, Barbosa,de Almeida, &Costa, 1999)

1 MotherFather

28 items; 4-point scale Inhibition ofExploration andIndividualityQuality ofEmotional BondSeparationAnxietyDependence

.76–.89 Intercorrelations, PCAsfor Mother andFather; CFA

Measure ofAttachmentQuality (Carver,1997)

1 RomanticPartnerGeneral

14-item scale; 4-pointscale Changedpartner to ‘someone Icare about’

Avoidance AnxietyAmbiva-lence/mergerSecurity Anx-ious/avoidant

Test–retest.61–.80 .70–.75

PCA Convergence withHazan and ShaverPrototypesConvergence withextraversion andanxiety

Secure Base Scale(Cassidy &Woodhouse, 2003)

1 MotherFather

16 items for eachparent; 5-point scale

Total for eachparent

.88–.90 Cites Cassidy et al.,2003 correlation ofscale with AAI

Mother-Father-PeerScale (Epstein,1983)

1 MotherFather

Unknown (unpublishedmanuscript)

Independence vs.OverprotectionAcceptance vs.Rejection

.76–.88 Unknown (unpublishedmanuscript)

Adolescent —Relationship ScalesQuestionnaire(Scarfe, 1997)

1 General 17 items; 5-point scale Secure DismissingFearfulPreoccupied

Not reported Not reported

Note: 1Modifications to the original scale are reported in italics; 2Where not otherwise stated reliabilities are Cronbach’s alpha.



high subscale intercorrelations are more consistent witha single, secure–insecure factor.

Overall, the theoretical and methodological shortcom-ings of the IPPA are such that some prominent researchersdo not consider it a measure of internal working models ofattachment and argue that it provides a general assessmentof the current quality of the parent–adolescent relation-ship without specifically accessing attachment constructs(McElhaney et al., 2009). Notwithstanding this, and per-haps explaining its popularity, the IPPA and its variationshas been shown to reliably predict adolescent adjustmentoutcomes (e.g., Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Gomez& McLaren, 2007; Noom, Dekovic, & Meeus, 1999;Wilkinson, 2004; Wilkinson & Parry, 2004; Wilkinson& Walford, 2001).

Attachment Prototypes (AP; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) andRelationships Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991)The AP measure comprises three paragraphs represent-ing the Secure, Avoidant and Anxious attachment styleswhile the RQ comprises four paragraphs, represent-ing Secure, Dismissing, Preoccupied, and Fearful at-tachment styles. For both measures, participants indi-cate their response in one of several formats includingforced choice, Likert scale ratings, and averages of rat-ings. The AP was the first attempt at measuring adultromantic bonds conceptualised as attachment relation-ships and was based on Ainsworth and colleagues’ in-fant attachment style categories (Ainsworth et al., 1978).The rationale for the four category model of the RQwas developed from Bowlby’s conceptualisation of ‘self’and ‘other’ working models (Bartholomew & Horowitz,1991). The majority of articles do not report reliabilityinformation for the AP or the RQ, perhaps because oftheir widespread use. A number of studies have ques-tioned the test–retest reliability of these categorical at-tachment measures (i.e., Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Zhang &Labouvie-Vief, 2004) and Table 2 shows a wide range inreported reliabilities.

With regard to validity, most papers refer to the orig-inal sources while others do not refer to the validity atall. For the AP, researchers have reported the correla-tions among attachment styles (Collins, Cooper, Albino,& Allard, 2002), correlations between spouse reports andmother attachment style (Mayseless & Scharf, 2007), anda lack of correlation between parent education, and dif-ferences in scores for intact and separated families (Kerns,Klepac & Cole, 1996). For the RQ, researchers have re-ported data on the proportions of styles endorsed (Zhang& Labouvie-Veif, 2004) and correspondence with friendratings (Weimer, Kerns, & Oldenburg, 2004).

Both the Attachment Prototypes and the RelationshipsQuestionnaire employ a categorical rather than dimen-sional measurement strategy and it is evident that this

approach has been popular in the literature. Both mea-sures are very efficient to administer and are able to belinked with a broad body of attachment literature dueto the frequency of their use. Although originally devel-oped for use with adult samples, both of these instru-ments have been modified by various researchers for usein adolescence and reworded to measure different attach-ment relationships, such as mother, father, best friend,romantic partner, and peers (e.g., Ducharme et al., 2002;Margolese, Markeiwicz, & Doyle, 2005). Existing litera-ture, however, demonstrates the limitations of categoricalmeasures both conceptually and psychometrically, par-ticularly when participants are instructed to identify oneattachment style as a forced choice (Feeney et al., 1994).Griffin and Bartholomew (1994, p. 22) explain that ‘itis a fundamentally different view of human nature topostulate different kinds of people than it is to thinkof people varying along underlying dimensions’. Overall,categorical measures may have some advantages in theirefficiency and ease of scoring; however, conceptually andpsychometrically they can be seen as problematic (Bald-win & Fehr, 1995; Fraley & Waller, 1998; Mikulincer &Shaver, 2007 a).

Parental Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1987)The PAQ is a 70-item scale for measuring the attachmentof older adolescents to their parents. It has three subscales:Affective Quality of Relationships, Parental Fostering ofAutonomy, and Parental Provision of Emotional Support;and uses a 5-point Likert scale response format. The PAQwas developed to examine ‘ . . . the extent and functionof the parent-child bond following the late adolescents’departure from the family’ (Kenny, 1987, p. 18). It wasdeveloped and normed on a sample of 173 undergradu-ate students who lived on a college campus. The initialpsychometric validation of the PAQ reports good internalconsistencies (α > .90). Further validation included Prin-cipal Components Analysis for the 70-item scale using asample size of 173. This sample is much smaller thanwould be desirable to accurately factor analyse a 70-itemscale (Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001) and the stability andvalidity of this factor structure is therefore questionable.The relationship between the PAQ subscales and an anx-iety/avoidance conceptualisation of attachment has notbeen explored.

It is common to modify the PAQ to measure motherand father attachment separately and to shorten the scales(Kenny & Gallagher, 2002; Orzolek-Kronner, 2002;Vivona, 2000). Most citations report good internal con-sistency for the scales, consistent with the original study.The PAQ has been used with participants as young as12 years (Orzolek-Kronner, 2002), even though it wasdeveloped specifically to study late adolescents makingthe transition from living at home to living at college. Itis normed with this specific population and is validated



using dating competency as an outcome (Kenny, 1987).Thus, the suitability of the PAQ for assessing attachmentin younger adolescents is yet to be demonstrated.

Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ; West,Rose, Spreng, Sheldon-Keller, & Adam, 1998)The AAQ is a measure of general attachment for adoles-cents with nine items and three factors: Availability, Goal-Corrected Partnership, and Angry Distress. The AAQ wasspecifically developed to correspond with the AAI, andvalidation included linking AAQ and AAI scores in a clin-ical sample of 133 adolescents aged 12 to 19, as well as alarge school-based population. West et al. (1998) reportextensive psychometric validation including intercorrela-tions, reliability data, and convergent validity. We foundthat the majority of papers cite the original scale devel-opment paper with respect to reliability and validity. Thescale authors carefully contrast the representations of at-tachment in the AAQ with the AAI: ‘Our scales should beregarded only as assessing adolescents’ perceptions of theavailable responsiveness of their attachment figure andnot as an index of the security or insecurity in the rela-tionship’ (West et al., 1998, p. 670). This self-imposedlimitation on interpretation may be one reason why suchan apparently well-validated scale has not been more fre-quently employed in the literature. It should be notedthat the AAQ has only been validated against the AAI,and no citation retrieved in this review links the AAQto the current dimensional models of attachment anxietyand avoidance. It is unclear how the three subscales of thismeasure might relate to such a conceptualisation. Finally,the AAQ measures general attachment orientation anddoes not measure specific relationship domains or types,a potential shortcoming for adolescent attachment assess-ment given the salience of intra-individual differences inattachment relationships across various attachment fig-ures, and the primacy of the attachment network andtransfer during adolescence.

Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney et al., 1994)The ASQ measures general attachment orientation with40 items and a 6-point response scale and was devel-oped using a sample of 470 university students. Princi-pal Components Analysis and cluster analysis supportedboth three- and five-factor solutions. However, the au-thors argue that the five-factor model gives a ‘clearer andmore stable delineation of the various attachment groups’(p. 145). The five factors of the ASQ are: Confidence (inself and others) (α = .80), Discomfort with Closeness(α = .84), Need for Approval (α = .79), Preoccupationwith Relationships (α = .76), and Relationships as Sec-ondary (to achievement) (α = .76). Based on a recentseries of CFA studies, Karantzas, Feeney, and Wilkinson(2010) argue that the dimensions of attachment anxiety

and avoidance appear as first-order factors nested withinthe five-factor substrate of the ASQ.

Feeney et al. (1994) developed the ASQ from ‘scratch’in response to disagreement in the literature about thenumber of attachment styles/dimensions and to fulfil aneed to have a measure for populations, such as ado-lescents, for whom attachment to a romantic partnermay not be relevant. In the context of adolescent at-tachment, the measure focuses on assessing generalisedworking models of security rather than the measure-ment of specific attachment relationships with mother,father, or best friend, which are crucial for understand-ing adolescent attachment dynamics. Although the ASQoffers a potentially sound measure of general attachmentorientations it is deficient in not assessing specific at-tachment relationships and, as with other measures (e.g.,RQ and AP) employed in this field, it was not devel-oped specifically for adolescents or with an adolescentsample.

General DiscussionImportant goals for this review were to provide anoverview of the use of existing self-report measures ofadolescent attachment and to apply some organisation towhat is a disparate and somewhat contentious literature.By highlighting the major divisions in the field we havedemonstrated how basic theoretical and methodologicalstances have influenced the rejection of self-report meth-ods by some and their widespread adoption by others.Our findings indicate that a wide variety of measures areused to assess adolescent attachment. Unfortunately, alarge proportion of these measures are either not spec-ified adequately in the literature, or they do not meetthe criteria for consideration as self-report adolescent at-tachment measures. Of those measures which meet thecriteria, many have only been cited once over the past20 years. It appears that despite the availability of widelyused and apparently well-validated instruments, many re-searchers still prefer to employ little known instrumentswhich were not developed from attachment theory and/orwhich have unknown psychometric properties. This hin-ders the accumulation of knowledge and further con-tributes to uncertainty into what is an already complexarea of research.

We identified six instruments that appear in the re-search literature more than once and that met the cri-teria of a self-report measure of adolescent attachment.Although these instruments have all demonstrated psy-chometric merit, to a greater or lesser extent, the degreeto which they converge on what constitutes attachmentremains contentious. It is clear that there are major dif-ferences in the underlying theoretical formulations andparticular aspects of attachment that these instrumentsare attempting to assess. By far the most frequently em-ployed measure of adolescent attachment is the IPPA



and its many modifications, which was cited five timesas often as other measures. Despite evidence of its re-liability and predictive power in terms of psychologicaloutcomes, the use of this instrument is problematic froman attachment theory perspective. The emphasis of theIPPA on assessing the quality of particular relationshipsrather than general attachment working models, thoughreconcilable with current approaches to attachment, issomewhat at odds with the predominate focus in the childand adult literatures on the assessment of broad, generalworking models, or at the very least representations ofthe primary attachment figure. Further, and perhaps themajor difficulty from a construct validity perspective, isthe failure of the IPPA to tap into the multidimensionalaspects of individual differences in attachment represen-tations commonly argued to be best represented by at-tachment anxiety (model of self ) and avoidance (modelof other) (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000; Griffin &Bartholomew, 1994; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 a).

This issue, it appears, is a general problem with theliterature because there are no measures specifically de-veloped to assess such dimensions in adolescent samples.The categorical measures pertaining to similar constructs,the AP and RQ, were the second and third most widelyused instruments we found in the adolescent attachmentliterature. However, these were both developed with afocus on adult romantic relationships and, despite theirmodifications, their validity and, thus, utility for adoles-cent populations has not been adequately demonstrated.Difficulties arise when measures are appropriated for usewith different age groups other than for those for whichthey were designed. Clearly attachment relationships inmiddle or early adulthood are likely to be quite differ-ent to those in adolescence. Further, while there may becommon attachment processes at play across adolescence,this period itself covers a wide range of developmen-tal changes and the relationship concerns confrontingyoung, pubescent teenagers can be quite different to thoseof later adolescences on the cusp of adulthood and an in-dependent life. The limitations of using categorical mea-sures to assess what are argued to be dimensional con-structs has also been pointed out in both the attachment(Baldwin & Fehr, 1995; Fraley & Waller, 1998; Mikulin-cer & Shaver, 2007 a) and general psychometric (Lipsey,1990) literature.

It is also apparent that a large number of researcherserroneously use measures of related constructs when in-tending to measure attachment. An example of this isthe Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) which was thethird most commonly cited measure of ‘adolescent attach-ment’ and the second most cited self-report instrument.The PBI, however, has no link to attachment theory andwas not developed as a measure of adolescent attachment(Parker, 1990). It was developed ‘to allow any parentalcontribution to disorder to be specified and quantified’(Parker, 1990, p. 281) and has been incorrectly recom-

mended and employed as a measure of attachment (i.e.,Garbarino, 1998; Lopez & Gover, 1993). Attachmenttheory pertains to a specific element of close relation-ships, concentrating on particular aspects of behaviour,cognition and emotion in respect to close others (Bowlby,1969; McElhaney et al., 2009) and should not be con-fused with the general assessment of relationship qualityor parenting.

Important Lessons for Advancing the ResearchDespite the large and growing literature employing self-report measures of adolescent attachment, major ques-tions can be raised about the validity of findings if theassessments of the constructs under scrutiny are found tobe lacking. The results of the current review indicate thatthere is no ‘gold standard’ measure for assessing adolescentattachment by which to compare newly developed instru-ments. The existing, most frequently employed measures(e.g., IPPA, RQ, AP) all have major questions over theirvalidity in terms of both their ability to assess attachmentadequately and in their appropriateness for the full agerange of adolescence. We suggest that in order to improvethe quality of new research in this area the following issuesneed to be taken into consideration.

First, attachment is a specific element of close, dyadicrelationships and in order to assess it scales using itemsspecifically drawn from attachment theory need to be em-ployed. The temptation to ‘relabel’ as attachment mea-sures designed to assess relationship quality or satisfac-tion needs to be resisted. Second, attachment in ado-lescence is in a state of flux. The identity of primaryattachment figures cannot be simply assumed as it canin infancy and adulthood. Depending on the specifichypothesis under study, it is important to be cognisantof the extended attachment network, hierarchy of at-tachments, and attachment transfer (Hazan & Zeifman,1994; Wilkinson, 2010 a). Related to this is the necessityof measuring adolescent attachment at various levels ofspecificity, that is, a general attachment style or orien-tation versus attachment to a specific individual. Whilesome extant measures have been modified to assess var-ious degrees of specificity, the validity of these modifi-cations has not necessarily been established. A furtherconsideration relates to the broad range of transitionsobserved across adolescence. Researchers may considerthat early adolescents share much in common with chil-dren and that later adolescents begin to resemble adultsmore closely. These considerations may be relevant tomeasurement decisions and the particular constructs un-der study. Finally, attachment theory highlights key psy-chosocial and developmental differences between ado-lescence and young adulthood such as moving out ofhome, commencing university or employment, and co-habitation with romantic partners. Researchers shouldtake into account the samples on which measures are



developed and the particular construct of interest in lightof this.

Possible Methodological Limitations and ConclusionThe practicalities of conducting this review mean thatthere are a number of limitations that need to be consid-ered. The current review is limited to published datafrom papers written in English and indexed in peer-reviewed journals. Further, due to resource constraints,only one database, PsychInfo, was searched. Given thatthis database is the major indexing source for publica-tions in this field, this is not considered to be a majorlimitation.

In conclusion, this review offers an analysis of theexisting research literature involving the self-report as-sessment of adolescent attachment. The emerging liter-ature indicates that this increasingly researched area iscomplex both with regard to how adolescence and at-tachment are defined and operationalised. It is clear thatmany of the most widely used instruments have signif-icant limitations with regard to their construct validityand therefore practical utility. It is hoped that this reviewprovides some organisation around this body of litera-ture and some direction for future research. Adolescenceis a unique developmental period where the individualis faced with developmental, educational, and relationalchallenges. We suggest that new measures of attachmentneed to be developed specifically for adolescent popula-tions that operationalise the major dimensions of anxietyand avoidance and that assess these constructs at boththe general and relationship specific level. Research needsto employ refined and sensitive instruments that are ap-propriately reflective of their theoretical basis and offerthe opportunity to assess normative processes and in-dividual differences in attachment relationships, in alltheir complexity, in order for us to understand their truesignificance.

Endnote1 Data was collected regarding the sample size and age range for

each study. Information on the attachment measure includesthe relationship measured, modifications made to the originalscale, scoring, reliability and validity. Due to space restrictionsthis data is not presented in full but is available from theauthors upon request.

ReferencesAinsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).

Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situa-tion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allen, J.P. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J.Cassidy, & P.R. Shaver (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (2 nd ed.; pp. 419–435). NewYork: Guildford.

Allen, J.P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J.Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (pp. 319–335). New York, NY:The Guilford Press.

Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The Inventory ofParent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and theirrelationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.

Baldwin, M.W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attach-ment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247–261.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment stylesamong young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.

Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Methods of assess-ing attachment: Do they converge? In J.A. Simpson & W.S.Rholes. (Eds.). Attachment theory and close relationships. NewYork: Guildford Press. pp. 25–45.

Bernier, A., & Dozier, M. (2002). Assessing adult attachment:Empirical sophistication and conceptual bases. Attachment &Human Development, 4, 171–179.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment (2 nded.). New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds.Cornwall, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-reportmeasurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. InJ.A. Simpson, & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and closerelationships (pp. 46–76). New York: The Guilford Press.

Buelow, G., McClain, M., & McIntosh, I. (1996). A new measurefor an important construct: The Attachment and Object Rela-tions Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 604–623.

Buist, K.L., Dekovic, M., Meeus, W.H., & van Aken, M.A.G.(2004). Attachment in adolescence: A social relations modelanalysis. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19, 826–850.

Carver, C.S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converg-ing evidence and a new measure. Personality & Social PsychologyBulletin, 23, 865–883.

Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Mikulincer, M., & Lavy, S. (2009). Exper-imentally induced security influences responses to psychologicalpain. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 463–478.

Cassidy, J., & Woodhouse, S.S. (2003). Parent as Secure Base Scale-Revised (mother and father versions). Unpublished manuscript,University of Maryland.

Collins, N.L. & Read, S.J. (1990). Adult attachment, workingmodels, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.

Collins, N.L., Cooper, M.L., Albino, A., & Allard, L. (2002).Psychosocial vulnerability from adolescence to adulthood: Aprospective study of attachment style differences in relationshipfunctioning and partner choice. Journal of Personality, 70, 965–1008.

Cook, W.L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in a familycontext. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285–294.

Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S.J., & Bylsma, W.H., (2000). Generalversus specific mental models of attachment: Are they associ-ated with different outcomes? Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 26, 605–618.

Crowell, J.A., Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (2008). Measurement ofindividual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J.



Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,research, and clinical applications (2 nd ed., pp. 599–634). NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Crowell, J.A., & Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachmentmeasures: Implications for theory and research. Social Develop-ment, 4, 294–327.

Dekovic, M. (1999). Risk and protective factors in the develop-ment of problem behaviour during adolescence. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 28, 667–685.

Doherty, N.A., & Feeney, J.A. (2004). The composition of at-tachment networks throughout the adult years. Personal Rela-tionships, 11, 469–488.

Ducharme, J., Doyle, A.B., Markeiwicz, D. (2002). Attachmentsecurity with mother and father: Associations with adolescents’reports of interpersonal behavior with parents and peers. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 203–231.

Dwyer, K.M. (2005). The meaning and measurement of attach-ment in middle and late childhood. Human Development, 48,155–182.

Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2011). Attachmentinsecurities and the processing of threat-related information:Studying the schemas involved in insecure people’s coping strate-gies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 78–93.

Epstein, S. (1983). Scoring and interpretation of the Mother-Father-Peer Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Mas-sachusetts, Department of Psychology, Amherst.

Feeney, J.A. (2004). Transfer of attachment from parents to ro-mantic partners: Effects of individual and relationship variables.Journal of Family Studies, 10, 220–238.

Feeney, J.A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessingadult attachment. In M.B. Sperling, & W.H. Berman (Eds.),Attachment in adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives(pp. 128–152). New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K.E. (1997). Attachment formation andtransfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic rela-tionships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144.

Fraley, R.C. & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns:A test of the typological model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114).New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R.C., Waller, N.G., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). An itemresponse theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attach-ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.

Freeman, H., & Brown, B.B. (2001). Primary attachment to par-ents and peers during adolescence: Differences by attachmentstyle. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 653–674.

Friedelmeier, W., & Granqvist, P. (2006). Attachment transferamong Swedish and German adolescents: A prospective longi-tudinal study. Personal Relationships, 13, 261–279.

Garbarino, J.J. (1998). Comparisons of the constructs and psy-chometric properties of selected measures of adult attachment.Measurement and Evaluation in Counselling and Development,31, 28–39.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The Adult AttachmentInterview. Unpublished protocol, Department of Psychology,University of California, Berkeley.

Gillath, O., Giesbrecht, B., & Shaver, P.R. (2009). Attachment,attention, and cognitive control: Attachment style and perfor-mance on general attention tasks. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 45, 647–654.

Gomez, R., & McLaren, S. (2007). The inter-relations of motherand father attachment, self-esteem and aggression during lateadolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 160–169.

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self andother: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adultattachment. Journal of Research in Personality, 67, 430–445.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualisedas an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 52, 511–524.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychologicaltether. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.). Attachmentprocesses in adulthood. Advances in personal relationships (pp. 151–178). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Heaven, P.C.L. (2001). The social psychology of adolescence. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jacobvitz, D., Curran, M., & Moller, N. (2002). Measurementof adult attachment: The place of self report and interviewmethodologies. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 207–215.

Karantzas, G.C., Feeney, J.A., & Wilkinson, R. (2010). Is lessmore? Confirmatory factor analysis of the Attachment StyleQuestionnaires. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27,749–780.

Kenny, M.E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attach-ment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 16, 17–29.

Kenny, M.E., & Gallagher, L.A. (2002). Instrumental and so-cial/relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal at-tachment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 203–219.

Kerns, K.A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A.K. (1996). Peer relationshipsand preadolescents’ perceptions of security in the child-motherrelationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.

Kobak, P.R. (1994). Adult attachment: A personality or relation-ship construct? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 42–44.

Lapsley, D.K., Rice, K.G., & Fitzgerald, D.P. (1990). Adolescentattachment, identity, and adjustment to college: Implications forthe continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counsellingand Development, 68, 561–565.

Lee, J.M., & Bell, N.J. (2003). Individual differences inattachment-autonomy configurations: Linkages with substanceuse and youth competencies. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 347–361.

Lewis, M. (1994). Does attachment imply a relationship or multi-ple relationships? Psychological Inquiry, 5, 47–51.

Lipsey, M.W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experi-mental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lopez, F.G., & Gover, M.R. (1993). Self-report measures of parent-adolescent attachment and separation-individuation: A selectivereview. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 560–569.

Lyddon, W.J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J.P. (1993). Assessing ado-lescent and adult attachment: A review of current self-reportmeasures. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 390–395.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy,childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50,66–104.

Margolese, S.K., Markeiwicz, D., & Doyle, A.B. (2005). Attach-ment to parents, best friend, and romantic partner: Predictingdifferent pathways to depression in adolescence. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 34, 637–650.



Markiewicz, D., Lawford, H., Doyle, A.B., & Haggart, N. (2006).Developmental differences in adolescents’ and young adults’use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners tofulfil attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35,127–140.

Matos, P.N., Barbosa, S., de Almeida, H.M., & Costa, M.E.(1999). Parental attachment and identity in Portugese late ado-lescents. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 805–818.

Mayseless, O., & Scharf, M. (2007). Adolescents’ attachment rep-resentations and their capacity for intimacy in close relation-ships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 23–50.

McCarthy, G., & Maughan, B. (2010). Negative childhood experi-ences and adult love relationships: The role of internal workingmodels of attachment. Attachment & Human Development, 12,445–461.

McElhaney, K.B., Allen, J.P., Stephenson, J.C., & Hare, A.L.(2009). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence. In R.M.Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology.Volume One: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed.;p. 358–403). New Jersey: John Wiley.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2007 a). Attachment in adulthood:Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guildford Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.R. (2007b). Boosting attachmentsecurity to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139–156.

Noom, M.J., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W.H. (1999). Auton-omy, attachment and psychosocial adjustment during adoles-cence: A double-edged sword? Journal of Adolescence, 22, 771–783.

O’Connor, T.G., & Byrne, J.G. (2007). Attachment measures forresearch and practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12,187–192.

Orzolek-Kronner, C. (2002). The effect of attachment theoryin the development of eating disorders: Can symptoms beproximity-seeking? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,19, 421–435.

Overall, N.C., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Friesen, M.D. (2003). Mappingthe intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between threemodels of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 29, 1479–1493.

Pace, C.S., San Martini, P., & Zavattini, G.C. (2011). The fac-tor structure of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment(IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personality and Individ-ual Differences, 51, 83–88.

Parker, G. (1990). The Parental Bonding Instrument: A decade ofresearch. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 25, 281–282.

Pierce, T., & Lydon, J.E. (2001). Global and specific relationalmodels in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631.

Pietromonaco, P.R., & Barrett, L.F. (2000). The internal work-ing models concept: What do we really know about the selfin relation to others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155–175.

Reber, A.S., & Reber, E.S. (2001). The penguin dictionary of psy-chology (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books.

Rice, K.G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative andmeta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511–538.

Ross, L.R., & Spinner, B. (2001). General and specific attachmentrepresentations in adulthood: Is there a relationship? Journal ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 18, 747–766.

Schneider, B.H., Atkinson, L., & Tardiff, C. (2001). Child-parentattachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review.Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100.

Seiffe-Krenke, I. (1993). Coping behaviour in normal and clinicalsamples: More similarities than differences? Journal of Adoles-cence, 16, 285–303.

Shaver, P.R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psy-chodynamics. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 133–161.

Shaver, P.R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K.A. (2000). The Adult At-tachment Interview and self-reports of romantic attachment:Associations across domains and methods. Personal Relation-ships, 7, 25–43.

Steinberg, L. (1996). Adolescence (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statis-tics (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Trinke, S.J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachmentrelationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 14, 603–625.

Vivona, J.M. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adoles-cents: Qualities of attachment relationships and consequencesfor adjustment. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 316–329.

Waters, E., Crowell, J., Elliott, M., Corcoran, D., & Treboux, D.(2002). Bowlby’s secure base theory and the social/personalitypsychology of attachment styles: Work(s) in progress. Attach-ment & Human Development, 4, 230–242.

Weimer, B.L., Kerns, K.A., & Oldenburg, C.M. (2004). Ado-lescent’s interactions with a best friend: Associations with at-tachment style. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88,102–120.

Weiss, R.S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes &J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in humanbehaviour (pp. 171–184). New York: Basic Books.

West, M., Rose, M.S., Spreng, S., Sheldon-Keller, A., & Adam, K.(1998). Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire: A brief assess-ment of attachment in adolescence. Journal of Youth Adolescence,27, 661–673.

West, M., Rose, S., Spreng, S., & Adam, K. (2000). The Ado-lescent Unresolved Attachment Questionnaire: The assessmentof perceptions of parental abdication of caregiving behaviour.Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161, 493–503.

Wilkinson, R.B. (2004). The role of parental and peer attach-ment in the psychological health and self-esteem of adolescents.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 479–493.

Wilkinson, R.B. (2006). Age and sex differences in the influenceof attachment relationships on adolescent psychological health.The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 23,87–104.

Wilkinson, R.B. (2010 a). Best friend attachment versus peer at-tachment in the prediction of adolescent psychological adjust-ment. Journal of Adolescence, 33, 709–717.

Wilkinson, R.B. (2010b). Adolescent best friends as attachmentfigures: Implications for psychological health and adjustment.In J.C. Toller (Ed.), Friendships: Types, cultural, psychologicaland social aspects (pp. 1–37). Hauppauge, NY: Nova SciencePublishers.

Wilkinson, R.B. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis of a short formof the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: The IPPA-45.Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wilkinson, R.B., & Parry, M.M. (2004). Attachment styles, qual-ity of attachment relationships, and components of self-esteem



in adolescence. Proceedings of the 39th Australian PsychologicalSociety Annual Conference, 301–305. Melbourne, Australia: TheAustralian Psychological Society.

Wilkinson, R.B. & Walford, W.A. (2001). Attachment and per-sonality in the psychological health of adolescents. Personalityand Individual Differences, 31, 473–484.

Zhang, F., & Labouvie-Veif, G. (2004). Stability and fluctuationin adult attachment style over a 6 year period. Attachment &Human Development, 6, 419–437.

Zimmerman, P., & Becker-Stoll, F. (2002). Stability of attach-ment representations during adolescence: The influence of ego-identity status. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 107–124.


self report adolescents attachment

Documents