• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  14. 14
    14
  15. 15
    15
  16. 16
    16
  17. 17
    17
  18. 18
    18
  19. 19
    19
  20. 20
    20
  21. 21
    21
  22. 22
    22
  23. 23
    23
  24. 24
    24
  25. 25
    25
  26. 26
    26
  27. 27
    27
  28. 28
    28
  29. 29
    29
  30. 30
    30
  31. 31
    31
  32. 32
    32
  33. 33
    33
  34. 34
    34
  35. 35
    35
  36. 36
    36
  37. 37
    37
  38. 38
    38
  39. 39
    39
  40. 40
    40
  41. 41
    41
  42. 42
    42
  43. 43
    43
  44. 44
    44
  45. 45
    45
  46. 46
    46
  47. 47
    47
  48. 48
    48
  49. 49
    49
  50. 50
    50
  51. 51
    51
  52. 52
    52
  53. 53
    53
  54. 54
    54
  55. 55
    55
  56. 56
    56
  57. 57
    57
  58. 58
    58
  59. 59
    59
  60. 60
    60
  61. 61
    61

Self-Report Measurement of Adult Attachment: An Integrative Overview.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Self-Report Measurement of Adult Attachment: An Integrative Overview Kelly A. Brennan State University of New York at Stony Brook Catherine L. Clark Western Consortium for Public Health Phillip R. Shaver University of California, Davis In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (1998) (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press. Address correspondence to the first author at the Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Brockport, Brockport, NY 14420. Electronic mail inquiries may be directed to [email protected] Self-Report Measurement of Adult Attachment: An Integrative Overview Ever since Hazan and Shaver (1987) showed that it is possible to use a self-report questionnaire to measure adolescent and adult romantic-attachment orientations (secure, anxious, and avoidant--the three patterns identified by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall, 1978, in their studies of infant-caregiver attachment), a steady stream of variants and extensions of their questionnaire have been proposed. The resulting diversity often arouses frustration and confusion in newcomers to the field who wonder which of the many measures to use. The three of us are probably typical of attachment researchers in receiving as many as five telephone calls, letters, and e-mail messages a week from researchers who want to know either "Has anything happened since 1987?" or "Which measure is the best?" In the present chapter we attempt to solve this problem by creating an all-purpose reply to future attachment researchers who wish to use self-report measures. Interview measures have also been proposed, but we will say little about them here. Attachment interviews are powerful and perhaps uniquely revealing, but they are also impractical for most researchers. (See Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Bartholomew & Shaver, this volume; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994; and van IJzendoorn, 1995, for discussions of attachment interview measures, not all of which measure the same constructs.) Hazan and Shaver (1987, 1990) asked research participants to indicate which of three attachment-style prototypes (shown here in Table 1) best characterized their feelings and behavior in romantic relationships. ...read more.

Middle

Finally, Preoccupied individuals distinguished themselves by desiring more touch than they were receiving. All of these findings are compatible with previous research and theoretical writings on adult attachment. In terms of preferences for various sexual behaviors, interesting differences emerged among the four Bartholomew attachment categories. In general, Secures, along with Preoccupieds, were most likely to endorse romantic/affectionate sexual behaviors. Secures also differed from Fearful and Dismissing individuals in their preference for "normative" sexual behaviors. Of the four groups, Dismissing individuals were the most likely to endorse promiscuous sexual behavior. Secures were also more likely than insecures to experience positive emotions, and less likely to experience negative emotions, following sex. Fearful individuals scored highest on the negative emotions scale, followed by Preoccupied and then Dismissing individuals. Associations between the new attachment-categories, Anxiety and Avoidance, and the touch and sex subscales. Three MANOVAs, paralleling the ones just described, were computed on (1) the Anxiety and Avoidance scales, (2) the touch subscales, and (3) the sex subscales as a function of the new cluster-based attachment categories. The first MANOVA on the two higher-order scales was highly significant, as were the MANOVAs on the touch and sex subscales. All of the F values were much higher than the corresponding values based on Bartholomew's categorical self-report measure. The attachment-group means for the two higher-order scales and all of the touch and sex subscales are listed in Table 7, along with the univariate Fs. Follow-up Tukey pairwise comparisons were computed to determine which groups differed significantly. ---------------------------------------------- Insert Table 7 about here ---------------------------------------------- The findings for the univariate Avoidance, Anxiety, touch, and sex scales were similar to those obtained with Bartholomew's measure, but the F values were all substantially higher with the new scale-based clusters. (Compare corresponding sections of Tables 6 and 7--particularly the column showing variance accounted for [?2].) Also, the pairwise group differences were sharper with the new measure. ...read more.

Conclusion

Avoidance 2.36a 3.71c 2.68b 3.74c 151.00*** .30 Anxiety 3.08a 3.83b 4.54c 2.99a 132.12*** .27 Touch (df 3, 1051) Affectionate touch 5.79c 5.47b 5.86c 4.98a 28.49*** .08 Desire for more touch 2.45a 2.86b 3.30c 2.71b 27.21*** .07 Touch aversion 2.15a 2.66b 2.24a 2.64b 17.61*** .05 Haven of safety 4.48b 4.34b 4.96c 3.95a 23.57*** .06 Sexual preferences (df 3, 1055) Promiscuous 1.91a 2.01a 2.06a 2.58b 9.70*** .03 Normative 5.49b 5.10a 5.40ab 5.13a 5.01** .01 Affectionate 6.11c 5.86b 6.08c 5.59a 13.87*** .04 Post-coital emotions (df 3, 698) Positive 3.90a 3.35b 3.48b 3.20b 17.98*** .07 Negative .84a 1.38c 1.22bc 1.08b 15.71*** .06 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Note. Numbers in the first four columns are means. Means within each row whose superscripts differ are different at p < .05. ** p < .01, *** p < .001 (two-tailed). Table 7 Two New Attachment-Scale Scores and Touch and Sex Subscale Scores as a Function of the Cluster-Based Attachment-Style Category _____________________________________________________________________________________ Cluster-based attachment-style category Secure Fearful Preoccupied Dismissing Univariate F's ?2 New scales (df 3, 1076) Avoidance 1.88a 3.96c 2.40b 3.87c 614.67*** .63 Anxiety 2.64a 4.06b 4.60c 2.60a 604.41*** .63 Touch (df 3, 1052) Affectionate touch 6.10c 5.14b 6.05c 4.93a 104.23*** .23 Desire for more touch 2.07a 3.34c 3.16c 2.43b 101.70*** .22 Touch aversion 1.80a 2.86c 2.17b 2.78c 74.42*** .17 Haven of safety 4.67c 4.22b 5.00d 3.72a 66.95*** .06 Sexual preferences (df, 3, 1055) Promiscuous 1.60a 2.24bc 2.08b 2.49c 21.37*** .06 Normative 5.61b 4.95a 5.60b 5.05a 15.42*** .04 Affectionate 6.25b 5.75a 6.11b 5.66a 25.17*** .07 Post-coital emotions (df 3, 698) Positive 4.16c 3.08a 3.57b 3.29a 43.80*** .16 Negative .68a 1.45c 1.14b 1.18b 27.31*** .11 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Note. Numbers in the first four columns are means. Means within each row whose superscripts differ are different at p < .05. *** p < .001 (two-tailed). Table 8 Parameter Estimates for the Prediction of Touch and Sex Subscale Scores from Bartholomew's and Cluster-Based Categorical Attachment Measures, and Avoidance and Anxiety Attachment Dimensions ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bartholomew's Cluster-based Dimensional measure (?2) measure (?2) measures (R2) Touch Affectionate touch .07 .23 .32 Desire for more touch .07 .23 .30 Touch aversion .05 .18 .20 Haven of safety .06 .16 . ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Developmental Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Developmental Psychology essays

  1. Is the attachment bond during infancy crucial to later outcomes?

    trauma or deprivation" (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Sroufe & Jacobvita, 1989 - as cited in Waters, Hamilton et al., 2000). Much of the attachment research supports Bowlby's expectation that individual differences in attachment security can be stable across significant portions of the lifespan (Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell & Albersheim, 2000),

  2. Genes: reasons why some men are just born to cheat.

    One of the most common alleles (named 334), that is, one of a number of variants of the gene in question, was found to be associated with perceived partner bonding in men as assessed in the PBS.

  1. Successful Ageing: Psychological Theory and Research (Department of Psychology - University of Liverpool)

    other strategies need to be initiated to find substitute activities and to maximise one's reserves (Baltes and Baltes, 1990). Successful ageing is regarded as dynamic and the outcome of one's psychological development over the life span (Ryff, 1989) and one's development and learning by using past experiences to cope with present circumstances (Bowling and Dieppe, 2005).

  2. Discuss whether emotional intelligence has any additional value to offer psychology over and above ...

    This promotes the idea that although both Emotional intelligence and Fluid intelligence are directly unrelated, they both have the ability to improve with age. Psychosocial behaviour A differentiation between Emotional intelligence and General intelligence occurs in psychosocial people. Cleckley, 1976 found that psychopathic people; despite their more than adequate general intelligence were unable to socially adjust.

  1. Student number: 0373390

    The Perry Pre-school Project conducted from 1962- 1967 is an example of the success of such early intervention programmes. Taking an active learning approach based on the work of Piaget they were able to raise attainment of students with low IQ scores from families of a low socioeconomic status that

  2. Compare and contrast different parenting styles. Is there a best parenting style?

    In contrast, both permissive and uninvolved parenting styles are undemanding and less controlling. The two child-rearing styles are characterized by few rules and boundaries. Therefore, these parenting approaches give the child freedom by imposing none or minimal limits (Hopkins, 2015).

  1. Critically discuss Freud's theory of personality

    Between 20 and 60 per cent of therapy clients who suffered sexual abuse in child-hood could not recall the abuse for considerable periods of their lives (Brewin and Andrews, 1998).

  2. Is Bowlbys (1951) theory of attachment still relevant in understanding how to support and ...

    Bowlby proposed that a host of instinctual responses comprises the binding function between the infant and the mother, and/or vice versa (Bretherton, 1992). It is based on a number of species-characteristic behavioural systems congruent with instinct theory and biology, which are activated or terminated by classes of stimuli that facilitate proximity and interaction between infant and mother (Ainsworth, 1969).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work