Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991. “WJI. 61, No. 2, 226-244
Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/91/S3.00
Attachment Styles Among \bung Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model
Kim Bartholomew Simon Eraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Leonard M. Horowitz Stanford University
A new 4-group model of attachment styles in adulthood is proposed. Four prototypic attachment patterns are defined using combinations of a person’s self-image (positive or negative) and image of others (positive or negative). In Study 1, an interview was developed to yield continuous and categori- cal ratings of the 4 attachment styles. Intercorrelations of the attachment ratings were consistent with the proposed model. Attachment ratings were validated by self-report measures of self-con- cept and interpersonal functioning. Each style was associated with a distinct profile of interper- sonal problems, according to both self- and friend-reports. In Study 2, attachment styles within the family of origin and with peers were assessed independently. Results of Study I were replicated. The proposed model was shown to be applicable to representations of family relations; Ss’ attachment styles with peers were correlated with family attachment ratings.
This article describes a new model of attachment styles in adulthood. Drawing on the theory of Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982a), two types of internal working models are postulated— an internal model of the self and an internal model of others. Each internal model can be dichotomized as positive or nega- tive to yield four theoretical attachment styles. This article sum- marizes the relevant childhood attachment literature, reviews recent work on adult attachment, describes the new model, and then presents two empirical studies designed to validate the proposed model.
Chi ldhood Attachment and Internal Models
Attachment theory conceptualizes “the propensity of human beings to make strong affectional bonds to particular others” (Bowlby, 1977, p. 201). Bowlby hypothesizes that an attachment system evolved to maintain proximity between infants and their caretakers under conditions of danger or threat. More recent formulations view the attachment system as functioning continuously to provide children with a sense of “felt security” which facilitates exploration by the child (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). The quality of early attachment relationships is thus rooted in the degree to which the infant has come to rely on the attachment figure as a source of security (Ainsworth et al., 1978).
On the basis of infants’ responses to separation from and
This article is based on Kim Bartholomew’s doctoral dissertation at Stanford University
Preparation of this article was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada doctoral and postdoctoral fellowships to Kim Bartholomew.
We thank James Fuendeling for helping to develop and conduct in- terviews and Diana Doumas, Christine Duffy, Mike Emerzian, Gail Halloway, Stephanie Kondik, and Suzanne Little for coding inter- views.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kim Bartholomew, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6.
reunion with caretakers in a structured laboratory procedure, Ainsworth identified three distinct patterns of infant attach- ment: secure, anxious-resistant, and avoidant. Children classi- fied as securely attached welcome their caretaker’s return after a separation and, if distressed, seek proximity and are readily comforted. Infants classified as anxious-resistant show ambiva- lent behavior toward caregivers and an inability to be com- forted on reunion. Infants classified as avoidant avoid proxim- ity or interaction with the caretaker on reunion. Continuity in infant attachment patterns seems to be mediated largely by continuity in the quality of primary attachment relationships (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardner, Charnov, & Estes, 1985).
According to Bowlby’s theory, children, over time, internalize experiences with caretakers in such a way that early attachment relations come to form a prototype for later relationships out- side the family. Bowlby (1973) identifies two key features of these internal representations or working models of attachment: “(a) whether or not the attachment figure is judged to be the sort of person who in general responds to calls for support and protection; [and] (b) whether or not the self is judged to be the sort of person towards whom\anyone, and the attachment fig- ure in particular, is likely to respond in a helpful way” (p. 204). The first concerns the child’s image of other people; the second concerns the child’s image of the self. Recent research has exam- ined the nature of internal working models in relation to chil- dren’s earlier attachment styles. The data show, for example, that children classified as ambivalent hold negative views of themselves, but the data are not as consistent with respect to children classified as avoidant (Cassidy, 1988; Kaplan & Main, 1985; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). A considerable body of research also links the child’s attachment style at 12 or 18 months to the child’s social and emotional adjustment through early childhood (see Bretherton, 1985).
Attachment in Adulthood
A basic principle of attachment theory is that attachment relationships continue to be important throughout the life span (Ainsworth, 1982,1989; Bowlby, 1977,1980,1982b). Although
226
ATTACHMENT STYLES 227
evidence exists documenting the continuity of attachment-re- lated behaviors (see Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Bowlby, 1973,1980; Ricks, 1985; Rutter, 1988), investigators have only recently ex- amined the relationship between working models of attach- ment and social and emotional adaptation in adults. Main has developed an Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1987; Main & Goldwyn, 1988) that explores adults* repre- sentations of childhood attachment relations. On the basis of these interviews, mothers have been classified into attachment groups that parallel the three childhood attachment patterns described above and are predictive of the quality of the mother’s interaction with her own child and the security of the child’s attachment (Crowell & Feldman, 1987; Grossmann, Fremmer- Bombik, Rudolf, & Grossmann, 1988; Main et al, 1985). Ko- bak and Sceery (1988) used this procedure to examine young adults’ self- and other-representations, providing some evidence that secure subjects view themselves as relatively undistressed and others as supportive, that dismissive (avoidant) subjects view the self as undistressed and others as unsupportive, and that preoccupied subjects (corresponding to anxious-resistant children) view the self as distressed and others as supportive. (They did not discuss a category of people who might exhibit a negative view of both the self and others.)
Hazan and Shaver (1987) conceptualized romantic love as an attachment process and developed a self-report procedure to classify adults into three categories that correspond to the three attachment styles of childhood. In contrast to Main’s proce- dure, these investigators relied on respondents’ self-reports rather than on inferences from a semi-structured interview. Their results showed that compared with the secure group, the two insecure groups reported more negative experiences and beliefs about love, had a history of shorter romantic relation- ships, and provided less favorable descriptions of their child- hood relationships with parents (see also Collins & Read, 1990). Subjects in the two insecure groups also reported more self- doubt and less acceptability to others than did those endorsing a secure self-description (see also Feeney & Noller, 1990).
These two approaches differed both in the particular attach- ment relationships focused on (parent-child versus love rela- tionships) and in the methodology used for classifying subjects (interview versus self-report). Whereas the interview method identified avoidant adults as people who denied experiencing subjective distress and downplayed the importance of attach- ment needs, the self-report method identified people who re- ported feeling subjective distress and discomfort when they be- come close to others. Thus, a single avoidant-detached category may obscure conceptually separable patterns of avoidance in adulthood. Moreover, although Bowlby (1973) suggested that working models differ in terms of images of self and others, no study has considered all four categories that are logically de- rived by combining the two levels of self-image (positive vs. negative) with the two levels of image of others (positive vs. negative). The present research examined all four of these cate- gories and assessed subjects through an interview as well as through subjects’ own self-reports.
A Model of Adult Attachment
The model of the self and the model of the other as conceptu- alized by Bowlby can be combined to describe prototy pic forms
of adult attachment (Bartholomew, 1990). If a person’s abstract image of the self is dichotomized as positive or negative (the self as worthy of love and support or not) and if the person’s ab- stracted image of the other is also dichotomized as positive or negative (other people are seen as trustworthy and available vs. unreliable and rejecting), then four combinations can be con- ceptualized. Figure 1 shows the four attachment patterns that are derived from a combination of the two dimensions. Each cell represents a theoretical ideal, or prototype (Cantor, Smith, French, & Mezzich, 1980; Horowitz, Wright, Lowenstein, & Parad, 1981; Rosen, 1978), that different people might approxi- mate to different degrees.
Cell I indicates a sense of worthiness (lovability) plus an ex- pectation that other people are generally accepting and respon- sive. Because this cell corresponds conceptually to categories that investigators call securely attached (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Main et al, 1985), we labeled it secure. Cell II indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with a positive evaluation of others. This combination of characteristics would lead the person to strive for self-acceptance by gaining the ac- ceptance of valued others. This pattern corresponds concep- tually to Hazan and Shaver’s ambivalent group (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) and to Main’s enmeshed or preoccupied with at- tachment pattern (Main et al., 1985) and is referred to as preoc- cupied. Cell III indicates a sense of unworthiness (unlovability) combined with an expectation that others will be negatively disposed (untrustworthy and rejecting). By avoiding close in- volvement with others, this style enables people to protect themselves against anticipated rejection by others. Although not explicitly discussed in previous work in adult attachment, this style may correspond in part to the avoidant style described by Hazan and Shaver (1987). We therefore labeled it fearful- avoidant. Finally, Cell IV indicates a sense of love-worthiness combined with a negative disposition toward other people. Such people protect themselves against disappointment by avoiding close relationships and maintaining a sense of inde- pendence and invulnerability. This style corresponds concep- tually to the detached or dismissing of attachment attitude de- scribed by Main et al. (1985), so we labeled it dismissive- avoidant.
The dimensions in Figure 1 can also be conceptualized in
MODEL OF SELF (Dependence)
Positive (Low)
Negative (High)
Positive (Low)
MODELOF OTHER (Avoidance)
Negative (High)
CELL I
SECURE Comfortable with
intimacy and autonomy
CELL IV
DISMISSING Dismissing of intimacy
Counter-dependent
CELL II
PREOCCUPIED Preoccupied with
relationships
CELL HI
FEARFUL Fearful of intimacy Socially avoidanl
Figure 1. Model of adult attachment.
228 KIM BARTHOLOMEW AND LEONARD M. HOROWITZ
terms of dependency on the horizontal axis and the avoidance of intimacy on the vertical axis (see labels in parentheses). De- pendency can vary from low (a positive self-regard is estab- lished internally and does not require external validation) to high (positive self-regard can only be maintained by others’ on- going acceptance). Avoidance of intimacy reflects the degree to which people avoid close contact with others as a result of their expectations of aversive consequences. The dismissing and fearful styles are alike in that both reflect the avoidance of intimacy; they differ, however, in the person’s need for others’ acceptance to maintain a positive self-regard. Similarly, the preoccupied and fearful groups are alike in that both exhibit strong dependency on others to maintain a positive self-regard, but they differ in their readiness to become involved in close relationships. Whereas the preoccupied cell implies a reaching out to others in an attempt to fulfill dependency needs, the fearful cell implies an avoidance of closeness to minimize even- tual disappointment. Therefore, cells in adjoining quadrants of Figure 1 are more similar conceptually than those in opposite quadrants.
Study 1
We administered a semi-structured interview asking subjects to describe their friendship patterns; the subjects’ responses were used to assess the degree to which each person approxi- mated each of the four styles in Figure 1. We also obtained self-report and friends’ ratings of each attachment style, so the three sources of data could be compared. Additional question- naires were administered to subjects and their friends to test hypotheses implied by the model. In particular, self-reports of self-concept, sociability, and interpersonal problems were ob- tained, and self-reports of interpersonal problems were corrob- orated by the judgments of close friends.
The study tested three specific hypotheses. First, multidi- mensional scalings of each set of ratings (by raters, subjects, and friends) were expected to reproduce the organization of Figure 1 across all three sources of data (interview, self-report, and friend-report). Second, self-concept measures were expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of the self (secure and dismissing) from those with a negative model of the self (preoc- cupied and fearful), whereas a sociability measure was expected to differentiate groups with a positive model of others (secure and preoccupied) from those with a negative model of others (fearful and dismissing). Third, the groups were expected to differ from each other in their interpersonal problems. The groups with a negative image of self (preoccupied and fearful) were expected to exhibit problems with passivity and unasserti- veness, whereas those with a negative image of others (fearful and dismissing) were expected to describe problems with socia- lizing and intimacy Problems described by the secure group were not expected to be distinctive in content,
Method
Subjects
Forty female and 37 male students from an introductory psychology class constituted the target sample. They ranged in age from 18 to 22 (M = 19.6); 67% were White, 16% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 8% Black, and
4% other. An equal number of same-sex friends constituted the friend sample. The friends’ age ranged from 18 to 23 (M = 19.8); 65% were White, 13% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 4% Black, and 5% other.
Procedure
Equal numbers of men and women were randomly selected from the subject pool and contacted by telephone. First-year undergraduate stu- dents were excluded to ensure that subjects had been at college long enough to make close friends. Potential subjects were invited to partici- pate with a friend in “a study of friendship and how well people know each other.” Friends were required to be close, same-sex, nonromantic friends whom subjects had known for at least 6 months. Subjects re- ceived course credit for participation, and their accompanying friends were paid $5.
Subjects were tested in groups of two to four friendship pairs. Sub- jects and their friends completed two sets of questionnaires, one re- questing demographic and personality information about themselves and the other asking the same questions of their partner. Instructions were given for participants to answer the second set of questions “ac- cording to your perceptions and knowledge of your friend’s character, feelings or behavior, and not according to how you think your friend may be likely to answer them.” Then each subject and friend were separated to complete the questionnaires. To avoid contrast effects, target subjects completed the self-report questionnaires first, and their friend completed the friend-report first. A second session was then scheduled for subjects to receive the interview.
Measures
Attachment interview. The first author administered a semi-struc- tured interview, which lasted approximately 60 min, to subjects in the target sample. Each interview was tape recorded. The interviewer asked subjects to describe their friendships, romantic relationships, and feelings about the importance of close relationships. If subjects had not been involved in a romantic relationship, they were asked the rea- sons. They were asked about loneliness, shyness, their degreeof trust of others, their impressions of other people’s evaluations of themselves, and their hopes for any changes in their social lives.
On the basis of the interview audio recordings, three raters indepen- dently rated each subject on four 9-point scales describing the subject’s degree of correspondence with each of the four prototypes. The raters comprised two advanced female undergraduate psychology majors and one female graduate student; they were blind to all other measures in the study. A set of criteria (available from the first author) described each prototype, and the rater was instructed to judge how well a sub- ject’s responses matched each of the prototypic descriptions. The four prototypes can be briefly summarized as follows. The secure prototype is characterized by a valuing of intimate friendships, the capacity to maintain close relationships without losing personal autonomy, and a coherence and thoughtfulness in discussing relationships and related issues. The dismissing prototype is characterized by a downplaying of the importance of close relationships, restricted emotionality, an em- phasis on independence and self-reliance, and a lack of clarity or credi- bility in discussing relationships. The preoccupiedprototype is charac- terized by an overinvolvement in close relationships, a dependence on other people’s acceptance fora sense of personal well-being, a tendency to idealize other people, and incoherence and exaggerated emotiona- lity in discussing relationships. The fearful prototype is characterized by an avoidance of close relationships because of a fear of rejection, a sense of personal insecurity, and a distrust of others. Alpha coefficients were computed to assess the reliability of the prototype ratings. The reliabilities ranged from .87 to .95. The ratings were averaged, and the highest of the four average ratings was considered to be the best-fitting
ATTACHMENT STYLES 229
category for that subject. From this procedure, 47% of the sample was classified as secure, 18% as dismissing, 14% as preoccupied, and 21 % as fearful. In addition, the raters were asked to rate each interview along 15 dimensions of relevance to adult attachment (see Appendix A for definitions of the dimensions).
Self- and friend-reports. All subjects completed demographics and friendship questionnaires, two self-concept measures, and a sociability measure. In addition, the subjects completed the Relationship Ques- tionnaire and the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems twice, once to describe themselves and once to describe their friend. The friend’s version of these questionnaires was identical to the standard self-re- port version, with the exception of wording: Instead of “I try to please other people too much,” for example, the friend’s version read “F[your friend ] tries to please other people too much.” The following question- naires were used:
1. The Demographics Questionnaire included family information (e.g., marital status of parents, number of siblings) and personal activi- ties (e.g., exercise, religious observance). Seven-point items assessed the degree of experienced depression, anxiety, and happiness (with re- versed scoring). These three items were combined into a composite measure of subjective distress ifx = .68).
2. The Friendship Questionnaire contained equivalent demographic, factual, and personal questions about the friend. One item assessed the duration of the friendship, and five items assessed the nature of the friendship (e.g., “Compared with close friendships you’ve had in the past, how close is your friendship with FT*). The latter five items were combined into a friendship closeness scale (target sample a = .80; friend sample a = .86).
3. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Inventory (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10- item scale that measures global self-esteem. A sample item is “I cer- tainly feel useless at times” (reverse scored; coefficient a = .85).
4. The Fey Self-Acceptance Scale(Fey, 1955) is a 20-item measure of self-acceptance. A representative item is “I’m pretty satisfied with the way I am” (coefficient a = .86).
5. The Sociability Scale (Cheek & Buss, 1981) is a 5-item measure that assesses the degree to which people like to socialize with others. A sample item is “I like to be with people” (self-report coefficient a = .74; friend-report coefficient = .78).
6. The Relationship Questionnaire is an adaptation of the attach- ment measure developed by Hazan and Shaver (1987). This measure consists of four short paragraphs describing the four attachment styles (see Appendix B). Each respondent is asked to make ratings on a 7- point scale of the degree to which they (or their friend) resemble each of the four styles. These ratings are referred to as the self-report and friend-report attachment ratings.
