...

·,
....
.... •
,')-. DOCUMENT RESUME,
ED 241 853- 1 , CG 017 330 J
J
...
J AtlTBOR
TiTLE
Ai:.ntsden, Gay·G.; .qreenberg, Mark T. • - The I
nveh t ory .o'f Pa.rent and' Peer A·tt achmen t: .
.. Individual Difference$ and Their Relationship to
P~ychol9gical.Well-Being in Adolescence •
, PUB DATE ( Apr.; 83 . '. · , ' . ' .
NOTE ., .
38p.1 ~aper presented at ~he Annual Mee~ing of the
·western Psychoi6gica~ As·sociation' (63rd, San
· F-rancisco, CA, April 6-10, 1~83).
~ -~OB TYPE Reports - Rese'arch/Techn ical .(143) ·-.:.. '
(. Speeches/Conference Papers (150)
.l •.
MF01/PC02 · Pl.us P'o~tage. '•
..,. El:i°RS PRICE' Adjustment (to Environment}; *Adolescents, 1Affecti~e
DE ~CR I Behavior; *Attachment $ehavior; College Students;
PTO~S · Highe> Education, Individual Differeq_fes; Life
~
.
. .,.
(" . Satisfaction; *Parent Child Relationship; *Peer

•I DENT IF
IERS·
ABSTRACT
Reiationship; Self tsteem; .*Weal Being
*Inventory of Parent a~d Peer Attachme.nt

.
-
The developITJent and validation of the rnv~nto~y of.
Paren{ and Peer Attachment~(IPPA), a\self-report instrument for use
with adolescents, is described. Item content of the instrument was
suggested by Bowlby's thtoretical formulations concernin9 the nature
of feelings toward attachment figures. A hierarchical regression.
model was employed to.investigate the association between.quality of'
attachment and ~elf-esteem, life-satisfaction and affective status.
Respondents were 89 ado~escents ranging in age fro~ 17 to 20 years.
As hypothesized, <il'perce i ved quality of parent. and peer at tachme,nts 'was
significan~ly related to psychological wel~-peing. Degree of negative
. 1 i'f e-change was i ndapende n tJ,f related to well-being. An explota t ory
cl~ssification scheme was d&vised in order to categorize respondents
·according to.the differential nature of their attachments. One secure
and two.anxious attachment gtoups were defiired and compared on a
m:unber of variables theoretically expected to distinguish the~.
Adolescents classified as securely attached were superior in
'.~...,
adjustment. "The re;ults also indicated that those adolescents
characterized !:Sy anxious parent and peer attachment were more ...
vulnerable . to the deleterious impact' of negative 1 if e-ch ange
on
well-being. The study suggests the value of ~xamining individual·
differences,~n qual~ty of attachment during adolescence, as, well as
the.timportance of ~1fe-span approaches to the study of attachment.
• (Au~hor) '"t
,, ~
1 '
.
.• <, ' "' ·:··-~
\
.~
I
'"\'
,,Jc*************************~~··i**********1'**********~****************.***
* Repr'oduct ions supplied by ED\lS ate the be st th~ t can be made . ·
*
** , · ~rom 'the or 1gin al document. . . - ..
,
 **** *********************~**It******************************** *****~****·
. '
0
.EfilC,
,m
&Fifii .g
'·'

, . -~-
....
. .._./
/ ·/.
J
r

;'.
I
~ ' I
1J"'\ J
' .
co -!
\
~
~ '
,·N •
Q
'
LL.I The .I;nv:r·;')ry. o.f Parent· and Pee r. At.:~hment: 0 Individual Differences
.: l
. ·.. ~. Pel, Thei~ Re lat.ions~; to ·/rs choiogical ~11-being.
'I
t
in A'dolesce. ce
'

\
'
\

Gay&. Armsden~·.a. nd Mark T. Gre. e. nberg'

.Department
. ', .
of Psych'~log~,,
/, I ~-
University of Washington ~." , \
\
.. '

. '
o,
..
U.S. OEPAIITMUIT EDUCATION
' NA.TIONA.l INSTITUTE EDUCATION
EOIKA. TIONAl R£SOU?.C£$ 1t.iJORMA.T10N
o, " "1'ERMISSION TO REPRODUCE r

!nwkT J:iuf,
, C£1HER < ER1C1 THIS MATERIAL HAS ]N
"/,... I"" ~.,..,..,,,,,. =
W..~ ,,pro<iuc,,d u
I . "!{~,t(j: lro,m. Ch@, Pt'Y.>in Of 0'9,lntl-ltll()()
GAANTEO 8Y ••
Qfg'd'\3t~q ,t I

M'f)(,f' (..~ h.av"t ~ m.}tje to 'ffiP'°"'~

"''"°""""" Q<>a!,ty
• P-o.nk. of v~ o, ~"°1'\1, ,hnil9'd ~ th100(:u
""'"' do not eeeesse • .>v "'!>"'"""1 off~,atNIE
0 ~taont,tp,o,,tl(:y
-TOfl)iE EOUCATIONAL RESOURCES
M
M
, .... • y

..
: JNFORMATION 4°ENTER !ERIC)."
. ..
Running Head: Attachment Du~ing Adolesceoce, ':~.!
~ . . \.. .· ' ...
0 .......... 1

(D
, !f,_, ...... ... "' - #' -. ~'Iii

is
'
. . ~ . . ·l!Ul.; 'be
c...,
Repri.nts..
·rec_weste'f from Mark ·'r: Gr..eenb~rg,
\ . . ,. . .. ·~
Authorship joint/
' ... ~. . ' ' ~-· •·
Department of Psychology )NI-25)', 'Uni:vers'tty 'o.f Washington, Seattle,
+"':. . \. . . ... . ' ..
' . .
WA 98195. ..
.·' ... . , .• .
~ 2•
. ...
" ... I. .
 .
, I

.,,.. " . .. . .
'· .,,
. . ..
.

0
(

.;- .,.;. . .:~, ·(.";"J,i.: ·•"' '

EfilC .. t
. ...
•• '
• ..... . . .
'
•
,# .: J
'l
' '
•.

•
"'
• <-
,.
,
-.
~

Attachmen.t' Durw
.
Adolescence
,. " 1
' ...
.• ...,
\

'
Abstract ·\
,
•
" .. '-
.The d~elopment and validation of the Inventory of Parent and Peer
, /,.,
Attachment (lfPA), a self-report instrument for use with adolescents,
' ...._ I
is describ~d. Item ~~ntent of the instrume~t/~ -,
suggested by Bowlby's
~
theoretical formulations CJncerning the nature of feelings toward attach-
l
ment figures. A hie~archical regression model was.employed to investigate
.the association between.Quality. of attachment ahd self-esteem, life-
satisfact:'ion and affective~tatus. ·'Respondent.s weref68 adolescents .
'<._ rangin~ in a~e from 17.. to 20 ·years. As hypothesized, perceived quality
,..
of parent and peer attachments .wa~ significantly related to psychologica~
,.
w,11-being. Degree,of negative life-change was independently rela ted "
t? well-being. An exploratory ~l assification scheme was devised.I-in orde~,
- .,,. , ) . \

. to ca,.tegorize-:1'~spond~nts ~cc~rd1~g ~o the differen,ial na~ure of their

·attachments. One secure and two ~nxious attach~ent groups were defined
·~~nd compared on a number o~ variabl~oretically expected to distingu~h
·,
them. •Adol~scents classifi~d as securely ~ttached,were superiof in ad-
'
justment. The results also·indicate that those adolescents c~aracterized

-
• • I, ~ ....

,by anxious parent and peerI .attachment were more vulnerable to the deleterious .» ' I

impact''of negative 1ife-change on- well-being. The ~tudy suggests the

•' . ,. • I •

. .. t

value of examiwing individ~al differ~nces in quality of attachment during

• ~

a~olescence, as ·Je.l'/ the imporGnce of ur.~-span approaches to the \

.,i. . ~

.
as
"
,. s'tudy of. attachment. .....
·/ .~
. ·. • •
•
 . ..
0
EfilC. ~ <:
.3 l
).•
......

\· .. Attachment During_,Adolescence
f
I 2
( + ... '

Attachment may be described ?s an e~d

. ur\ng
. .
af fectional bond ub -·
.
'
of
.A • ' ..

' .
.
. . ~

-
~tantial intensity (B6wlby, 196~, 1973). Behaviors which deveiop and
...
maintain,affectional bonds. per~~st throughout life and.are
'
activated.
.

in order-to maintain some degree or prpximity to highly discri~in~t~d

1
persons. Ac~~~ding _to Bowlby ,~ltta hment behavior functiohs pri~cipally
to protect the f'ncfi v idua] a~d· secon ariiy t.o lfa~iftat;. He
, learning,J• ,t

when
~ ""'""'" • •• •

. has ,concluded. tha,1/hu~rr ~eing~ ai:y age are--Jost well-

adjusted
. ' ,.
they h._ave confidence in the accessibility and responsiveness of a trusted
{
other. Thi: other serves as~ secip-e dase whom the individual may ~ccess,'
"r/ . .. .
-• li tera Uy or idea t iona Uy, should st r:essf u l situations arise •

. ~st researc)(carrie4 out with1n th! framework of Bowlby'a ~heory

.
•
.
has centered on the co~pe'pt of secur ty? of attachment in early cht Ldhood ,
t

~es.earch co~du' ed ~y .· Ains~or t~ and her 1: associates ( '!f:178.) has

demonstta ted tnat individual differences in attachment behaviors ip
infancy arise

most ch~rac~eristi;allt in/~tress~ul ~i~uati~ns, during whic~ "l!Aey are

,. . - . . , ' ~
.in tense ly activated: Dur tng the second y~ar of life, ''1.odi v id.ua 1 -~if fe '
rences. ., ,l.. ' • . 1
in infant-parent attachment cah be rel~ably ,1assifie~ as "secure11, "ambiv-
1
alent"1 or ·"avoid~nt" and·sh~w substantial stability in.this period
. .,,. / . \.
(A rnsworth
. . , Blehar,
\
Waters & W all; 1978;
.
Waters,'
;\
~ecurely.attached
191~).
infants
dis tres3ed.reliably
Securtty.of ~ttac~ent
. ,
. ·~
~re. soothedbe~n~~~own
sa119eek 'at.one.year.ha~
. .
by proximity
to b~ to the c9regiver.~hen
 : .~
. "' .
related to ego-strength and peer .anij soci~l competenQe in the pre-school
'!I' ,,.
years (Apend, Gove, & Sr.oufe,· 1979,. Matas.,. Arend.,,& Sroufe,_19:;"8;
-
Waters,
·-
' ,Wippman, · ~ Sroufe, 1979
v , '

. ' .
).\
1
• I "' •

,. There- ·is a grow'ing interest ia <extendi':ig the s,tupy of# attachment"

bejond ch il4hood ( Kahri~& Anton ucct~ Lerne~ & Ryff, 1978). The !
• • ~ and/o"r
0
. 1• /

1~80 ;
l,
reia ~ ionsh i'p . bet~een . ~~tent .and .quali ~y sa tis r ac\io~ wi t:h ;ocial.

,
·. of'.
• 6' ~ ' .. .. ~

,;t,.•1
'
... ...... + ... + .... ... + (

'.
•.· ~

..
,
,ft -: f
' .
Efil,m
0
I ,
.
i.
\;.
. . ...
C
&Fifii .g
4 . (
I

~·
,
""'· ittachm$nt _During Adole~cence
• .. . -,

•... 1
•

• ~
ties and physical and "psychological well-being in adulthood has been ,

well-documented ( for rev. i ew . I see Oot t Heb, . .'1'98.1 i . Muelle. r 1 1980-). In

T • '
addition, a number or st~die~ have provided support for the hypothesis (
.
that in. timate ties s~rve t9 mediate the association between stress and
~
ii

illness (Cobb·, 1976) •.. Cobb ( 19.76) has especially empnasized the id.ea .•..
Ill- 11
or, . • . I
that the buffering 1'«)le attachments is most ~rrestive during periods.

or crisis or trans it ions in rpajor 14, re-r<? Las , • Complementi ng the ev!denc e .
.
• that attachments may s~rv~ a protectfv~ rundtion are the a~le data~
., . .
suggesting that ;eparatio~ from·or loss or attachments !s ~ rf~k-factor -~
4
for later physic,a1 or mental illnefs (Henderson, 1977). Henderson "<1977)
- . . I • ·- I
-~. • l ..

has drawn on Bowlby's model or a~tachutent to hypotqesize a ~a~sal relation~

I ' '
ship between paucity ~f attachments and neurosis: .
Al:hough attachment .r"es~rch c~ncerningf ancy and• adulthood has

accumulated, the nature and fOrrelates or attachments in..adole-sc~~ e

• I ~ ... ", •. (
haye received ·rar lesS' emp iricaJ. investigation Hill, 198,0). The resent

,
research r~port s the development or a
., self-report att,achm~ instrument
 for use with adolescents and examines \he relationships between attachments
in,late'adoles~~nce and.physical ~ndtpsychological well-being.
' .
't. ! • ,..- \ I . , .
r There is evidence ?f'.a strong link between the quality or adoles-·

.. cents' intimate relation s hips'and ,, . such outcomes as self-concept,

,sycho- iogical.adjustmf!n~.and--physical health (Bachman, Kahn, Mednick,
Davidson, .
& John~ton, 1967) Coopersmith,1967; Gallagher, J976; Thomas, Gecas,
•
Weigart, & Rooney :•19711) ~ In their study or 13.I to 20 year <olsts, Burke·
•' I. ~ .. J, ...
and Weir (1978) round that those adolescents·expressing
. gleater satisfaction·
. ei~e~
with help rec ~
.
from peers, .and particularly from parents, exper ience.d
. ..
•
greater psyc~~o~ical ~el~-being. Rose~berg (1965) rep~rted a stable
r.e lati0!1,~hip througtrou t between self-esteeai,and p~rcept1on
ad!)le,scep.ce
/~ ...
0 .
Efil_C'·
. 5
 ....
'..

. v•
Attachment During A dolescence
.
...
. .. . •

.....
.. or warm relati9nshi6s w~th parents.
...
,
Warm and autonomous relations ~ith
.. ,
parents has been round to be associated with higper stages
. . .
or
.
ego-identity
(Marcia, 1980). Affec t'iona~ ~deqU fica tion and intimacy of communtcation
. ~ .
>

\ . ) "" .
111wit~ parents depre~ses the li~elibood:or delinquent behavior (Hirschi,
.
... 1969) • ..._There r.emains co~iderable cont_.i;oversy, however, about the
.
or
•• . ..
~tive importance relati onsqips with pare~ts and peers during this
J
• I/ .. . ~ . .... . "'
perio~ of •separati-6n-indiv iduat ion and <,
achievementor aut.or.omy- •

·Following Bowlby's attachment theory, Gr~enberg and his colleagues

( N~te l) have developed a measure or .a r rec ti ve at'tacrnt of adorescents '.

~ . .... .. . . .

t"
toward th-ei~ parents
. . . • .,.
and peers•. Their findings . th at adol. es. cents' attach-
r
. ,.
.aen'ts to both parents anti pser-s were related to self-e~teem and life ,
s~tisfaction confirm.the crucial role
or -
-~ ,t •

attachments in psychological
. -r
weil-bein,gf' While 'G~~e~ber.g' s meas~re provj,,d°~a greate./ operational

.
},
A ..
'
clarity as to the natur~
,...., .. or attachment .
in ~doiescenc~, because the arrec ~ive.,

! "
\
.
dimension w~s unifactorial it was npt possible to explo~e indfvidual ),
.....
I,,
., .; •
11 rserertcc:::, Jti~ present 1'1 • I
stu ~y aime~ to ( 1) deve_lor a rnore reliable

.. ( .,.
~easure or attachment that is multifactorial,.and
.. I
(2) attempt to us~
I ,ill I, I
J
I
thfs ~ea1~re t~ categ~~ize,adolescents by ;he differential nature of I

'
,~eir attijchmen~~ iJ a manner i$omorphic to that ar·Ainsworth's t1pol~g~
~ , (A1n~worth J!l., 1978).

~. In a~colqce ~ith the ethologi~~J-organizationai ~i~or attachment

.., • t ~ ,.

'
t
·• (.Bowlby-, 1973; Srour~&, Waters, 1978), the tallowing hypotheses were
• I
.· ".
, . to rmi.i la tk'd , First , the 'a f rec tiv e quality of attachment to Peren_t>s and ,
' . . . .
.·. • pee~~~ "'~'.'11-d be· related to~sures of _well-being. . In onder to. test th is'
. .):' . '
', a .hi~rarchical regress ion model. was employed, using a linear attachm,ent

SC ore.' '. Th~ ~~cond·hypo:~ es i.:,. wa: that adoIejscen t~ 'with q.iali t~,t. i ve
ly \
'" . •·
I J •
diffe·r.ent attachments to pareots and peers 'would differ in proximity- •
. ..
'
, . \" . ... ~ .
0 .
. : .
.· EfilC
I ,m : •
... t.' .

. . ..
&Fi f ii .g
t 6
I l
' '
• ..... '. ~ • ,
. .'
 ...
" I ..
Attachment During Adolescence
'·
t
l
. '\.. 5

seeking -:and th well-being. Third, the aasoc Iat Ions between negative

.
J ' '!
l1fe~change
..
and.ph.
ysical and psych9logjcal symptomatologi. ~s would be·

weaker for. that gro~p of adoles~ ents c lassified

, . . secur~ly attached.
..
as.

. . . '.
.-
\
• 1 . . . ,,, .
In. order to test~he last two hypotheses, .a,tachment ©rOupswere defined
• J • •
~ / .
\
according...to-a set of dedision rules·regarding
. . the.inter-relati9nships,
; ·. /

.
\
among su~scores obta;ned on the attac~men~ measure.
~· :

• I

Method ·. .,
;.
Sample' /

,. ~· . . , I
.-
Subjects were 33 IClale and 55 fema~e underg.tJduate !tudents at the
\
Univ.e rs ity of Washingt~~ w.ho w;.re· ~.nr~lled i11_ d~partment~:l.fQurses and
- ' .
I

~olu ~tar i ly 'part ic:i.pated · ,in re~earc~· "f~r /~ddi tiona! · c re.cl i tt Subjects·
.. • 11,. ... ,

ranged in age from 17 ,o 20... years, 11fth s ~ean age of 18.6 years. . '-Ove~
.
.
~
I •
~ .
80% .were Caucasian i approximately .1 SJ we-re 'A°s ian or A.sian-Amerioan.
' // ,. \

.. se_venty.. tb(ee reported havtng ·li~1.t h bi4i, paren~s ~~

'
0

. .
of th.eir., l~vQs;
of the remaining 15, a 11 9ut .one su,t:iject had li v~:i '~i th their mot.her-s', '
..l /. .. .

,!.}
A'll subjeots had lne or more~ siblings:
. .
sample 'Were l~ving/(~a_Y fr;o~ home at the. time of d~ta c~!,lec t:on'.
~ .
Near'ly thr-ee-quar ter-s of. the
~ •""
0
.... .· . '

. I " / • -. • •.

Procedure -· '(' .
Subject completed all. questionnai.re~, .in one se'ssion. · Data·~er.e
·.,,,
collect.pd '
s,ing the following measur-es.
•. • .. V\ •
...
•.
~

,,
..Wel B~i,ng•. lhe. t'e..nnr~e s'e~f-c~n~ept ~care. ~Fi tt:~, : 1965).. This
c
·4
. .
I ) ,; • • ,,..

olle9tion of ,. ab s~elf descriptive statements with a £ive-

"'~"" • .. (\ • •·. • I
scale'fo~ rating the subjective, verity of each stat~ment.
)

.
I :.~ ~ ,_,,,,

A t tal S.elf-Esteem_ Score, cal curated f rom 90-items·, assess es overall·

.
. . . ,..
.
 . . . ) ' ' . '. : ' ~ . . r
S~ o re s comp ute from· su bs e~ ~ .of t~es ~

r '
d
' ~ ' ' . \·
it ems~ pr~id e

. /',; .~ . " I

'7·
' .
 If . . .
• J,1
Attachment During AdoLe'scence
r

••

'
6

•• ·self-concept subscales for more limited domainsj

• •
,
Ln this study th.e Family
t- • .. •
Self and Sociil Self s~scalt~ we<"l(ltilized. The Total Conflict score
• i.-' . • - ) ,
provided.a measure of the extent or· confusion or contradiction in self-

- J
. perception, The Sel f•Criticism scare, consisting of 1~ items, 1:a~en from

th~ MMP! L·Scale, was used to ob~ain a measure of the capacity.(or oritlcal
... self-eval u ation (high or alternatively; or the tendency for .
scores)
., . ~

defensive, more s&cially de$irable responding (low scores}~ The high·

test-retest reliabilities of 'the majo~ TSCS scales (coefficients are

~
typically in the m1d-801s)1 the hiifh con$truct validltY1 and. the sim~larity
,. \

of profile patt~rni obtained as long as a year apart support the use

or the ISCS as a trait ~eafure (Bentler, ]972).

.,
.A single, global que~.assessed life-sa tisfact Lori, Each
subject
I j '
was asked to indicate whether she/he was very dissatisfied (scored as

1)1 a little diss~tisf~d, neitner sati~ed nor dissatisfied, well ,

c
satisfied, or completely satisfied (scored as 5) with her/his life in
gener~l. In a study or ·late two-week'test-retest reliability
.
adolesc.e.,n,,,ys,

of this mea3ur~ was .81 (Greenberg, Note.2}. ~

Affect iV<i St,itu~. Elev(!n eca Ies assessing dtmens Lons or emot ional

~t~tus wer~ se~ted from B~nhman'~ (1970} Affective Stat~s. Ind,~x, which "
,
wa\ constructed t;,r use with adolescents. As part Qf the present study'f

,~s\Jlts were fac toi- analyzed and f~ur. scale~ were derived from the original
... ~
0

'

• , . 11: Depression/ Anxiety ( 21 i temsj

'
alpha :: • 95) , Irr! tabili ty/ Anger
. ,
( 1 J items alpha= .89), Resentment/Alietlation
• A
(9 items; alpha = .88}
j
, ~
and Guilt (2 'iterne; • alpha -= .83). ',Sqale ranged from·
intercorrelations
.~fto .80. r'.

Physical Health St atus.

•
Th; health questionnaire inyentorie ,d. 68
 common physical symptom~ or group s of two or three related symp~oms •
t

- s·
~.

•
'
'
.. .·
. . -·
• . ,.
Attachment Ddring·Adolescence

, ·; ., ' .7
. • 4
1Lev tfote1 3) • lf'robl ~s' cons i-der~d to· ibe · ty.Pic~.lly ps\rchosollia ~ic.
Lne ,
in nature were included ,(e.g. trouble sJeeping) tremblini, sexual prbblem~).
, ~ \
.subj~c'f indic~ed symptoms were a·p:roblem for them, either cµrrently .
·which '' (.
or in the past year. ' I - -
Family 'characte~lstics~ .
The F, aitnlY Envir.onrftent Scale (FE$) profiles

'the·social cl~mate of an individual's {arnily (Moo~, 197~). The items

a~e ~rouped into 10 subscal es, ix subscales, consisting of nine items • ,
" ,/ ... ~
each, were examined; Cohesion, Sxpressiveness,·Conflict, Organization,
. 4 .
·control, and lndependenQe. The first three of these oharacteristfcs
I

are conceptualiz:d as. relations~;.£. dirn~nsions assesstng feelings of _

belonging and perc.eptrons of the extent of mutual support, openness an9,
confl_ict in family( members',interactions. Organization and Control scores~
.
• ,..., J'"'5

are intended to reflect. dimensions related tq mainte~ance ·or the family

'the
as a system, i.e. degree o~ s tructu~e.and contr ol
. - by members
. ,,.
imposed
.
!.vi-.
'
vis eac~~ other·, , The Ind e pendence subs.cale, one 'ol(DJssio.n ~f per-
' ' . .. ,

.
sonal'development, -measures enco~rageme~t·of autonomy and o~ the developm&nt
' ~ ,·
of individaal interests. Discussiqrr of tBe ~ onceptualization.of social -
milieus according to three. se.ts ~,f· di~~ns~- presen.tatio~ of ~relim---~·
'
,• .; • I / •

inar,y data concerning the F~~\<1nay be found in Moos (197~). •

. . . /
•
. ~tressful Life Events.

McC:ut'cheon, 1980) was tailor~d

. The Life Events Checklist (Johnson and

from. the L:lf.E: Events Survey .(sarason, ......

-Johnson, & Siegel, 1178) for use with a~olesce~t samples. Resp~ndents·

are asked t~~nd;oatd which of ~7 li?ted}e~ents ~curr~d /n the p~~t

year and to rate each event•~ type of impact. (positive or ne,ga-1'1.ve) and ..
. .(3)), .,
L /
\ \ .,
. degree of tmpact (no (O), some, moderate, or great bife-Change

~ scores are c1al~ul~eq. by summing impact. ra't.ings separately for positive

 j •

'' '
EfilC . '
\
1 .. !
9
• v .
••
.
'
. .
,Atta~Hment ~uring Adolescence
.
8
•

J -, and negativ.e .evers. This\:rovision. of positive and negat_i_v~ ~CO[es

._ I ~ ,... •

is a methodological acknowledgment of indications that only subjectively"

• • • 1 ... •

.
',
l. ~eg_ative events are r~l ated to.,.psycholog_ic~l and, physicalhealth status
• •, i; adol e scent s ( Sarason ,tl al.~. 1978). :Brand. clnd (1982). repo rt . '
.
• I
Johnso~
\ .66
two-week test~r~t~t reliabi~ity.of ,71 for ~ositive events and for
\ negative event~.
·• P r oximity- Two typ~s of measures provided informa~n ~bout
,. ..
seeking,
se~f-reported beh~vtor in situation~ ~her~ a desire to seek out othe rs '
' . '-~ (partic.ul<)[lY .s\gn.ificant ~thers). ~ou~d expected. First, -the °F.1\nily'
be
1

and Peer Utiliza tion 'Fac; ors from the Inventory of 'A. dot~sce~t Attachments
• • I •

(Greenberg, Not e 2) was used ~o a~ess how frequently (nfver, sometimes,

.
··) ... / ..
often) subjects. ~nt; to talk With family membens and friends in' five
~
situations. ·The si tuat'ibrrs sele ct~dwere when feeling lonely, depr~ssed1
• • A .. t ~ ...

\
angry, anxroue or happy', Scale s,core!J consist,ed of thi sum er the· .f~e-
.....
quencie~ with wh ich th~.i. n di.. .vidual went to any one of or group of the
. "' ,
' .

'
'attactdoent figuris int~ five situations •. Four Utilizatio~ ~ales we~
•
examinea: ~other, Father t Famqy ..(. parents and siblings) .and Peer. (' nJale

· ,. .
' • . I
• and fell!,3.fe frie n ds. plus s t eady boy o r gi[I friend), .A sec~nd measure
. '
asse!s.ed the frequ~cy of proxil)1ity-:.seeking in bo_th .( 1) everyday., annpying
.. I .., 0 • .. •

situations and· (2) {DOre co~plicated1 up.setting situat1.ons. A five-point

.;

.
· l ikert scale w~as . µs. ed . for each type of 41 1 never,share my · )
., . ,
situation.

•:1 always
. ' .
concerns with ·ot.he'rs" wa3 scored as 1 while s~are my concerns ' ' ...
with others~ was scor'ed as 5, Subjects we~e also asked to indicate their
;- -
(rattter than actual) frequency ~t sharing concerns in·both types
. .

'
~esir'ed
\ ~
of situa.~ions • .' : ( · · I
,,
.
1

Affec;ive Quality of Attachment. The i~ve~tory of ,Parent and Peer

 A.ttachmen (IPPJf') consists of.31
~~nt items and 29 p~er items .~ . The. •
t.
~
0
EfilC 1' 10 )., \

. '
.. . \.
(

... ,
• Attqchment During Adolescence •
.. .
' \
I

,~i ' I
9
' r -/
palrent and peer items are sep~Pateiy gro~ped into three scales entitle~~
Trust, Communication, and Alienatio~. Subjects"indicate ~ow often·each
•. '

,.
is true for ttiem ori a f i V»i-p'e>irtt likert sea l'e with. r e"'sponse
O

statement
I

A.fways or Alway§.. Th6

,

.
two .e. x. tre me r-esponses a re scored as l or 5, depending·:
categories co~sisting or Ne~er, Seldom, So~etimes, Often, ~nd Almo$t ...
. . . \·
' . .
..
,

on whether an} i te~ is positively or riegativel,Y wol:.ded.

' • . f (. <;
T he~IPPA was developed fro~ an orig inal p ool o f
' .. . ' 77t,it·.ems. Iteml

coqt.ent was sugg~ted by. B~wlbf a theoret"ic~l .ro'rmul~tions ( 1969; " 1 3)

I

,
• and pe_er class ificqtions
..
~concerning the h ature or feelings
.
to\fard attachment
'
fjgul"'ts'. . Both plN'e~t
/ J. I .,.
pf' assess re~li6gs or mutual trust, un1er-
•items ,. ~
v ' .
Standing and r~spect, the acce~sibility, r~spon~tvity: ~nd predi~tability
(

. ' .
,, .
\

I • or pa~ents/peers and ~pnsistency ?r parents1/peers' expectations. Also r

.If '
assessed are experiences' or - isolatip. n, anger, resentment and
\ • anxiety,.
• detachmeAt ~!vis par.ents/peer~. Respqnses obtai~d fro~ tile present,
/ .
Sdmple were factor an~lyzed using the Va~max rotati-on.~ !he or1gindl,
.• \) 'y
45 parenLand 32 peer items wePe. separately analyzed •. For the parent., {

mea~ur~e1ght ract~r; emer~ed-~ith.e~g~nvaiues~r~ater than_ 1. The •

first three toget~er accounted for 66J or '
the total variance and were ,~

round to have rea~ily interpretabie.~att~rns or ralstor·l~di.ngs. The

firS; factor, moderatel~ bipolar (loadings 'rar1ged' f~Om

> I
-:s2 to +.78') I
....
'
.
• • • sugges tedth~meS "of:. parental Understanding ;nd respect I and IOUttla). t ruat .
.
1The second factor 'was also bipolar (loadings, .
ranged ' from -,61 to +.79) t •
f . ..., .
with highest saturations for items related to the. extent and quality
 i. • /
of verbal communication with parents. Item~ loading highly on the third
..,.
'
factor.suggested e~otional and behaviojal withdrawal from parenfs due., .
~'- . .. .
.
"'
t~ dis.satisfacUion with their help. • For the peer 'llleasure, five facto rs

. emerged witrr eigenvalues.greater, than 1. The first three accounted for,• •

,' .. .
.~
..
\
...
..
..
\

~ 11 · .
 ..
Attachment During Adolescence
.,.
. '·
. 10
,
.,.·,- 6q~ ot' th.3 t.ot.a l ~aria nee and were readily in terp re tab.le. Item conte.n t

~ the .f.irs r fa ~~~r suggested communicati?n, as in ,the, second parent

..... factor. The second peer factor; wa s weakly bipoiar (loadings fro!L-;37
. . .....
-
to +,68) with ~igh lo~dings t'or items assess mutual trust and respecv.)...
.
,
ing
Facto; Ill "luggested alienati9n t'riends-~ut ~~th the wish to be
from
I,
closer to them. -
~ .
. :·r4i~f na~../ scares- were created...,!rom the six t'~ct or-s , by ~el~cting ..
and summing items with loadings 9t'_ ,30 or gr~~t~r. ( 1i'·~ign.it'ic~rnc~ leveJ,.).
Stxty-t'ive items satisfied this criterion on'at least onr--J:actor. In
.. I ..
a final item-selec~ion step, items were removed
\,
if the.ir inclution in
· a scale r~duc,ed' its internal consistency (Cro~bach's Alpt.iai. The three ' . ...
fiQa1 parent scalet are: 'frust. (lll items;
•
a lpha= .91},Commu~ication
•

'j (•12
•
1te"ms; alpha : .89), and Ali~naiion (5. item~; alpha = . 73) .. T~e·
}
\
fipa~ peer ~o.ale~ are: Commu~ication (12 ite'ms; alpha= .~8j, Trust
I fl". • • ii ..
{10 ·itellls; atpha·: ·,8,3), an., d Alienation (7 items; alpha~ ,.73)-... Exam-

... inat i.on or the r anges ot' scor-es r-evea'red ·that at least
' .
65J ·and on rtlw-.. ,-
.. , • , t
'
O
.
- ...
I
I bya ver.age 7 3'-' of. the poss Ib l e scor~-r:an&e::i on these scares. w11re utilized
·
.
~ • ,I. • • • • l I ~ I • • •

the
~
sample, sugg~sting acceptable differentiation
. ot' ~subjects. .. ..
Results · '
. ,

Scores on all m. eas.ur-es were examined t'or sex differences. ,

Females
scored 'signi Ci~an~ly higher_ on Peer At ta~_pt (~ 1;_211). = 18 ,,9, £ ~- .OOQl),
· Mother Utilizati~n· .(F(l ,85} t "13 .O, .e#~t), and- Parent Util1z~t1on
(F(l,80): ll,25, 2 < ,05). In addition,
*.. ~ #' t ~
females reported more Qegative
• '·
.
cll~~ge (FC.1,85) ~·7,7,'_e <~0.1) and were.less consistent than males
,. li;e
, "'. , , . .
in their concepts of them&elves (TSCS Tota;!. Conflict scores; ~F(l,8~_)
:"
.cn ,·
;~(' ,
= 6,9 ,. £ < ;~As 91lJ of the sample were between 18 and 19 years of·
.,.,. ill, , ,•

. .
.

". •
 •
I • age, ~agetlfi.t't'e~ences.were not -ex amined. 'Ill

.'
\ '
" ~· , • t .,.
t,

12 .,
0
EfilC '• --../,

•'
......
-------....,.....-----------=-----.-----------:;:----------- --- .. ·~
. ,
f
,. 'Attachment During fltoiescence
• .....
~
11
. 'c
Tabl e
.. 1 presenl~ the Pears on 4orrelati~ns between ~he ~ix ~arent
. . _. j

and pe~

all intercorrelations
scales. With one e x c e ption

were significant
, .. , , at the
'··
(P~rent Trust with Peer CommuniC'ation)

5%.significance
.
level or . ,
. ' '. \
less •. Parent scales were.more highly related toioieach oth~r than ••
\'
.........
-
they
,
. ~- ..
were t""o · ttte-.peerf. T~ust and Commu. nicati....dn scores w. ere moderately ·
scale;. . J

. .
""> .• ..
co,rrelate fo r both~pa rent ( • 68) and peer (.65) measures. C.Orr,e.s- ·
d ."" -
. rt
.
p~nding Parent ind Peer s~ales did n.,t"'app~ar to be strongly_related;
. ,.. ~ .. ~
..
' '

' - ' . .,.

"
\ . .. .
the coefficient obtai.ned for ~he. Trust ~cales wa, .22, f~r t.l'le Communic),tion
scales,l, .34; apd for the Alien. at.,ion scales, ;39.
A summary score or quality of attach ment was separa-
. ~ definJa
. .( -·.
"'"'..,

t~ly~
for parents and peers as ~he,degree of trust ani ~ommunicatlo~relative
• ./ ·~ ,
.. -"
to alienation. This summary soore was necessary for regression ana'lysi.s,'
.
due to the nigh inter~orrelations among subscales. Par-eat a~d Pee~
/ 'r, ~
Attachment sco~es for each individual were computed by sur1i111Jng T~ st'
..
• .
'" "l\l ~ J
\, '

'> ~cor:es and su9tracting, ~rom this sum th~ .Alienation

and Commwnication raw ,.
(

, raw SCO('e. Parent Attachmen.t scores r3;nged" fr~m ~.1 to 125 '(X =~ 88 • 9,
...> • ' ' • l , • ~\ I •

SD= 11.3). The score range.. for Peer Att-a..chmeht was 32 fo 102 (X:71.l, •
~ • • 't • 4 \' "' 1. •

,SD = 11.9). F'-or a s eparate sample 27 18- il yea r-olds ·(fflean age'=
> . ' .
of
',; .
t • • - ~ - . • ., • .... ' ..

·· ·· 20.1), three-week test-retest reHabilities ·were .9~ for• the Par~nt

~ ... • . • ... ~ 1

!'- ,: · ·.
Attach ment measure- .. 86 foe th e Pe~~ ,.Attachment measure •
...
..md . . : .
·:
 ;. '.- . . ; - ,'' .. ' ' . . .,.
-:· •.. .., , , _. : .. · 'It,l~ quality. of p~~entLand peer at~ac~ents wa~ expect~d to be related
.,. • \ \- ,_ - • . • . • "" , • • • J •

" ' ~ ,
ly. char-aet.er-tat
,. family .
... -r....~

.
,-1.~ • f-
am.. 1
~

,
'

\
\ "

Ica,
~
percept Ion s of oneself as
'
. memb.er ..aty:t
'\

· -:./
~ '\

~
' -soc'la;l.. bei_ng, ,a,nd treq~ncy.· of .seeking out s1:_,gnif~'cant o ther s tn

"[ 'I- ~).

times
lo t : ·.:> •• ~ .. 't ..
...
of need , · t1'hereforef' data from the FES, 'TSCS, .and family and friend
...
'Utilizatiop·F~ators
\
'' ~
,}
' ..

. ... ' .
were used to eval~at< the aonver~~n; validity of
,J"

. -
the IPPA'.) .A/ea~.' b~ seen in TabU 2, Par'ent Att~~ent scores corr~lated·
;
.

.'0
.. T ;...., ~ • i, I

\
. '
... .·
. . )
••
·\ . ~ \
,• I

'

,
 • \
-,
~
. r.
Attacrutent During Adole-scenpe
\

' • . ,
12
\
significantly with rive of the six indices of family climate. · Highest
\' .
cor;elation coefficients we're obtained fQ~ the FES Cohesion a~d Expres-
... . . • • I •
I
.. si ven ess sea les (. 56 'and • 5'3/, r,esp~cti vel}'._j :E, <.001) • Family se lf-conc;p.t,
as measured by
. .""
the TSCS, appeared•to be strongly associated with parent

attachment(~= .77).
.. , "
Consistent with theoretical expectations, parent
' \. . '. t .
J
' ... ' ,
attachment moderately correlated with seeking out par~ts in times of

,nee~
,·
' .
Peer Attach{nent scores correlated best with TSCS Social ~elf-CQn~
I

( r :: 157, £ <.00 l) •
' '-0
Peer attachment on the whole wa$ not related to
• I

the measures of family envJro nment.

. ~elations between peer attachment
. and peer utilization measures· were significant but weaker than those
(

between car resp~nd ing parent measures. ''Furthermore, peer a t,tachme n t .t

r ... .I >
was equally ~elated to parent. and peer Utilization Factors. Ne~ther
Parent nor Peer Attachment scores were significantly £Qrrelated with
I
TSC$ Self-Criticism Scores.

In order to test the relationshiP. of quality of attachme nts to

. "•
me~sJres of psychological status, hierarchical multiple.regres~ion analyses~
:f'
l
" ..
were perf'ormed
,
The criterion variables examined • were two weJl-being .. 1'
(T'otal Self-Esteem and Life-Satisfaction) and four indices of
..
,0.. 1:1:Jr~:s
.. • af feet i.ve st~tus ~ D~pres: ion/ Anx i_;ty, Res:n tment/Al(nat ion,· Irr~tab"i"f:
.' . ity/~fl.er.!.-~~ 5uilt). Sex and positive and~n~gative'life-change· were
~entered,as
' ..
covariates, followed by inclusion of" the attachment v~riables.
•
The intercorrelations of•the predictor variab~es, exclu~ing sex, are .
. .
'

Parent Attachment was entered after.Peer Attachment, thus biasing against

.
In consideration of the predic tors' multicollinearity,
. .
I
I
its presumed·grea'i-er explanatory power.

. EfilC
f
,,..,,. .
.. 14 ·.
..
,.
.. +-; ;
 f
,
...-----------,.. .----.-------~-----,---------~--
--

" Attachment During Adolescence

t,

... . )
13
•
>" • T~ble 4 presents the results o~.ath~. m~iple regression .ana
lyses
'for the welN.being measur-ea. · _The var~te;i _accounted for j~J of th~

total varia~ in Self-Esteem scores and 5·. qJ of th~ vari;nc~·i. n tife- ...
'•
~sfaction~scores. P°'iti~e and negati~e llfe-ch~nge and ~eer and '

Parent Attachment all significantly predictdd both self-~steem and life-

·• ..
\

satisfaction. Life~change scores account~d for 2lj of the variance

tn Self-Esteem scores and 31J.of the va ria nce ln Life-Satisfacti on
t . . . \..
~res.

' Peer Attachmen,t -appear-ed to be' more h.ighly related to· self-estee.m than
' . ~ .
,
to life-satisfaction,
tively, in these me?sur~s.
accounting for \9J and 6J of the v~rian ce$, respec-
~
Parent Attachment was .highly significantly.
, . . "

' ,
r\lated· · to both well-being m~~sures, even thoogp :estimation of ~; ts con-~ · _
'
tr\buti~n was.biased against by ~ts late entry in~o t~e multiple regression ~
Self-° Esteem and
.. \ -
eiita!1on .. · E1~teen ~ercent and 11i or the ·variances
\.
1n
~ ....
.

• "' '
I.ire-Satisfaction, ~ respectively, . were accounted for by Pa.rent., Attachmen.t
"*. .
scores •• The cont r ibutjon of' sex was non-significant for both" w~ll-;being .

cri'terion me asures'"'•.
• I,
. ~ :- . "

~ '
The rl:!sul of the ,mu~tiple regression analys;s for the affecti~e-
ts ,-

·s,tatus measures
e presented ~ Tab le
5.,
Toge~her, the covariates ..
e
.. ac c oun.t ed for be
. e~ 15 and.2~i o; the tota' fariance 1~ affective
status
~

.
•
, S'C . ores Similgtr, to .the· ~es(:ll ts , for the welJ.-being criterion
measures, •
. ...
111,.
IJ •
:t • '-
II'!
~
I
'"
r

the predictor~ aecqant!d for 115% and ,116% of .the total var-ranees tn Dep~ession/~ ·
~-
An~iety and Refse~ tmen_t/ AH en~ t Ion , respect! vely. ...,Po.sitiye and hegati ve

'i>- \
•
. •
.
life-change ans:) Pe~r and Parent A.ttach6Jen.t all signif i'Cantly p.redic1.ed
. .
.,

. scores o.n these two affective-status- measi. Jr'es: On the average, Peer .
1•

'It . ..
. «
.,

. IAt..t.achment account·ed'
~ ror-' ' about 10% of . the total variance -tn scores on
• 'aftec~ive~status m easures. Pare. nt Attachment
.
accounte. a for an additional .
 10J of the varianc~ "fn both Depression/An~iety"and)l~pentmenJ/Alien~on.
"#' .. ~-

c »
\ ,.
0 ~. .
~EfilC
&Fifii .g ,m
'•
.
' ..... i : ·· . . '
• ' i..~ "' : l - ..
.
... -,.1

• . • J, "' ;;.
t o -("o.v-.. .+ • . ;

r'
' .. • "t

,. A~taph~ent During Ado~escence

.. ... -·. .
.•
• ¢
.
.
)
1·
• 14;
~ .. ,...
\
'.... - 1
• "lr,t i, I • • .. #'

scores • Ho.we~~r,)Parent AtJach,ept

. . ac~ounted
s:
. I. . ._.:- . . . . and Guilt scor,es. A's for the
.
• • • I

the ~ariance i11,the· Irr ftab!lj. ty(Anget' 1

,:, ~ . . ~ sex. .
. ~

well-bei_n& measures
Q.
~

I
~
affective
#'

status
..

was not p retlicted by

I ~, "" ,... " t t J,, "• ..,)-~ • :J f
'·. •.. ~-.~ . Su~i::~_in! the_ mult.~ple regt'es~ion. analyses, with the aP.preciable .
''- • • !., • • • • ,
... ,· ~itapa6t or. .11r:e~"'f hange
I

. . .cont ro 11el,
. . ta rent and P,e r At ta chment together . ,

.. ~!:account:~~ _ro~ 371,.··o_r -~he va'rian.ce in Self-Es-teem and 2-31,. of the var-Lance . \
'in
', :· l.
.. . L~fe-Sa.,tisfaction scores. Parent and Peer, Attachm~nt together also

.\
- .
· .... ccnt r-jbut ed to betwee n 10- and ercent of the ·exp_lained variance. in
.
23

~ '" a?q{ctive-status mea~ure;. T~e Attachment' variables accou ~ted 'best aQ d

0

t .,. . • . '!. . .
• • 1' ' '
approximately ~qu~lly fop the variances in Depression/Anxiety and Res!nt-
• • A
ment'!Alien;ation scores.· Parent Attachment did not, however, p redict
t
l~r1tability/Anger1 or Guilt. Wh~n in subsequent analyses th\s variable
. • • • • •

,
was entered prior to Peer Attachment I i t·s contribution was m.1rginally

= =
... ¥ • ' - • •

~gniftcant (F 2;71 £ .10)1 accounting~for 31,. of the total variance

... . "
in lrritc1bi I •,1 ty/~.score;3.

tl il·, ' '

..
· Us1tngas a' guide Ainsworth 's {Ainsworth 1978 ) classHicatidQ
j

of. i~dividu~l :ifferences, a~ exploratoty categorizat\on o! subjects

., was made ~~cording to the differential

I ' ., •1 ~ ""
nature of their attachments •
. •
. ; .... ...
'
" raw-~ core distribution '
Paren~ Attachment and _p~er attachment were considered
of each IPPA aubscale~ (Trust,
separately~ The
Corruaunication,

'
.
. AlJe~ation) 'wa:3 ,?ivided into lowest,
, rI
middle and highes~ third.
. Each

su~ject was th_en assigned a converted score 9f l {low)., 2 (medium) <?r

,.
J ..,, ,..

~ i;'high). for each \Ubscale. A set of logical rules defined attachment

4
group_assignment.
-,.
. ( 1) lndiv1dual$ to Secure group if their A)'i.enation
 . seer-es were not high,
,•, -
and if either or
c
their Trust
•
or Communication
•

~ • .
'
'. 4' .
.:"Efilc,m -. 16
&Fifii .g ·- . .
. . . '

•
•• . Attachment During Adolescince

- .
..
. . ,, .. 1 .·~i
I
, ..
....:.~ •

".. ~
t f ./
~:
l'5 ,

Scores was hlgh (i.e.~ 3) and. the .otber was.)aed ium (Le~,
... ..-1 I
2), '
. Ir Trust and!Communication were both poly ~edium level b~t
• - • I" • ( I I (

~lienat ion was low, Secure ,group pla~)':men·t )las.· also Ilia.de.
(2) ··lr:idividuais were assigne.d to the Ambivalent group if their 'trust
. ,.
•"
· an'd Communica tiQ.n i'cores were 011 the ave rage m~di;Jm
. .
level,a,nd

H the.ir. Al:ie nati.on score s we re not: low.

. : . )
, r» Individuals were assigned
..
to
~
.the
.. f
Avoiddnt group if their Xrust
•
\ .
and Coriiinunication scores were both low and if their Alienation:
"' . ' .
L saor es were m~ium or high !evel.

.
(4) In.' cases ~here the Trust .or Communication score was medium level
.
but. the .other.,. was··10W1"; Avoidant
.
group p.l,acement was made if
• i • • '
j
the .Alienatiqn scor~ w~s high; ~r·t~~enation score was·
mediq~, ~owever, such.individuals were assl.&r!ed to the Amb1valeot
group. I
.. . :- . I
Some s.ubje~ts could not be·c1,s~ified using this scheme and had
J • I
to be excluded from the analyses or attachment-group differences. Six

subjec6s could not"be assigned to any or the parent'attachment groups

'
and. l5 could .no t .be placed in any or the peer groups.
. '
Only one subject
'was undlassifia~T"e._ ror both types or groups. Two unclassifiable pabterns
'
or converted scores were evident: (1) Aigh Alienatipn but on the average
1'

higher tha~ medium level of Trust and Communication and (2) Low Alienation
•
but .,on the average~lbwer than ilfodium level of Trust and Gommunicat ion.

The'composition • ~Y sex'or ·eaeh of the three Parent A ttachment

. "g'· r·6'*u'•ps
·" and three Peer
.
.
Attachment groups is shown in Table 6.
.
Chi-Square test~ ..
.... .
.
 fndicated that the sex differences in the peer group distribution were.

.
s ignt fi_ca~t. ( x2 ( 2) = 12 .85, .e «, O 1-),
.
wherea.s lhos e 1n the parent group ..
• • 2
distribution were not iX (2) = 4.49). Thirty-eight percent or t~e Cemales

1Efi lC
0
I, •
,.
.
,m
- &Fifii .g
. ... -- -- - ----..-.-
-·
-

....~ .. f ·.
,. Aita~h~errt During Adolesce6~e
~6·. _,
I
I /
' ,.
and only 9J of' the males ere ass
..
igned' t o- the· Seq1:1.re- peer: group, whi're · )
I -. ' f .- -.. '
~2% of the males and only 15% of the f'e~ales ~~re classifie~ io th~·
'
Avoidant peer group;
~
In onder to exam.ine the val:idi ty of.' assign in..~, adol escent.s to- d if-
..
.- • •

-r • . .. .
ferentially defined attachment groups,' .t?e par-ent a.nd peer classifJca~ion
.. , ~oups w;~~ separately compared on ~Jtriables theoreticai.~y expect ed to
f • '
dist~i. ng'uish Usi~g separate on~-~~ ANOVA'spfor \arent and peet
them..

.
( classifications,. the _secure (S), group and. th~ two •ian~ou_s", groups,
Ambfvalent (Am) ~nd Av oidant (Av), were tested for differences in
,
.
self'- .
e'steem, life-s;·tisfactio'n, affective status, proximity-seeking, and

desree of confusion or contradiction in self~concepts. ~ series of

Scheffe's tests for post-hoc comparisons of means (.05 level)-was then

,:, \...'.:'nducted • j ,
Table 1< shows
•
the significant~· paired-comparisons for attachment
5r&up.s for.. f,11e :oe~si.lres of lf{;!l 1-being, lllaf'fective status, and parent a~d
' .
pee~ utiliz3tion. On both measures of' well-being and on three of the
'
.
rour affective-status scales, the S pareot group was ~ignif¥?antly different
...
fro~ t!,e Av gr-oup Life Satisfaction and Resentment/Alienation discriminated
,
all th,·ee parent groups from each other> while Self-Esteem d tfferentiat.ed
• •
.
the·S group fr om both anxiou3 groups. For theae comparis ons, Secures
" .
- were highe!ft in we.11..-being and lowest in negative affective status,
WheJ·eas the reverse held for the Avoidants. The mean self-esteem ~core
 for the-~ group. (362) fell.!.:. .app~oximately the 10th percentile a/ding'
to normative data provided by Fit.is (1965) for individuals'aged 12 to

68 ye3rs. The mean self-este~m score for the Am group was 3~0 (approxi-
. •
mately the ~0th ~ercent~le); for the Av group the mean score was 317

, I
0
EfilC • 18
 I' ' .

•
Attachment During AdolescenoeI • I

17

rrooi .each 'other:in rr~uen.cy

dif. feren t
. . . or see~ing out Mother in ti~es .~· ..
\

or need, The S group was' hig~e~_t _and the Av group lowest on ~his measu~e.

••
..
Th~·Father Utilization Factor differ~ntlate~ the S an'd Am gr~µps (highe~) ,
. _....-- ' , . .
..from 'the A.V (lower) I but l}~t frOfD, each. other-; ,.seek.ing-OUt petr:s dfdi,
.
:· not dis~u.ish the pa~ent. a~:achme.n t \ro~p$. Although pareJ. grout s
did not differ i9 frequency or sharing,efyday co~cerns1 reported rre~~ency
or '\. .
sh~ring sE!r1ous concenn was. significantly
. lower for the Av groups
'

yfien compared with either the A~:~roups. Consistent with this result,

is the finding;lt the Av ~r<6G~ indiC\ted they~ctually desireJ signifi-

, I ~ •
ca ntly less sh.
. ~
ing or s~ol.ls
~
caQcer~s than was indicated by the
S•group.

Among the p:er classification groups, ~he S group.was significantly

higher in self-esteem and life-satisfaction and lower on the affective

.statua measures than eitner
•
or the two "anx Ious" groups .... The "anxtoua"

groups wer~ not s~~t~ic-a_ntlt different from each ~ther. The mean self- . '
or
, estee~ scores
.
the's, ~m and Av peer grodps ~ ere 3651 3271 and 33~1

re.spectively, Cdntrary to expectation, 'seektng-oue pe~s '"'" to

I
-..
differentiate"t:he peer at
" .,. ...
miln.t groups from each oth • The peer classifi-
.
-
. ,aatio~s groups. did not a!rrer.1 'Mother or Father Utilization, The S
.....
peer group did report more frequent sharing or both everyday and serious
. ,
concer~·~he.Av group. The Av peer group, similarly to the Av parent

•· 'group, ·reportect that they d'esired less $haring Qf ser-Icua concerns.

~ '
, The peer and_ pa.r:ent at~acbment groups, contrary to expeczat ron, di~ not
'd1rr~r ~n ·the de~r~~ or confusion or contradiction in their self-concepts
.
.
. . \
as assessed-by TSCS Total Conflict scores. ,.
. .~ '
A c?~parison made.between parent attachment-group
'"':

p!acements and
 peer group placements revea1ed good correspondence. Fifty-seven percent,
• I ~ ; ,
• I

.,.. '.., t"'"4

0 ; ..
-~filC ... ·. ·_ .... '.19
•• ..... ,· : .. • •- \ .4 • . . . .....
. .. f I • • 4~
 ...
., . .
.,... ,..._/: ' , . . ·" ..
. . .,
e,

.·
i .:
·Attachment During Ad~esc~nce.
~ ,. v .,.
· ·. \- l&
, . ~•
·-..
•'
•
} ~ .. e, ( '

'. of -sub jee t.s assIgned t o the S par-ent group _were a~30 aa:;igned fto the,.
:
•
S peer ~roup, wh.il.e ol')ly 17% wer~ assigned ,to the .Av peer group. · A
.... similar pattern of correspondence was fou~d for the Av pa~en~ group:
\I
, •
. '\ . ,.
'. ~ii ~l~o placed into the Av peer group, >;hile only 11$ (2.. .-~u.bj~c~s)._~,e: '/
rn the S peer group. Forty-e!ght percent of the ~m paren~, atta~1'hment ,, .
•group also placed into ~e· Am peer group, while the remaining subjects

were about equall y divided between the oth~r.pee~ groups. A Chi-Square

,
test indicated that this distribution was sigllin,cantly different ·from

chanee ~ X (
2
~ 14 • 55 ; .e ~ . 01 ).
-, ~·
\
11 )
~ <..
In order to test the hypothesis that secure attachment buffers the
.
i~pact of neg~tive lif~han~e on w~ll-being, securely attached subjects
b~~een degree ~f neg ative life-change and measures"'<S't'p~ysical health

.
w'f"e compared wit~ anxiously ~ttached subjects. Correlations were obtained
'
•
:
•
and . affe·,ctive status for subjects' jolnt.ly in both parent and
. .
class~ifie d
..
pe,el' S gr oups , anJ ~eparo:ttely for. subjects classified in both parent.
'\.. .
and peer Am.and/~r Av gr~ups. Because parent and peer Attachment score~
1

...~ .,ere know~ to be moderately related to the'> variab\:s examined in, this ·
analysis, the common variance was removed. As shown in Table 81 tor
...
the Anxious group.>f ~ttern of moderate partial~lation coefficients
(.113 -·.68) was obtained. Coefficients obtained for ~he Secure group,
however, were generally low, indicating that secure att~chment
moderated
th~ P.ffect of negative life-jhange on functioning.
•
The possibility was
.[/
investigated th~t poorer quality
. /.
of attachment is associated with greater
.
negative ltfe-change. Subjects jo1n~ciasaified in both parent an4
. . '
peer "anxious" attachment grotips did not have significantly different

life-ch~nge scores,from those jaintly assigned to both parent and peer

 S groups. 1.
0 < ./
EfilC
., ~. "' .
.
..
·~ ..
'
• \
' kttachment O~ring AdolEbbence ~
,. ...... t >
I 19

. ~
Dispus~foo
• ·"Ii
~
As hfpothesized, 'quality. Qf parent and peer attachme,nts was
'hi~hly
• ,I ' • ,. - ', I

..
related to w~ll-being, plrticula rly to self-esteem and life
. ,
sati::3ctio~.

This r tnding.,.i.s congr-uen t wi t'11 the r-esul t.s "e r a

'
numbe'r of'' st.u ct'ies linking
p:>ychologic 1l adjustment to the quality ar intimate re lat i.onsh ips wi'th
. . . .
panen ts and peers. ' lmportant ly, quality of attachment riot. only was,
. . .
strongly related to well-being, but.also meaningfully contributed ~o <
.:'
predictin~ the adoles~nts• qepression/anxiety and resentment/alienation

-
t
. ~ \
scores. These ftnd~~gs are congrue~t with Bowlby's hrpothesis (197j) I •

regarJing the· relationships between attachment, ai:id .anx~ety and depress ion.
)
I

Ac cording. to a h·ie rarcbical regre.ss io{ mode 1 , quality of ·.attachment to

parents. was significantly related to the criterion meas~res after quality
I
} . : .
of peer attachment and negative 11 fe;-charige had been controlled. Thus.,
. ' .. ., "'

it appears that even in a college-~ged po pulation the prese~t

t.
perception of .t'amily relationships continues to be linked l{i th well-
being. This
.
" ...

) finding is congruent with tha~ of Mortimer & Lorence (1980) who reported
I

significant influences of family relationships on self-esteem in a college

~ pop_ula tiorl. In addition~ , the findings suggest that negative ltfe-
change
is independently reiatect: to well-being in
adolescence.
I
.,...
I

In ~his study, a cla~sification scheme was d~vised in order to cete-

1
gcwize adolescents according to the differenti~l nature of their attachments.

Adolescents classified as securely attached to their pare~ts fappear. to

.......
b very well adjusted. T~ey, possess higher than .average self~~steem and

e enjoy frequent and sa~isfactory communication with t.heir fa'milies.

More than half o. f these subject also reported a high quality to their.
s.

~ relationships with peers. In contrast , subjects comprising thf tvoidan t •

\ \
•• parent-at'tachment group described feelings of res en tmen t an(j--aiiena t ion
•
0
EfilC
,m
21
r-
--sFim .g
,
ll
'
•
. .. t
I

,;..;;
'(
'•
' Attachment During Adole3cence I
't. 20 ~
\

and a more emotiona11/and verball~ detached quality to their relationsh'ips

,)'
with their parents.
The,.. results suggest
. . . ,,,
that tf)6se .adolescents chara. cterized by anxious
.
(Ambivalent or Avo~dant)_ ~ttacmnent to bo~~are~ts and peeNJ, although
~xperiencing n,more negative life-ch~nge than those seourely at~ached,.

. r.·-wer: ~ore vulne~able to the deleterioUs errects of. sU.;~ change on :•II- l

~, being. These rindints are consonant with Greenberg, Siegel, and Leitch ( •
\ .
' ~Not~ i) that ror their sample of ~~oles~en_ts, the neg~ impjt of..

high1 hf~·str_-ess :.ias 1ooderated bti tne effects or positively perceived

att~chments to parehts. Togeth~r, ~hese results, contrary to Oad and

• I
Johnson's ne~atife findinis (1980), substantiate the buffering role o~.

intimate relationships i:\dolescence, Such: role i~ predict! by

Bowlby's theoretical f or
~ ~ •
(1969), providing evidence ror oDe
. .
mulatio n s
1 · ·'
,mechanism by w~ich attachment may m3intain its hypo"&hesized enduring·
' r:~lationship to quality or adc/ptation.
. "

The method or classitication of individual differences in adolescent

'

attachment shou\d be considere~exploratory.

I The attachment.groups formed
\ ' ~
in this study were based on relat,Ave criteria, determined·i;.y the char-
acteristics of ope sample of late a:rdo .scents (college students). The
'variabili ,ty or or
• '\ tr.aitf.3elr-esteem sc and the ranges
.
the IPPA scor~s
 dr sugg:j>' that dirresentiation or subjects was adequate for limited

general~lity or ~indings. lrt should be not~d, however,~that this

·initial attempt to c~nstruc t} a .typology or attachment ha~ some limitations •
.,,
First, better differentiation or A~bivalent and Avoidant groups, if indeed
~ '
t.\.~a~is appropriate for this age group, may be desirable •. How~ver, the

finding·that Ambivalen ts are similar to.Avoi~ants on most measures

r ,
or
well-being• coupled with the rinding that AmbiV3lents seek proximity

,•
EfilC
• ., 1
•• .. / . ? .

~,
Attachment During Adol.escence· . .

'
,;

,I
.'
• . . . Jl
21
•
... . ..... ... ~ . . .,. . • . -. ts
as, f're<iu.ently _,as Secures, anpe~ar..."to· gi°~e. conver-gent validity to the ·
,._; .,, ' '<).. ...
o Iaasdf'Loat-ion scheme. Data on a,tachmen t in infan.cJ and Bo~ll?Y' s
descrip-

.
' ,

is characterized .
by . frequent ly activated prOXi"l.itY-seeking ,

tion o"f lnxious at;ach~ent ( 1973) suggest that .insecu~e. _ ( but not 'avoid~n\,
'
attachment

) . ' ,:
• • • t . \
but le~s-than"'°ptima\ ada~tation. ln ~uc~ cases, the attachme~t figure

•• a,pparen. tly serves as a not-sa-secure base from whicn':to operatei The

. .. lacR •of dif'f"erentation of attachment groups .is more ~pptrent in the peer
• •
classifications than in the parent. The Secure peer . ., group did repor~
• t
sharing b6th everyday and·serious concerns frequently than the
.
more /,
A vo i dant However, this findi-ng may reflect the disproportionately
_group. . .~ ' \

•
female Secure group's greater tendency toward verbal communication than

the mostly· male Avoidant grou~, rather than true dirferences in quality
'
of attachment
bonds. , ·,...· .-. ·.~
Second, while the classification o~ ind1~idual diff~rences.follow:d
directly' from Bowlby '.s theory; the actual computational procedure of
dividing each sub.scale into thirds
~s
. arbitrary
•
As~ result{ there
-.
«
 i's a rela,tively low per~ntage... o(. individuals classi.fied as securefy .
{
attached compared to cor resporiding in fant nesearch ( Ai n s~or th I il al. ,'

197 8 ). Thus, these classifications ar~ only comparative in.nature,

. ,.
~denoting .
more secure ~· more ambi~alent ~· more avoidant.
' More
ct In-
\ ically valid
. cutting points for these groups are yet to be determin e d.

Third, with ouP conceptual analysis, seven percent sf the sample

..
'
I for parent attac0hmen t and, 17 per-cent for peer attachment were "uno Iasaf- ..
fiable." Th~ unOtl,.assified ~atterns Wfr; charact~rized by a tenden~y
toward either high or low scbres on the.Alienation as well as the Trust

and Communication subscales, su~esting a defensive response bias.

•
0 ..
. EfilC .. 23
'
'I

Attachment During Adolesc,. ence

'
/· 22
•
... The Inventory.of Parent and Pee Att
achment ha; be~n shown.to be
., ..
a reliable and valid measure of perceived quality or close relationships
•' "'
in· adolescence.
.
The typoiogy ~r attachments'based on patterns of subscale
•'

.scor_es represent6 an advance ~orrd fuller unders.tanding or indi~idt\.,

di~f'erence I ..
.
.
.
.. · di(ferences1 beyond that provided by linear scale 'scores. Followingt\
the deve lopment '0r an °improved .method of classif'ication1 several av1inues
of iovestigat ion ~eem parti'cul~rly warran't:d •. First
. '·
I the A sex • ~
...
• in..peer attachment group co~~s~ti~n~hould.be .explored .• Only nine
percent.of the males were assigned to the•Secure peer group, compared
( c.
·with.38 percent of femitles. Females scored significantly higher o0:-the

peer Comm~nication subscale. Hunter and Youniss (1982) report a similar

sex di f ferenc-e in adolescent comrnuni-cation. , It .is possible that sex
~
. .
...

d i I'f'er enees · in Secure attachment group assignment re fleets differences

in v~rbal c:irm..micat"ion rather th:_n degree or trust in relationships.

. .
Thus, it may be useful to develop separate norms for males and females.
 .
Se. conj, the importance of parent .v....s.... ..peer attachment throughout' adolescence

needs continued 1nv~stigati?n• · In' contrast to Greenberg et al.1s (Note

I .
~d i.ng~ Of little 3:13.JC ia t ion,,. betwren parent and peer arrec t i.onaI I
at.t.achment ,
.
.the present -r e sul t.s indicate substan tial corresponde nce •.
. r
Ther'e wer~ some i1fd i viduals I howev~r1 who were classified as avoidant ly
' '

peers,' and
~ttached t0 parents, but securely attached to
'
vice ;.v;:ersa •
. J --
. .If
Thes~ group~ ~l're too smali for meaningful analysis,.but,dBserve future
/'
attention -- particularly the group comprised of individuals who appear
• to be "compensating" for poQr parental attachment by turning to their

peers.

The third suggested avenue for future research is methodological

in nature. In"o~er to l~nd support to Bowlby's reasonable theoretical
..~. ! .i'
0
&Fifii .g ,m
v ,
~~-'
.,
.. .. 24

E filC
.
 ·. .,(' fl,. . . .. :
/.
•
'-. . ., ~ttach1·~b ,During ~dolescenc·e:·

... .. .. . : _·.. 23
~
• not ion t-hat security of attac is caus~llr rel~ted to well-being,
. .
Su et) data wo~N/also help an: s~er the
hment lon~~nal data a.rt ' ~ .
. ,. r~lationship ~et~een attachment and
cal :ed '".

1
troublesome
•
·questiont Qf whether
•
the I • "'

wel.l-being may 'be ~xpla~ned by the fact that indiwiduals with poorer,
;
.
adjustme. nt perceive their relationships as
less.
satisf,~ctory~ ~r ecede n tial
. ..
' .
.longitudinal research on attachment in early l!fe and on the family-related
antecedents of self-esteem in cnildhood (CoopersmitH, 19b7; Rqsenberg,
1965)
0

,· however, su~gest the appropriat~f a d~veloproen,tal .hypoth;sis

of a causal association between parental influences and weli-being in

~ I •
-,
a dole see nee •

/ ,

f
.. ,
\,

. .....,...

• •

.
'

Ir . .

l .r
 • , ~ . ,.

Efil_C
0 • • l
•

~ 25
....
• v
A~tachment..puring Ad9l~~cence
•,
'. l . . i11 ;
r
'
Tab,.te

r
1
•• ... , ·.
,, l~tercorrelationslor
IPPA.Scales
: . , ..
I

' .. : '
-,
Parent
.. ..
.
..
•' Peer
' ,,
.
Com~1.mi~atior;i Alien ta t 'Tr u;it •' (\<?mmuni Ai, ienaticn ·
/
ton: cation
•
P3rent. ~ Trust .68111• -.55111_ . • 13
221
.
J
Communioa.tion .331_11"'
-.59111 . ....
Alienation
-.36111
~.3311.1
. ?39'111
.( ..
..
Trust ., / \
..
\
"-...
. Ji ...•.·
-.35 I
-
~mmunicatio
..
- ·.• 65111
.. -.391tt1
--- -- n - ------
- _.._,_,_ _ - ,. --i.- .

. ~.r ~
'
.:. ·_

---------
-----
. ----· ------------

\,
.~ ·. .
' ,
er ,s I
....
\
.. ...111

are one-tailed
I ....
• I

P<·~
II p < .01
,
1111
p <.001
.: '
.... ·1 .
.
I I

'I;

• • ....

'
~
~-~

- , ..
~·

-
I
·, ~
~
 ... /

..
I

., '

"' ~. !'
'"

•
.
-.- EfilC
0
- "' .
, 26·
,<'
.....
e-
'.
"-1~. ~
..

..:-
, ·~ .. ,.

~
, , ' ••
,,,.' - . ·'"-;- ,'., . .... - -:.' ·:_...~, ~ ., -. :· -
.; • e; ~\. ., , .,.- - r,' - ..,- , _.
;- ·'"""~ ;,
·-
.
 ,. •, r : .. . ,. Atta~hment During Adolescence

'
,'"1, .

' . -: r I
~..
25

Table ?.
'
<,
••
;-·; .. ~orrelations Between IPPA Scor.es and Scores· on the
_,,../

. J
'
••

-;.~~ ·2.>i~t~
j.~ .·1
TSCS> FES and J.ltilization Facto~s
,.
••
.. , A .. .... -;

·I '
Peer Attachment fl, .. ..
: :' ., -:.P.'arent Attachment·
I .....
"·{TSCS) \
-~'.
F.amily Self-
.
, 77fff
Con~pt
Social Se~-r-- .46ff \
co'ncept
~ - ·r
(FES)
:
..
' . .,, .56fft c ·• 11
Cohesion
...
' ~
.04
Expre·ss~v~s_s
Conflict .: f' )33ttt /
}
\,

.25:,_ -.34•ff
' '~ t
.

.~ '
. ~ ...

\.
,
.

,
..
- ~·~ \

I ndepend ence .14 0

•
~.01

'
.r :
Organi~tion, • .02
37ttt
Control -.20• ,., .
~
,.
. -.15
i
i
.
Mother Utiliiation .63!ff '
. ~ .33•i.•

' ' ' I

-
.
Fabher- Utilization/ , .60fff ,27ff
'
F'~Utilization .54fff .28ff
'

.. • s:

,..,
·, .29u·
\.

'"
. Peer'Utilization.
(
• 1,9

•
--~-----~--,,.......;..~~-~-----------.:....----.--'-------------=-----~-------
'
., '(
.
~
 -< ' \~
.
, ..

. • , -.
. ·. -. ' l

., ), -; . ~
I. • • , • .
,:. v " . . .
. . . . .. ,
·, ~
.. -, - ~ .... ,.

.. ' '
. -' .
··-
;,<· , I ~,,.~I
, '
- •.
~
~-

.
_t -

27 •,

. .
' '
_ - -~ . . -~--"----- . I .
' ...

-----------~

0
:EB.LC -::-.-i-
'i
~
.... :.,-...
 , •·

Attachment During Adolescence:

.,, ·• . 26 J
\

'·

\ Variables ,.. .
.,, '
,;-
rent Peer J
Pahment' Attachme.nt .
Attac
Positive Life-C~ange • 18 .22•

Negativ,e Life-Change • -.27u r -vos

Parent Attachment .3~...
\. ... -~ -~ - . ~-- '

..
...
• £ < .05
.. •
..... -
H £_(.01 •
)-·
... 2.< .001 r •,
. . 'i
.. <ff

.... .. ~ .
./"

.
. .- . . ~
.
. . - I
\

.
'• c ..

.· . ,,.
• ••
.....,,: ...

. '
.
I •
•' •
I
',.
I , , .,
4
0 I

-EfilC ~ •u t
 ·~

28 ...
'~II

.
&Fifii .g ,m • \
..
-- ~------~~ - ~-. . --- ~- --~

I
• t

i
.
r

,. ·-
... ¥ Attachm~nt During Adolescence
.. o,
~
•• I , 27

.,,
• '.,)
f . '
.
j
Tab.le 11

\ Regre:Jsion s7.tj.s-tics for Predicting Well-Being From'

-~ 4
t
• ·, • .'· · Peer ~~d _P7.t .Attachment Scores (IPPA)

•
·CR·ITERION \ ,,:
,. ,ri~
/.-
~IC:l'~R .. '
- -
'n£(a)' •. F
,. .
·'/ . •.
i,
'iTotal Self-EsI tee•m• ,t Negative Life-
.; • 12 . 11.85** -.35
. -.
' .
Change, '

. ' Po~itive Lire- .21 8. 7* .22

'
Change
< ~

,.. , .
.,58

~~ P a re h~

·,
.
A~taohment

' Peer Attachment

• • 110 · 26.7**.J
f
• 116
.~
)
I
311.6***"'" .67
.... - '. . . <I
~

.
/

•: Positive Life- r- • 111 111.1*** .38

.• ' .~an~ ........ ' . ..
I
• \ "!" . .

·-
I
..,
Negati~e Lire-

'L-..
\ . •
;
I Change
•
Peer ..Attachment
.a • 31

.37
19.5***

7.8'*
:r..
·-. 3'3

! 33
·,... .•
,
29:.1*** .6;
l ~
. ~ ~ -
----........,..--~~------------~------'--------!.~------------- ·~~~-'------.---~----
.,-) ... '
* .2< .01

** .2~ .001
. I'
-·; • ... .2<. 000 1 f
'
,,.
J·.
..
...
f . ......

~
(

'> .•

~-
.... \.
"'
0 .·.~9
. . EfilC t:
. .
• ~--------· ------------ -·- - --·-·.:--- --=~---:.,,0."""'1="--~~-.-- . . .. -.
• I '

,
. .
~ ·· .... .•
:,.

., .. "-- ~·, ..

.
-

r ,

_/' . Attachment During Adolescence

..
'-
.-. ~-
_j
28

Table 5
.,
..
Regression Statistics for Equations Predicting Ai(ect~ve Status
• I ....

from Peer and.Parent Attachment Scores {IPPA) . )

CJflTERION PREQ\CTOR ~2{a) E r

\

I
Qepression/Anxiety , . Negative
Life- Change .
.18 18.61111
'\
• !13 ( .

I , ,I .
Pffltive Life- 7.71,
..,
.25 -,.18
~
. '
.IJ '
....
Ch ange
.
Peer Attachment
-,
• 35
•
~
12.3111 -.37
I •
... P~rent Attachment • !15 12.0111 -:5Ji
... ~ ._. .
0

, -
.
·\ · ~e. se.i'itment/Alienati;n Negative Life- ,..11 16.81111 '• Jj l
~
~
~ .. Change
\
Positive Life- .23 5.91 -.16
. . '------
-
Change...._ ·
"( . ,,,,, Peer Attachment· • ~6 15.1•111 -.!12
rl
'
Parent Attachment'\ .46 1Ji.211H -.57
... Irr i tabi.l it; I Nega.tive Life-
~
.. l Jj 13.21111 .37
Changj
Anger
.
•
~
/
. Positive Life- .19 5,31 -. 16
,
,. .
Change
J, ;- z:·Peer Attachment .28 6.41 <, 3!1
.,
 . ~ ~Paren~ { .29) ( 0.9) ( ... 34),
J
Attachment)

.. • Guil~ '!
, . Negative Life-
Change
.12 ., 'YI. 7111 • 35
J
, ft Peer Attachment .23
. "9.4 .. -.28
. ·,

~ . .. ~ .- ,
~
,,. r {0.2) {-.24)
-- ------ --:_- --------- ------- -- -------- -- --- --- - -------- ---
, (Parent Attachment) (.23)
~- - --
,! c .05
'•
1•

••
\
II .£K .01
·"1 ·•£< ,601 ·
IUl,..Q..{. .0001
. l
,.
•
' \ \
/.
:
. ,. . • (~)·Refleots·cumulative R2

\.

J
O e ;· ) •
30
·-.EfilC ". ,
'. «, -: -
=--·-,o. - .. - -- - • -
-, .
-- ... ------ L---- - --- - --
\--.---~-----
------. ,----------~~---- - -- ---

..
Attac~ment During Adolescence
29

. . -~
..... Table 6 .
,
-- r-
'•
, Frequency of Males and'Femal~s in.Attachment Group~
•
(

Secur~ Ambivalent Avoidant . Uncla,ss;rred

Parent1
11 (33j) 9 (27%) ,12, (36%) 1 (3%)

... FIR I 27 ( ~ 9:1 ) 14 ( 25% ) ..

•
9 ( 16%) 5 (9% i

. 36 (~3%) • 23 (26%) 21 (24%) 6 ( 7%)

rttal .-
.. I, \
'
~J
... M <, 3 (9%) 11 ( 33%) 1_4 ( 42%) 5 (15%)
F 21 <JU) 16 ( 29%) 6 ( 15%) 10'(18%)
. '
Total 24 <27%) 27 (31%) 22 (25%) 15 ( 17%)

-----::::,.,-- --- - _......._,_

. -- -------- ----.- ... -- ----------.----
•# .,J
.,,
/)
.1x2 (2) :;: 4.49, n.s.
.~
•
2x?(2)
: 12.65, ~<:'.. .01

•· '
,

. ' ..,..
...
' .
',

\
\
 31
.... ------·
•
•
Attachment During Adolescence
3
i
f 0,
,
Table 7
. .....
Signfricant Paired-Compar:rsons For Parent (X") and Pee'r (0)
, I Attachment Groups by Scheffe's Test•

'"'" Secure Secure

./. vs. E·
Ambivalen
t ~·
. .. Ambivalent
Avoidant Avoidan
t
Total.S~lf~Este.em XO XO
(TSCS)
Life Satisfaction XO x x
'
Depression/An~iety
0 XO
.
Reaentment/Alienation x
(-
XO
XO.

.:
·-r!"'r!tability/Anger. 'o
XO
Guilt·
-

u
,_

Mother Utilization x x x
./
Father UtilJzatio~ x x
P1:1er Utilization .
-
.
-- ------ ---- --- -- - ---- - -- --- -- - ---- - -
------ -- -
•

·~i significance )evcl

 ,_ ~

.,
.-•
•
..
, .
o : •

... ~ 32 _,

~·,1
·
''

-·= EfilC
t!3
&Fjfii # ..//
~ ,.:~,~· ~ . _:~ ·_. ·. :· :.-.- .. .. / ·: -~ :_·~~-- .:
I
••

-.::
~·~_ .. :~ f •
\, . • , j . . •'. . ' ..
1, ~ •
• .... ._ i.' •
•• •, I ,• -. • • • ~ ,

•
.': ~ .r..:> ·•
Attachment During Adolescence

.I .I .
•"
. "'

. .. ,, . .. • i• • , I ' 31

...
, .. • .. I I;, •

Table. 8
.
·
.
-C~~r.eiation~ffH::ients for Negative Life-Cba~ge and Mefsures of Ill-being
( ·. (Controlling for Parent and 'Peer Attachment Seor-es )
,
Secure Group Anxious Gr

. . {Su~jects who were

classiried in
Subjects wh
classified
i
I both the Parent r
and Peer Secure Attachment

--
Attachment Groups
Groups) )
(n i 1!1) (n =
. 26)
Depres~on/Anxiety
Current Physical Symptoms
Resentmen\!Alienation
•
. Past Year's Physical Sympt~ms
•
Anger/Irritability

uu
ilt
 .
2 • , 15
2
-.16 '
-. 15 ~
.37
•
-.10

---------·-----------·-~·------------------------------··------------------
I

.
..
.'
Q. 401

.
It

• l:'
33
.
 --------- . --

•
Attachment
. Du7rio~scence'
·• 2

J
Referen9e ,Notes
(
•
l. Greenberg, M., Siegel, J., and ~eitch, C. The nature and importance

ot at:achment re}ationships to parents and peers during adolescence.

Unpublished manuscript, 1982.

...
~. Greenberg,

Attachments.
M. Reli\_bility and validity of the lnventorr of Adolescent

Unpublished manuscript, 1982 .

•
3. • Levine, H.
Unpublished instrument, 1980.
'

J f
I

• . .
•
" t,
• "it-
.

.. . .

/
. 0 - 34
· EfilC
------------·- ~- --- --- - ,. - --- _, ,_.._~. -- -~
 ...
,( .

Attacbment Ouripg Adolescence

33

' ' . .
References

.
!,I
;;
/

' A!nswQrth, ,M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Wate~ and Wall, S. Patterns of

'

attachment. Hillsdalet N.J.: Erlb~um Associates, 1978~

- A rend, R. , Gove I F. , and Sroufe, L.A.

t ion from infancy to kindergar.ten:

C_ontinui ty or individual ad.apta

A predictive study,of ego-

res~liency
/

· and curiosi tJ!I, in preschoolers. Child Development, 1979, 50, 950-9$9.

Bachman, J.G. Youth in transition: The imPac, of family background
•
and intelligence on tenth-grade boys1 .Volume 2. ~nn Arbor, Ml:

Blumfield, 1970.
Bachman, J.G., Kahn, R.L.1 Mednick, M.I., Davidson, T.W,, and,Johnston,
L.O. Youth in transition: Blueprint for a longitudinal
.
study of.

adolescent boys1 Volume l. Ann Arbor, Ml: Blumfield, 1967.

Bentler, P.M. Review of Tennessee Self-Concept Scale. In O. BurQS (Ed.),

The seventh mental measurements yearbook.

Gryphon Press, 1972.

Highland Park, N.J.:
-
I

-
Bowlby J. At:tachment and lQSS, Volume l, .Attachment. New York: Basic
Books, 1969.
Bowlby, J. Attachment and lo~ Volume 21 Separation. New York: Basic,
Books, 1973.
\
Brand, A.H., and Johnson, J.H. Notes on r,liability. of the Life Events
Checklist. Psychological Reports, '19821 2.Q., 1274;.
'Burke, R.J., and Weir, T. Benefits '
to adolesoents of informal helping
,.

relationsttip~ with parents and peers. PsYchol:ogical Reports, 1978,

! I
.
42, 1175-1184.
Cobb, ·S. Social support as a moderator a·r life stress. Ps)'chosomatic
'-tJ ~
Medicine, 1976, ~(5), 300~31~.
/

- -35
' I,
.
 ...
' ~ttachment During"' Adolescence
•
311

'tr
Cooper s m ith, S. The.antecedents of self- San Francisco:
• •
Miller
\,,-

esteem.
• F.o,eeman Publ Icat Iona, 1967.

Fitts, W.H. Tennessee S~lf-Concept Scale Manual. Nashville: Counselor

'
Recordings and Tests, 1965.
L
Gad, M.T., and lohnson~ J.H. Correlates of adolescent life stress as
related to race, SES, and levels of perceived social support. Journal
. .
of Clinical Child Psychology, 1980, 2.,.13-1.9.
Gallagher, J.R~ Emotional proble~ adolescents. New 'iork: Oxford
,;
Universi t y Pres~, 1976.

Gottlieb~B.H.
. ..
(Ed.), Social networks and social s~pport.
'
L Be\erly Hills: I

Sage, 1981, ;.

Henderson, S. The social ,networ~ support and neuroses: The function

of attachment in adult life. British JoOrnal of Psychia1.r!, 1977,
ill, 185-191. '
---
Hill, J. The family. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Toward adolescence: The ,.

'.
~
middle sohoo Lyear-s , Severity-ninth yearboo k of the National
SocM.ll
..
for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
,. '
). ,.
1980.
Hirschi, T. Cause:s of delingue11c,1. Berkeley: University of California
.,
/ Press, 1969.
}
. >
Hunt~r, F.T., and i~~nlss, J. Change~ in functions of three relations
• during adolescence. Developmental Psy' chology, 1982, 18(6), 806-811.

Oohnson, J.H., and McCutcheon, S. Asse~sing life stress in ~der.children

'
and adolescents: freliminary findings with the Lire Events Check-

~· In I.G.' Sarason~& C. D. Spielb~rger (Eds.), Stress and

anxiety, Volume 7, Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1980.

0 36
-EfilC
,m
&Fifii .g
- -- --------
1 - - ---------- ----.:::;....:.;::::-------.,,-~--..-.J~----~--·
 Attachment During Adolescence
» .,-:
r
Kahn I R, L. 1 and Antonucci, T. C .' Convoys over the ·life course: ,A ttachrnen ts,

roles, and social support. In P.B. Baltes & O.G. Bri'm (Eds.),
Life-_fil)an dev,e lopment and behavior I Volume 3. New
. .
Academic
•
York: Press, 1980.
Lern~r, R.1 and Ryff, C. Implementation of the lif~-span vie~ on human
development: The sample case of'attachment. In P.B. Baltes (Ed.), ,,.>'

Life-s_Qan development and behavior, Volume 2. New York: Academic

P ress, 1978 .
•
Marcia, J.F. ld~ntity iQ a d o le In'J. Adelson (Ed.)1 Handbook
scence. r--- - ~
•
of adolescent p$ycb<Jlogy. New fork~ Wiley-: 1980. ·
• •
Matas, L., Arend, R~, and Sroufe, L.A. ~ontinuity o~adaptation in the
second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and
.
lat~r competence: Child Development, 1978, 49, 5~7-556.
Moos, ff.H. Family Environ ment Scale. "• Palo Alto, CA: Consulting ·psych-
ologists Press,.Inc.~ 197~.
.,
.~
Moos, R.H. Evaluating correctional and community settinFs.
NewYor~
Wiley, 1975.

; Mortimer, J.T., and Lorence, J. Self-concept stability and ch~nge from ./

late adolescence to early adulthood. In' R .G. Simmons (Ed.)1 Research
•
in community and mental health. Greenwich, CT: JAi Pr~ss, 1980."

Muell~r, D.P. Social network: .A promising direction for ;esearch o«1

I
, the relationship of the s""ocial environmenU to psychiatric disorder.

Social Science and Medicine, 1980; .!!Q.1 1~7-161.

•.
Rosenb.erg, M. Society and the adolescent self.-image. Princeton, N.J.: ·
' .
Princeton University Press, 1965.

0 ' \)
'
EfilC --37
,m
&Fifii .g
---- --- - ------~-- - -----·-- ~- ----~----= =......,,..._ "" • .. l . --- ,
,
 ,. ' . \ ...
~
,. Attachment During Adolescence
36 ..
Sarason, J.G., Johnson, J.H., and Siegel, J. Assessing the impact of

life-chanqes: Developmen~ of the Life Exper iences Survey. Journal

of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, ·1910; 46, .. 932-946. .
Sroufe, L.A., and Waters, E. Attachment as an organizational construct.

Child Development, 1977, 48~ ,1184-1199.

Thomas, D.
.
L., Ge~as, .v:,
.
Weigart, A., and Rooney, E. Family socializa-
tion and the adolescent. Lexington, MA: "'
Lexin g ton Bpoks, ,1974.

waters, E. The reliability a~d. stability of individual differences in

- infant-mother attachment. Child ~ment,

Waters, E., Wippman.,
·,
J., and Sroufe, L.A.
19~8, 49, 483-494.
Attachment, positive ~ffect
.
- and competence in the peer group:

Child Development, 1979, S~, 821-829.

Two st~dies in constr~ct validation.

( ' .

J
\
I \ . .

-.,,
(

.
. "
( ,,
'4: