TOC Electronic Journal: To print this article select pages 50-57.

Late Adolescent and Parent Perceptions

of Attachment: An Exploratory Study of
Personal and Social Well-Being
KENNETH G. RICE AND PAIGE N. CUMMINS

Research in the area of late adolescent attachment and adjustment has focused almost exclusively on adolescent reports of the
quality of their relationships with parents. The purpose of this study was to extend the attachment literature through examining
the correspondence between late adolescent children and their parents when assessing aspects of parental bonds with children.
After completing a set of questionnaires, a sample of older undergraduate students (mean age = 21 years) identified parent
figures who subsequently were sent a similar packet of questionnaires. Parents were asked to complete measures of parental bonds
as they believed their child would complete the same measure. Regression analyses revealed that parent reports of attachment
added nonsignificant portions of unique variance to the prediction of student self-esteem and social self-efficacy. Student perceptions
of attachment accounted for significant unique variation in self-esteem but not in social self-efficacy.

here has been increasing conceptual and empir- conceptual challenge in the study of attachment in late

T ical interest during the past several years in the

relevance of attachment theory for understand-
ing the development and well-being of late ado-
lescents and young adults (see Kenny & Rice,
1995, for a recent review). Several themes have emerged
in this literature. One theme has been concerned with the
development and validation of assessments that are suitable
for measuring attachment beyond infancy and childhood
(Lopez & Gover, 1993; Lyddon, Bradford, & Nelson,
1993). Another theme has been the systematic study of
the association between attachment and numerous dimen-
sions of emotional and social well-being and development
(Kenny, 1994; Kenny & Donaldson, 1991; Kenny & Hart,
1992; Lapsley, Rice, & FitzGerald, 1990; Mallinckrodt,
1992; Rice, FitzGerald, Whaley, & Gibbs, 1995; Rice &
Whaley, 1994; Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994). A third
theme concerns the study of internal working models and
their role in perceptions of social support (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991; Blain, Thompson, & Whiffen, 1993;
Sarason, Pierce, Shearin, Sarason, & Waltz, 1991). A final
theme includes the application of attachment theory, more
specifically internal working models of self and others, to
the practice of counseling (Pistole, 1989; Pistole & Watkins,
1995). The purpose of the present study was to draw on
these themes in an effort to meet a methodological and
adolescents.
Ainsworth (1969, 1989; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991), Bowlby (1982,
1988), and others (e.g., Sroufe & Waters, 1977) defined
an attachment as a significant and enduring emotional bond
between two people. A secure attachment bond is impor-
tant because it facilitates a child’s affect regulation and
other coping skills with the ultimate aim of less dependence
on an actual attachment figure and more reliance on the
internalized aspects of the attachment bond. Historically,
the emphasis in describing and studying this bond has been
on the observable interactions within the mother–child
dyad. In this context, attachment behavior has been
described as the means by which the child maintains prox-
imity to mother. Such behavior is observed primarily when
the child is concerned with his or her safety or when she
or he wants to feel more secure (Sroufe & Waters, 1977).
Ainsworth et al. (1978; see also Rheingold, 1969) devel-
oped a method for classifying various behaviors as indicative
of secure or insecure (anxious, avoidant) attachment in
children, a method that is based on reactions of children
in different “strange situations.” Furthermore, the quality
of attachment is linked intrinsically to the quality of the
responsiveness of the child’s mother or other important
attachment figures. Securely attached children tend to have

Portions of this article were completed while Kenneth G. Rice was an associate professor in counseling and development at Purdue University. Currently, he
is an associate professor in the Counseling Psychology Program at Michigan State University. Paige N. Cummins is a doctoral candidate in counselor education
at Purdue University. This research was supported in part by the Purdue Research Foundation and by an Undergraduate Research Training Grant. The
assistance of Teddi Whaley, Rachel Sterlett, and Janet Oberholtzer is gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Kenneth
G. Rice, Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, 440 Erickson Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824.

50 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996 • VOLUME 75


caretakers who are reliable and responsive to their needs,
whereas insecurely attached children experience caretakers
as unreliable sources of support or encouragement (Ains-
worth et al., 1978; Rice, 1990; Sroufe, 1979). Hence, an
understanding of the meaning of attachment behavior is
facilitated by the inclusion of an attachment figure during
assessment of childhood attachment.
Although early work in the area of attachment postulated
the persistence or enduring nature of attachment bonds as
well as the possibility of attachments in addition to the
mother–child dyad, only recently have studies been con-
ducted on attachment beyond the early childhood years
and beyond attachment to mother. An initial challenge in
this line of inquiry has been the development of assessment
strategies and research designs that would be more suitable
for older participants (e.g., adolescents, young adults) than
the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978). As Bowlby
(1988) pointed out, attachment behavior is most evident in
childhood and less apparent at other times in development,
although the attachment bond is presumed to persist
throughout the life cycle.
Many of the more commonly used assessment strategies
have been reviewed recently by Lopez and Gover (1993)
and Lyddon et al. (1993). These measures tap respondent
perceptions of the current or past quality of their attach-
ment relationships with mother, father, both parents, and/
or friends. Indeed, the late adolescent’s perception of the
parent–child relationship is foundational in the develop-
ment of working models of self and others (Blain et al.,
1993). Sarason et al. (1991) suggested that the late adoles-
cent uses working models of self and others as filters
through which self-perceptions are developed and level of
social support from other relationships is judged. Students
who perceive a high level of support from their parents
and are satisfied with the level of support they currently
receive are better able to cope with life transitions (Bartho-
lomew & Horowitz, 1991). Late adolescents with high
perceived support may cope more effectively with change
because they are able to access social support should they
need it. Finally, internal representations of the family
attachment relationship serve to mediate the late adoles-
cent’s development of relationships with peers by providing
a template through which self and others are perceived as
lovable/unlovable or trustworthy/untrustworthy (Bartho-
lomew & Horowitz, 1991; Sarason et al., 1991). Young
adults’ perceptions of the parent–child relationship are,
therefore, extremely important to the development of
accurate self-perceptions and supportive peer relationships.
Despite the relevance of self-perceptions of attachment,
it is surprising that very little research and measurement
development have been directed toward examining the
parent side of the parent–child attachment bond. To our
knowledge, there has been only one study in which parent
reports on a measure of attachment were compared with
the reports of their children on the same measure. Using
the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, &
Brown, 1979), Parker (1981) found that mothers tended to
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
Late Adolescent and Parent Perceptions of Attachment
describe themselves as more caring and less overprotective
than their adult children described them. He also found
moderate correlations (ranging from .44 to .55) between
mother and child reports of attachment (fathers were not
included in his study). These findings suggest that there
may be some differences in perceptions of attachment
depending on the person (parent or child) responding to
the query. Perhaps more intriguing and unexplored, how-
ever, are the possible effects that such differences in percep-
tion may have on the child’s adjustment (e.g., self-esteem
and social self-efficacy).
The developing research literature in the area of attach-
ment beyond childhood has demonstrated that secure
attachment, as perceived by late adolescents and young
adults, is associated with personal and interpersonal well-
being, whereas insecure attachment is associated with per-
sonal and interpersonal problems such as depression (Rich-
man & Flaherty, 1987), eating disorders (Kenny & Hart,
1992), lack of assertiveness (Kenny, 1987), lower self-effi-
cacy (Mallinckrodt, 1992), and college maladjustment
(Rice & Whaley, 1994). Nevertheless, the effect sizes in
these studies tend to be moderate, at best, leaving consider-
able variance in adjustment unaccounted for. There also
has been a ceiling effect in studies of attachment, with
most participants reporting secure attachment with their
parents (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Mallinckrodt, 1992;
Rice et al., 1995). Closer inspection of the parent–child
attachment bond in late adolescence, and specifically the
degree of correspondence between parents and their chil-
dren, may yield a clearer understanding of the influence of
attachment on adjustment.
The general research question addressed in this study was
whether child perceptions of attachment mattered more,
in terms of individual and interpersonal functioning, than
parents’ understanding of the attachment relationship. We
hypothesized that late adolescent reports of their attach-
ment with parents would correlate positively and signifi-
cantly with parent reports of attachment. However, consis-
tent with a cognitive mediational hypothesis, it was
expected that child reports and parent reports would
account for significant variability in self-esteem and social
self-efficacy after controlling for the shared variance
between child and parent perceptions. In other words, late
adolescent child perceptions of attachment were expected
to contribute unique and significant variance in the expla-
nation of self and social dimensions of adjustment after
accounting for the influence of parent reports.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 140 undergraduate students (32 men and 108
women) from a large, public university in the Midwest
participated in the study. The students were recruited from
a multisection course on personal growth and development.
Although more women than men participated in this study,
1996 • VOLUME 75 51
Kenneth G. Rice and Paige N. Cummins
the sample distribution approximated the gender distribu-
tion of students in the course (70% of all students in the
course were female, 30% were male). Ninety-five percent
of the sample were White. Eighty-one percent of the sam-
ple had completed four or more semesters at the university,
and the average age of the participants was 21.0 years (SD
= 2.2). The largest number of majors represented in the
sample was within the liberal arts area (55%), with the
second largest concentration being students pursuing
majors in consumer and family sciences (14%). The grade
point average of the sample was 2.1 (SD = 1.0) on a 4-
point scale. Students received credit for participating in this
research but also could choose other nonresearch options in
order to achieve the same credit.
Of these students, 79% reported that their parents were
married (never divorced) and living together, whereas 7%
reported that one or both of their parents had remarried.
Eight percent of the sample reported that their parents had
divorced or separated, and another 5% indicated that one
of their parents was deceased.
A total of 117 of the students (84%) volunteered the
names and addresses of their parents. Students were asked
specifically to identify “your mother/father or the person
who acts most like a mother/father to you.” Parents were
sent a letter describing the study, an informed consent
form, and a questionnaire packet. A total of 77 mothers
and 66 fathers returned survey packets. When completed
questionnaires from parents were matched with student
questionnaires, it was determined that 50 of the female
students had matching data from two parents, whereas 13
of the male students had matching data from both parents.
Another 9 women had data from mothers but not fathers,
whereas 2 women had data from fathers and not mothers.
Three men had data from mothers but not fathers, and
there were no men in the sample with data from fathers
only.
Variables
Attachment. The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker
et al., 1979) is a 50-item self-report questionnaire with 25
items assessing relations with mother and the other 25
items assessing relations with father. The items are identical
for mothers and fathers. Following standard PBI directions,
students were instructed to recall their impressions of their
parents as formed during the first 16 years of their lives.
To make parent and child reports consistent, we asked
students to think about people who acted most like parents
to them. To assess parent attunement with their child’s
responses (i.e., sensitivity to their child’s perceptions of the
child–parent bond), we gave parents these instructions:
“Please fill in the blank with the response that comes closest
to how you think your child experienced you, as a parent,
in his/her first 16 years of life.” Both sets of participants
then responded to items that reflected their impressions,
using a 4-point scale from 1 = very like my mother/father
through 4 = very unlike my mother/father.
52 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
Items on the PBI measure two dimensions of parent-
child attachment: care and protection. The Care subscale
consists of 12 items designed to assess “care/involvement
versus indifference/rejection” (Parker et al., 1979, pp. 2–3)
and consists of items such as, “spoke to me with a warm
and friendly voice” and “did not help me as much as I
needed” (reverse-scored). The Protection subscale, pre-
viously referred to as Overprotection (Parker, 1989) con-
sists of 13 items assessing “control/overprotection versus
encouragement of independence” (Parker et al., 1979,
p. 3). Sample items from the Protection subscale include,
“let me make my own decisions” (reverse-scored) and
“tried to control everything I did.”
Evidence for reliability and validity of the PBI is summa-
rized by Parker (1989). In the initial study, Parker et al.
(1979) reported test–retest reliability over a 3-week period
to be r = .76 (Care) and r = .63 (Protection). Subsequent
studies have found test-retest coefficients to exceed .87
for all subscales of the PBI (see Parker, 1989). Split-half
reliability was r = .88 (Care) and r = .74 (Protection) in
the original report (Parker et al., 1979). Parker (1989)
reported that concurrent and predictive validity have been
demonstrated in several studies in which PBI scores corre-
lated in expected directions with measures tapping depres-
sion, neuroticism, life satisfaction, social desirability, and
other relationship dimensions (e.g., marital adjustment of
parents and social support).
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured with the Rosen-
berg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale. Rosenberg’s measure con-
sists of 10 statements responded to on a scale from 1 =
strongly agree through 4 = strongly disagree. The scale mea-
sures general self-esteem (e.g., “I feel I have a number of
good qualities” and “I feel I do not have much to be proud
of”), with half of the items worded positively. Internal
consistency reliability ranges from .86 to .93 (Goldsmith,
1986). Test–retest reliability for the measure has been
reported as r = .85 over a 2-week period of time (Crandall,
1973). Goldsmith (1986) and Rosenberg (1965, 1979)
reported adequate evidence for the construct validity of the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in that the measure correlated
with other scales in expected directions (e.g., negative cor-
relations with dogmatism, depression, and anxiety). Gold-
smith (1986) questioned the unidimensional nature of the
scale and determined, after confirmatory factor analyses,
that the Rosenberg measure “when used with some popula-
tions [in which age did not vary substantially] . . . seems
to measure a single dimension of global attitude toward
the self” (p. 263).
Social self-efficacy. The Social Self-Efficacy subscale of
the Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Sherer et al., 1982) was used
to assess late adolescent perceptions of their efficacy in
social situations. The SES is a 23-item (6 items for social
self-efficacy) self-report questionnaire that assesses expec-
tations in terms of willingness to initiate behaviors, willing-
ness to expend effort in completing behaviors, and persis-
tence despite difficulties. Sample items include, “It is diffi-
cult for me to make new friends” and “If I see someone I
1996 • VOLUME 75

would like to meet, I go to that person instead of waiting
for him or her to come to me.” Although the original SES
used a 14-point Likert scale, the present study, following
Mallinckrodt (1992), used an 8-point response option for-
mat with 1 = strongly disagree through 8 = strongly agree.
Adequate reliability and validity for the SES has been
reported. Although the Social Self-Efficacy subscale con-
sists of 6 items, internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha) was reported as .71 (Sherer et al., 1982). The Social
Self-Efficacy subscale has correlated in expected directions
with measures of social introversion (Sherer & Adams,
1983), social skill and past employment success (Sherer et
al., 1982), and locus of control and social support (Mallin-
ckrodt, 1992).
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Although attachment theory indicates that the attachment
bond is equally important for both genders, some studies
of adolescents and young adults have found gender differ-
ences in ratings of attachment (e.g., Schultheiss & Blustein,
1994) whereas others have not (e.g., Armsden & Green-
berg, 1987). Therefore, one preliminary analysis consisted
of a multivariate analysis of variance with gender as the
factor and the four PBI subscales (late adolescent reports)
and self-esteem and social self-efficacy as the dependent
variables. Listwise deletion of missing data was used in this
and in all subsequent analyses. The multivariate test of
gender differences was not significant, F(6, 69) = 1.75,
p < .123. As a result, data for both genders were combined
for all subsequent analyses.
Because not all of the late adolescents in this study had
parents (or parent figures) participating, it was important
to determine if there was a priori bias in the parent–child
sample. A total of 78 students had at least one parent
participating, whereas 62 students had no parent participat-
ing. Analyses were conducted to examine possible demo-
graphic differences between late adolescents with parent
data and adolescents without parent data. The two groups
also were compared on each of the PBI subscales and on the
self-esteem and social efficacy measures. T tests revealed no
significant age or grade point average differences between
the groups, and chi-square analyses revealed no significant
differences in the frequency distributions for gender, race/
ethnicity, semester status, college major, or marital status
of parents. Similarly, the results indicated that there were
no significant differences between the two groups of late
adolescents on the six subscales, F(6, 129) = 0.92, p >
.481. Therefore, in terms of demographic and measure-
ment concerns, the subsample of late adolescents in this
study, for whom parent data were available, can be consid-
ered representative of the initial larger sample.
The means, standard deviations, scale ranges, reliability
results, and correlations for the measures appear in Table 1.
Reliability estimates were determined using Cronbach’s
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
Late Adolescent and Parent Perceptions of Attachment
coefficient alpha and were calculated for each group of
participants. Coefficient alphas ranged from .77 (for stu-
dent reports of social self-efficacy) to .95 (for student
reports of care by fathers) and appeared to be adequate
for research purposes. These estimates also were similar to
and, in the case of social self-efficacy, somewhat better
than, prior results published by the scale authors.
The subscale means suggested that, on average, there
was agreement on the PBI subscales between students and
their parents (see Table 1). The correlations between dif-
ferent respondents assessing the same relationship dimen-
sion were in the moderate range, suggesting some degree
of consistency, though certainly not complete agreement,
between parents and children.
Parent and Late Adolescent Reports of Attachment
We conducted a set of regression (commonality) analyses
(Pedhazur, 1982) to determine the unique and shared con-
tributions of parent and child ratings of attachment in the
prediction of self and social functioning. Statistically, these
analyses assess the reduction in explained variance after
removal of each attachment measure. This reduction yields
an index of the unique contribution of each measure to
the criterion. That is, this analysis provides the proportion
of the explained variance that can be attributed to one or
another individual predictor. In more practical terms, an
extrapolation can then be made regarding shared variance
(in this case, the relative importance of child–parent agree-
ment on attachment) versus unique variance (the impor-
tance of idiosyncratic attachment appraisals). (For another
example of this strategy, see Cutrona, 1989.) In one set of
equations, self-esteem served as the criterion, whereas in
another set, social self-efficacy was the criterion. Separate
equations were constructed for attachment to mother and
attachment to father, and the same data-analytic strategy
was used in each regression equation. Table 2 presents a
summary of these analyses.
In the prediction of self-esteem, significant variability
was accounted for by the combined effects of attachment
to mother scores (R2 = .14). The relative importance of
informant ratings differed when comparing the unique vari-
ance attributed to adolescents’ versus their mothers’ reports
of the same measures. For example, approximately 43% of
the explained variance could be attributed to adolescent
reports of attachment (R2 change to remove divided by
total R2), whereas 31% of explained variance was attributed
to mother reports of attachment. Approximately 26% of
the variance in self-esteem was shared by adolescent and
mother reports of attachment. Therefore, the unique per-
spective of the attachment bond as perceived by adoles-
cents surpassed the relative importance (in terms of pre-
dicting self-esteem) of mother sensitivity to the bond as
well as the importance of the shared perception of the
attachment relationship.
Attachment to father accounted for 15% of the variance
in self-esteem scores. Adolescent reports contributed a
unique and significant 87% of the total variance, whereas
1996 • VOLUME 75 53
Kenneth G. Rice and Paige N. Cummins
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha Estimates for Measures
Completed by Late Adolescents and Parents
Variable/Group Scale Range
Care–Mother
Late adolescents (n = 75)
Mothers (n = 75)
Protection–Mother
Late adolescents
Mothers
Care–Father
Late adolescents (n = 65)
Fathers (n = 65)
Protection–Father
Late adolescents
Fathers
Self-Esteem
Late adolescents (n = 78)
Social Self-Efficacy
Late adolescents
a
Correlation of adolescent and parent.
father reports only accounted for 7% of the unique variance
in self-esteem. Shared variance between fathers and chil-
dren in the prediction of self-esteem scores was 6%. Thus,
in determining self-esteem, adolescent perceptions of the
child–father attachment bond considerably exceeded
either the importance of fathers’ unique assessment of the
bond or the importance of the perspective shared by fathers
and their children.
Attachment to mother scores did not account for signifi-
cant variability in social self-efficacy. Likewise, the com-
bined effects of attachment to father scores did not account
for significant variance in social self-efficacy. Therefore,
the relative unique contributions of the different sets of
predictors were not explored.
DISCUSSION
A primary purpose of the present study was to extend the
late adolescent and young adult attachment literature by
examining the degree to which reports of children and their
parents tell a unique story about late adolescent self-esteem
and social efficacy. Prior research in this area has relied
almost exclusively on adolescent self-report and has not
examined the responsiveness, sensitivity, or concordance of
parents to parent–child relationship dynamics. This study
sought to explain additional variance in personal and inter-
personal adjustment over and above what is typically found
in studies of adolescent attachment. To this end, late ado-
lescents and their parents completed retrospective accounts
of mother–child and father–child relations. Late adoles-
cents completed additional measures of self-esteem and
social self-efficacy. The results revealed some findings con-
sistent with other studies in this area. In addition, respon-
dents and their uniquely more or less important influence
on well-being revealed an interesting pattern of gender and
54 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
M SD α r a
outcome-dependent associations between attachment and
adjustment.
Consistent with prior studies in the area of late adoles-
cent and young adult attachment, perceptions that mothers
and fathers were caring and encouraging tended to predict
current self-esteem. In general, this finding and the amount
of explained variance in esteem concur with other results
in which dimensions of self-reported attachment have been
associated with emotional adjustment; greater attachment
security (care and encouragement of autonomy) is associ-
ated with enhanced esteem. For example, in a meta-analysis
of adolescent attachment-adjustment studies, Rice (1990)
found an average effect size (r) of .40 for studies examining
the association between attachment and self-esteem or self-
concept (i.e., about 16% of the variance in esteem could
be attributed to attachment).
Closer inspection of the unique influence of parent versus
child reports of attachment on self-esteem revealed a some-
what surprising gender-of-parent difference. For example,
both mother and child reports of attachment contributed
about the same amount to the total variance in self-esteem
scores (31% and 43%, respectively), with the combined
effects of adolescent reports seeming to be slightly more
important. When attachment to father was the predictor,
child reports were considerably more important (i.e.,
accounted for almost all of the variance) for self-esteem.
Father sensitivity to the attachment bond mattered little
in the prediction of self-esteem, whereas mother reports
and mother–child attunement to attachment seemed to be
almost as important as child reports. In another study of
young adults using the PBI, Richman and Flaherty (1987)
found that paternal bonding was more strongly associated
with self-esteem (and other outcomes) than was maternal
attachment. In contrast, other studies using different mea-
1996 • VOLUME 75
 Late Adolescent and Parent Perceptions of Attachment

TABLE 2

Multiple Regression Results for the Prediction

of Self-Esteem and Social Efficacy

Criterion (Predictor — Respondent) Standardized Beta R2 Change to Remove

Self-Esteem (n = 75)
Care–Mother — Adolescent
Protection–Mother — Adolescent
Care–Mother — Mother
Protection–Mother — Mother

Self-Esteem (n = 65)
Care–Father — Adolescent
Protection–Father — Adolescent
Care–Father — Father
Protection–Father — Father

Social Self-Efficacy (n = 75)

Care–Mother — Adolescent
Protection–Mother — Adolescent
Care–Mother — Mother
Protection–Mother — Mother

Social Self-Efficacy (n = 65)

Care–Father — Adolescent
Protection–Father — Adolescent
Care–Father — Father
Protection–Father — Father

sures have found that maternal attachment is a stronger
predictor of emotional well-being than paternal attachment
(e.g., Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994) and that both maternal
and paternal attachment exert similar influences on adjust-
ment (Holmbeck & Wandrei, 1993). Different measures
of attachment, which assess different dimensions of attach-
ment bonds or behavior, may yield differential sensitivity to
the unique effects of mothers and fathers on their children’s
self-esteem. Put differently, it may become important to
use multiple measures (and informants) of attachment in
older samples to tease apart the effects of attachment to
mother and to father. A caveat to this recommendation is
that not all current assessments may adequately capture
differences between paternal and maternal attachment
bonds with children. For example, “healthy” father–child
relationships may mean that fathers are dependable, consis-
tent, and active with their children, elements of attachment
bonds that are not assessed by the PBI.
As Bowlby (1988) and Main and Weston (1981)
observed in studies of toddlers, it is quite possible to witness
a secure attachment with one parent and an insecure attach-
ment with another parent for the same child and with
potentially different adjustment outcomes as a result. As
studies of attachment beyond early childhood increase, at
a minimum it would seem important to attend both to
maternal and paternal dimensions, and perhaps reports,
of the bond. Furthermore, counselors may need to gain
information from their clients about the clients’ percep-
tions of their relationships with their parents, particularly
their fathers, when the clients have issues related to self-
esteem.
The finding regarding the nonsignificant association
between attachment and social self-efficacy is in contrast
to a report by Collins and Read (1990) in which perceptions
of mother were small but significantly associated with social
adjustment whereas perceptions of father were not. Like-
wise, Mallinckrodt (1992) found significant associations
between both mother and father care and social self-effi-
cacy. He suggested, following object relations theories, that
viewing oneself as an “effective actor” (i.e., high social self-
efficacy) in a social world “may depend on how responsive
. . . early caregivers have been” (p. 459). Some possible
explanations for these different results may be linked to
sample size, measurement, and analysis strategies (e.g.,
small sample size would preclude some associations from
reaching statistical significance). Certainly, the results of
this study should be replicated with larger samples and
other measures of attachment. Moreover, the present sam-
ple of college students represents only one element of the
larger late adolescent and young adult population; an addi-
tional avenue for future research on adolescent–parent
attachment could incorporate noncollege participants.
Likewise, it should be noted that parents volunteered to
participate and returned surveys that were sent to them.
These parents may not represent the typical parents of late
adolescents (although, in the present study, there were no

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1996 • VOLUME 75 55

Kenneth G. Rice and Paige N. Cummins
significant differences between adolescents whose parents
participated and those whose parents did not). Parents were
asked to report their assessment of the parent–adolescent
bond as they believed they were experienced by their child,
as “through the child’s eyes.” The sample of parents who
participated may have been more or less capable of that
degree of perspective taking when compared with parents
in general. Because the PBI assesses retrospective impres-
sions of relationships that likely are influenced by current
perceptions (see Mallinckrodt, 1992, and Parker, 1989, for
further discussion of this point), it would be important
in future studies to assess the stability or consistency of
adolescent–parent attachment over time. It should be
added, however, that no other report to date has involved
both parent figures and their adolescent child in a study of
attachment and adjustment.
Implications for practice should be tempered by the limi-
tations of this research, as noted in preceding paragraphs.
One possible application of the present study would be to
attend to participant perceptions of both parents in the
development and implementation of campus self-esteem
workshops or other similar outreach activities. Develop-
ment of outreach activities that address family dynamics
also may be helpful in facilitating the late adolescent’s
understanding of how past and current perceptions of their
relationships with their parents may affect their ability to
gain social support and to develop relationships with peers.
Another extension of this study would be to consider the
importance of counselor sensitivity to attachment-relevant
concerns when working with clients who are experiencing
low self-esteem. Bowlby (1988) described how counseling
relationships can parallel attachment relationships. Accord-
ing to Bowlby (1988), counselors help clients by providing
a secure base for exploration of difficult situations; by
encouraging exploration of current relationships, including
the counseling relationship, to understand the links
between earlier attachments and current social and per-
sonal functioning; and by helping clients to achieve a more
accurate and adequate understanding of self and others.
Case Example
The following illustration exemplifies how attachment
issues might present themselves in counseling with an ado-
lescent client. In addition, this example highlights how this
information might be used by the counselor to work with
self-esteem issues. Jayne, an 18-year-old woman, came to
counseling because she was experiencing difficulty adjust-
ing to the local community college she began attending just
after graduation from high school. She expressed difficulty
making new friends and some minor discomfort with con-
tinuing to live at home. Further exploration revealed that
she often felt depressed and that she found it difficult to
think positively about herself. When asked about her rela-
tionships with her parents, Jayne disclosed that she experi-
enced both of her parents as being distant, though in differ-
ent ways. She indicated that her mother did not let her
make her own decisions to the point that she wanted to
56 JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
control Jayne’s daily activities. She described her father as
not being involved in her life. She indicated that she could
not recall her father ever telling her that he loved her or
showing her any affection.
After working with Jayne individually for several ses-
sions, the counselor and Jayne discussed the possibility of
involving Jayne’s parents in her counseling. Despite some
initial hesitancy, Jayne decided that she would like her
parents involved in at least one counseling session, if not
more, and subsequent contact with the parents revealed
the same degree of interest. During the first family session,
it became quite obvious that Jayne’s mother was not sensi-
tive to the dynamics of her relationship with her daughter.
Jayne’s mother admitted that she made decisions for her
daughter but insisted this was necessary as her daughter
had difficulty making decisions on her own. Jayne’s father,
however, seemed more involved and supportive of his
daughter than Jayne indicated initially. Using the informa-
tion gained from Jayne and her family, the counselor
worked with Jayne to help her verbalize how she experi-
enced her relationship with her mother and that her moth-
er’s behaviors made it difficult for Jayne to make her own
decisions. The counselor also helped Jayne’s father under-
stand that Jayne perceived him as being distant and uncar-
ing and that this perception affected how she felt about
herself. In addition, the counselor helped Jayne recognize
that her father was more supportive than she thought.
As a result of increased understanding of these relational
concerns, the family began to make changes in their rela-
tionships that helped Jayne to develop a more positive
image of herself.
In other words, a specific focus of counseling could be
on the perceived agreement between the client and his or
her parents, particularly when self-esteem is a concern.
Counseling could provide an opportunity to help the late
adolescent confront relational distortions or misperceptions
that may be affecting self-perceptions as well as the devel-
opment of supportive relationships with others (Pistole,
1989). Attachment style also may affect the ability of the
late adolescent to be emotionally expressive, intimate, and
independent. These behaviors are necessary for the devel-
opment of successful relationships. Thus, counseling may
help teach important relationship skills to the late adoles-
cent whose parental attachment is not, or was not, secure.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attach-
ment: A theoretical review of the infant–mother relationship. Child
Development, 40, 969-1025.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
Psychologist, 44, 709-716.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns
of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to
personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 333-341.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent
and peer attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to
1996 • VOLUME 75

psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 16, 427-453.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
Blain, M. D., Thompson, J, M., & Whiffen, V. E. (1993). Attachment and
perceived social support in late adolescence: The interaction between
working models of self and others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 8,
226-241.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York:
Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy
human development. New York: Basic Books.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,
and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Crandall, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related con-
cepts. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social psycho-
logical attitudes (pp. 45-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Cutrona, C. E. (1989). Ratings of social support by adolescents and adult
informants: Degree of correspondence and prediction of depressive
symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 723-730.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1986). Dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1, 253-264.
Holmbeck, G. N., & Wandrei, M. L. (1993). Individual and relational
predictors of adjustment in first-year college students. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology, 40, 73-78.
Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment
among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
16, 17-27.
Kenny, M. E. (1994). Quality and correlates of parental attachment among
late adolescents. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 399-403.
Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. (1991). Contributions of parental attach-
ment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning
of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38,
479-486.
Kenny, M. E., & Hart, K. (1992). Relationship between parental attach-
ment and eating disorders in an inpatient and a college sample. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 39, 521-526.
Kenny, M. E., & Rice, K. G. (1995). Attachment to parents and adjustment
in late adolescent college students: Current status, applications, and
future considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 433-456.
Lapsley, D. K., Rice, K. G., & FitzGerald, D. (1990). Adolescent attach-
ment, identity, and adjustment to college: Implications for the continu-
ity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling and Development,
68, 561-565.
Lopez, F. G., & Gover, M. R. (1993). Self-report measures of parent-ado-
lescent attachment and separation–individuation: A selective review.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 560-569.
Lyddon, W. J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J. P. (1993). Assessing adolescent
and adult attachment: A review of current self-report measures. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 71, 390-395.
JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER
Late Adolescent and Parent Perceptions of Attachment
Main, M., & Weston, D. (1981). Quality of attachment to mother and
to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness for establishing
new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932-940.
Mallinckrodt, B. (1992). Childhood emotional bonds with parents, devel-
opment of adult social competencies, and availability of social support.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 453-461.
Parker, G. (1981). Parental reports of depressives: An investigation of
several explanations. Journal of Affective Disorders, 3, 131-140.
Parker, G. (1989). The parental bonding instrument: Psychometric prop-
erties reviewed. Psychiatric Development, 4, 317-335.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New
York: CBS College Publishing.
Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment: Implications for counselors. Journal
of Counseling & Development, 68, 190-193.
Pistole, M. C., & Watkins, C. E. (1995). Attachment theory, counseling
process, and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 457-478.
Rheingold, H. (1969). The effect of a strange environment on the behavior
of infants. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior (Vol. 4).
New York: Barnes & Noble.
Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-
analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511-538.
Rice, K. G., FitzGerald, D. P., Whaley, T. J., & Gibbs, C. L. (1995).
Cross-sectional and longitudinal examination of attachment, separa-
tion–individuation, and college student adjustment. Journal of Counsel-
ing & Development, 73, 463-474.
Rice, K. G., & Whaley, T. J. (1994). A short-term longitudinal study of
within-semester stability and change in attachment and college student
adjustment. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 324-330.
Richman, J. A., & Flaherty, J. A. (1987). Adult psychosocial assets and
depressive mood over time: Effects of internalized childhood attach-
ments. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 703-712.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., Shearin, E. N., Sarason, I. G., & Waltz, J. A.
(1991). Perceived social support and working models of self and actual
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 273-287.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the Self-
Efficacy Scale. Psychological Reports, 53, 899-902.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs,
B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and
validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.
Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Role of adolescent–parent
relationships in college student development and adjustment. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 41, 248-255.
Sroufe, L. A. (1979). The coherence of individual development: Early
care, attachment, and subsequent developmental issues. American Psy-
chologist, 34, 834-841.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational
perspective. Child Development, 48, 1184-1199.
1996 • VOLUME 75 57