See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226084483

Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire: A Brief Assessment of Attachment in

Adolescence

Article in Journal of Youth and Adolescence · October 1998

DOI: 10.1023/A:1022891225542

CITATIONS READS
136 50,265

5 authors, including:

Marianne Sarah Rose Adrienne Keller

Alberta Health Services University of Virginia
105 PUBLICATIONS 6,482 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 1,826 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adrienne Keller on 17 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 27, No. 5, 1998

Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire: A Brief

Assessment of Attachment in Adolescence

Malcolm West,1 M. Sarah Rose,2 Sheila Spreng,3 Adrienne

Sheldon-Keller,4 and Kenneth Adam5
Received November 4, 1996; accepted March 16, 1998

The Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ), a brief questionnaire to

assess attachment characteristics in adolescents, was developed and validated
in a large normative sample (n = 691) and a sample of 133 adolescents in
psychiatric treatment. The AAQ is a self-report questionnaire tconsisting of 3
scales of 3 statements each, with Likert-type responses from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. The Availability scale assesses the adolescent’s confidence
in the availability and responsiveness of the attachment figure. The
Goal-Corrected Partnership scale assesses the extent to which the adolescent
considers and is empathetic to the needs and feelings of the attachment figure.
The Angry Distress scale taps the amount of anger in the adolescent-parent
relationship. All scales demonstrate satisfactory internal reliability and
agreement between scores for adolescents (n = 91) from the normative sample
who completed the AAQ twice. Adolescents in the clinical sample also
completed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI); the AAQ demonstrated high
convergent validity with the AAI.

This research was partially supported by NHRDP (Canada) Project #6606-4221-MH to

Kenneth Adam and Malcolm West.
1Professor at the University of Calgary. Received Ph.D. in educational psychology from the
University of Alberta. Major research interests are attachment and parent-child interactions.
2Associate Professor at the University of Calgary. Received Ph.D. in biostatistics from the
University of Calgary. Major research interests are biostatistics.
3Research Associate at the University of Calgary. Received M.Sc. in medical science at the
University of Calgary. Major research interests are teenage suicidal behavior and attachment.
4Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia. Received Ph.D. in medical science from
the University of Calgary. Major research interests are substance abuse and attachment.
5Professor at the University of Toronto. Received M.D. from the University of Toronto. Major
research interests are trauma and attachment.

661
0047-2891/98/1000-0661$15.00/0 © 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation
662 West et al.

INTRODUCTION

Attachment theory, as first explicated by John Bowlby (1969/1982,

1973, 1980), posits a biologically based system of specific behaviors organ-
ized to maintain or restore safety through proximity to a special and pre-
ferred other (the attachment figure). Attachment writers from Bowlby on
have conceived of attachment as embracing behaviors, affects, and cogni-
tions that are organized or patterned in response to common variations of
the care giver’s sensitivity to a child’s signals for proximity (Ainsworth et
al., 1978; Sroufe and Waters, 1977).
Attachment relationships beyond childhood have an important func-
tional role in the overall adjustment of the individual (Ainsworth, 1985;
Weiss, 1991; West and Sheldon-Keller, 1994). A major reorganization of
these relationships occurs during adolescence as the complementary par-
ent–child care-giving attachments are gradually relinquished and new af-
fectional ties to peers are formed. These new ties become the basis for
later, stable reciprocal attachment relationships (Hinde, 1982). Despite this
shift to peer relationships, most adolescents wish and need to maintain their
parents as “attachment figures in reserve,” to use Weiss’ (1982) term, con-
tinuing to seek parental support and comfort during times of distress. As
well, adolescents’ success in creating new supportive relationships is criti-
cally influenced by the affectively charged pattern of attachment behaviors
and beliefs about attachment carried forward from the attachment history
with their parents.
Available research has consistently identified the quality of family re-
lationships in the etiology of emotional disorder in adolescence. Various
writers have recognized that adverse family experiences pose a relentless
threat to the consistent availability of parental care and emotional support
and thus to the continuity of the adolescent’s sense of secure attachment
(Baumrind, 1993; Kobak et al., 1991; Rice, 1990). Although there is agree-
ment that attachment is an especially valuable conceptual tool for under-
standing parent–adolescent relations, empirical work has been hampered
by a lack of measures for its assessment. One early clinical test was that
of Hansburg (1972), who used pictures depicting different separation situ-
ations to appraise responses to separation. Its use, however, is restricted
to school-age children and young adolescents. Three self- report measures,
the Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker et al., 1979), the Inventory of Par-
ent and Peer Attachment (Armsden and Greenberg, 1987) and the Parental
Relationship Questionnaire (Kenny, 1987) have been used to assess ado-
lescent attachment. However, none of these measures offer the possibility
of direct correspondence to the most commonly used classification of at-
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 663

tachment in later age periods, as derived from the Adult Attachment In-
terview (AAI; George et al., 1984-1996).
The AAI has also been used with adolescents (Adam et al., 1996; Ko-
bak and Sceery, 1988; Ward and Carlson, 1995). Despite its strengths, the
AAI has the substantial disadvantage of being a costly, time-consuming pro-
tocol, requiring an interview that typically lasts from one to two hours, sev-
eral hours of transcription time, and several hours for coding. As noted by
Marton and Maharaj (1993), the study of attachment in adolescence would
be enhanced by a cost-effective, efficient tool with strong validity and re-
liability, especially convergent validity with commonly used attachment clas-
sifications. This paper reports on the development of such an instrument.

METHOD

Scale Development

The Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire (AAQ) is based on dimen-

sions identified as relevant to defining parent-adolescent attachment
(Ainsworth, 1985; Weiss, 1982). Following Loevinger’s (1957) construct-ori-
ented approach to scale development, we derived the scales of the AAQ
a priori from theoretical considerations rather than through post hoc sta-
tistical manipulations such as factor analysis. Statistical analyses were used
to refine and confirm the psychometric strength of the theoretically based
scales.
As noted above, attachment provides a unique relationship with an-
other individual who is perceived as available and responsive and who is
turned to for emotional and instrumental support. Bowlby (1973) points
out that not only must the attachment figure be available but that he or
she also needs to be perceived as willing to act responsively, dealing effec-
tively with attachment-related distress and anxiety. To capture these provi-
sions of an attachment relationship, we developed a scale to assess the
extent to which the adolescent has confidence in the attachment figure as
reliably accessible and responsive to most of his/her attachment needs. We
call this scale Availability.
Bowlby identified anger directed toward an attachment figure as a re-
action to the frustration of attachment desires and needs. As Bowlby (1973,
p. 255) observed, “ . . . being anxious, especially that an attachment figure
may be inaccessible or unresponsive when wanted, increases hostility.” We
included Angry Distress as a scale tapping negative affective responses to
the perceived unavailability of the attachment figure.
664 West et al.

In the development of the attachment bond, Bowlby (1969/1982) and

Marvin (1977) speak of progression to a “goal-corrected partnership” in
which the child begins to perceive and respond to the attachment figure
as someone with his/her own plans and goals. Empathetic to the attachment
figure’s needs and feelings, the child becomes increasingly responsive to
him or her as a separate individual. We included, as a separate scale, an
assessment of the extent to which the adolescent considers and has empathy
for the needs and feelings of the attachment figure and call this scale Goal-
Corrected Partnership.
Following identification of these characteristics of adolescent-parent
attachment, we developed self-report scales using the sequential approach
for scale development described by Loevinger (1957) and Jackson (1971).
Items solicited from clinicians and research workers and derived from pre-
vious work on the Reciprocal Attachment Questionnaire for adults (West
and Sheldon-Keller, 1992) created a large pool of potential markers for
each scale. These sets of items were first edited rationally for clarity, brev-
ity, content saturation, scalar relevance, and uniqueness. The resultant
items, approximately 15 per scale, were used to create a questionnaire with
responses scored on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. The adolescent is instructed to answer these question about his/her
relationship “. . . with the person in your life who raised you—that is, the
person who mostly took care of you from the time you were born to age
5.” In this study, the majority of adolescents (91.5%) identified their mother
as their attachment figure and 8.5% identified someone other than their
mother (e.g., father or grandmother) as their attachment figure. There were
no significant sex or age differences between those who chose their mother
and those who chose someone else as their attachment figure.
This pilot questionnaire was refined through the study described be-
low. Both theoretical and psychometric considerations guided the final item
choice: face validity of correspondence to the theoretical constructs, con-
vergent and discriminant validity, internal reliability, and test-retest agree-
ment. These criteria were optimized through a reiterative selection and
testing process.

Participants

This study includes two samples: one from a clinical population and
one from a school-based population. All participants were adolescents be-
tween the ages of 12 and 19 years. The clinical sample was composed of
133 adolescents who were participants in a study of suicidal behavior in
adolescents and who completed the Adult Attachment Interview (Adam et
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 665

al., 1996). Informed written consent to participate was obtained from each
adolescent and, for participants under 18 years old, written consent from
his/her parent or guardian. Exclusion criteria were presence of active psy-
chosis or organic brain or central nervous system disorder. These 133 ado-
lescents included 59 females and 74 males, predominantly white (86.5%);
58.3% were aged 15 years or less and 41.7% were older than 15. Fifty-three
percent of the participants were in residential treatment at the time of the
study. There were no significant differences between males and females in
age (x2[l] = .17, p = .67) or residential treatment (x2[1] = 1.05, p = .31).
Participants for the school sample were recruited, with the consent and
cooperation of the School Board and parents, from junior high and high
schools in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The sample of 691 participants was
comprised of 344 females (49.8%) and 347 males (50.2%) in Grades 7–12.
Fifty-eight percent were 15 years or younger while 42% were older than
15. English was the first language for 87.8% of the participants. There were
no statistically significant differences between males and females in age or
English as a first language. These participants completed the questionnaire
battery in a classroom setting. Three months later, 91 adolescents (11.6%)
completed the AAQ a second time. There were no significant differences
in age, sex, or English as a first language between participants who par-
ticipated in the retest and other participants.

Instruments

All participants in both samples completed the AAQ and a brief demo-
graphic questionnaire. In addition, participants in the clinical sample com-
pleted the Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1984–1996) with
minor modifications for adolescent participants.
The AAI is a semistructured interview focused on attachment rela-
tionships and events in early childhood. The coding of the AAI is a complex
task requiring several steps based on verbatim transcripts of the audiotaped
interviews. Each transcript is rated on fourteen 9-point scales. Each subject
is then coded for presence or absence of Unresolved/ Disorganized Loss
or Trauma (Ud rating), and for one of three primary attachment patterns:
autonomous/secure (F rating), dismissing (Ds rating), preoccupied/en-
meshed (E rating; Main and Goldwyn, 1985–1994). These classifications
parallel the fourfold infant-caregiver Strange Situation classifications of in-
secure-disorganized, secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-ambivalent, re-
spectively. Transcripts which do not appear to fit one of the primary F, Ds,
or E categories or show a striking mixture of organizations are coded Can-
not Classify (cc). For this study, each AAI was coded by at least two raters
666 West et al.

independently. Final ratings of scales and codings of patterns were derived

by consensus discussion. A more detailed description of the AAI protocol
for this study has been described elsewhere (Adam et al., 1996).
The validity and reliability of the AAI has been established in a num-
ber of studies. High concordances between parental AAI and infant strange
situation classifications have been reported retrospectively (Ainsworth and
Eichberg, 1991; Grossman et al., 1988; Main et al., 1985), as well as prospec-
tively (Benoit and Parker, 1994; Fonagy et al., 1991; Ward and Carlson,
1995). Test-retest reliabilities of 78% (kappa .63), and 90% (kappa .79)
have been reported by Bukermans- Kranenburg and van Ijzendoorn (1993)
and Benoit and Parker (1994), respectively.
In an analysis of interrater reliability for the AAI in this study, the
mean concordance rate across all AAI classifications (Ud, F, Ds, E, cc) for
all pairs of raters was 78.6%. The mean kappa for primary classifications
(F, Ds, E, cc) is .71. As this study was one of the first to include an as-
sessment of the Ud classification, the mean kappa for primary classifications
allows better comparability with reported kappas from other studies.

Statistical Analyses

Empirical testing of the scales was organized using the school sample
(n = 691) for objectives 1 to 4 and the clinical sample (n = 133) for the
final objective:
1. To investigate the internal consistency of items within each scale.
Alpha coefficients of internal reliability were computed to
determine the degree to which each scale reflected a unitary
dimension, empirically as well as conceptually.
2. To investigate the temporal stability of the scales. For the 91
adolescents who completed the AAQ twice, agreement between
scores measured at time one and time two (three months later)
for each scales was assessed using Bland and Altaian’s (1986)
method, which involves calculating the mean difference between
the scores, corresponding 95% confidence interval and standard
deviation of the differences. Test-retest reliability was also
examined by calculating Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients.
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 667

Table I. Empirical Structure of the Scales: School Sample (n = 691)

Goal-Corrected
Angry Distress Availability partnership
Number of items 3 3 3
Alpha coefficienta .62 .80 .74
Agreementb
Mean difference -.187 .044 .088
95% confidence interval -.560, .226 -.387, .475 -.304, .480
Standard deviation 1.98 2.07 1.88
Test-retest reliabilityc .685 .737 .729
Interscale correlationc
With angry distress 1.00 .53 .34
With availability .53 1.00 .58
With goal-corrected partnership .34 .58 1.00
aCronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal reliability.
bBetween scores measured at time one and time two.
cPearson product-moment correlation.

3. To investigate the discriminant validity between the scales. The

interscale correlation coefficients were obtained by calculating
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients.
4. To investigate gender differences in the scales. Differences between
males and females in the scales were tested using independent
sample t-tests.
5. To investigate the convergent validity of the scales. Independent
sample t-tests were used to assess the convergence of the scales
with the 3 AAI primary attachment categories.

RESULTS

Reliability and Intercorrelations of the Scales

Alpha coefficients of internal reliability, statistics for measuring agree-

ment and test reliability, and interscale correlations are presented in Table
I. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .62 to .80, indicating a satisfactory degree
of internal consistency. Inspection of Table I shows that for all 3 scales,
the mean difference was close to zero and the value zero was contained
in the 95% confidence interval, demonstrating agreement between scores
at time one and time two. Test-retest correlations showed high temporal
stability for all 3 scales.
668 West et al.

Table II. Scale Statistics for the AAQ Scales by Sex: School Sample (n = 691)
Goal-Corrected
Angry Distress Availability Partnership
Males (n = 347)
Mean 6.59 6.58 7.07
95% confidence interval 6.34, 6.85 6.32, 6.84 6.84, 7.30
Standard deviation 2.42 2.49 2.21
Females (n = 343)
Mean 7.02 6.82 6.63
95% confidence interval 6.72, 7.31 6.51, 7.13 6.38, 6.88
Standard deviation 2.78 2.92 2.36
t(df), P -2.15(688), .032 -1.11(689), .268 2.57(689), .010

As the interscale correlation matrix in Table I shows, the correlations

are low to midrange, indicating acceptable discrimination between the
scales. The final item set is given in the Appendix.

Gender Differences in the Scales

Males and females scored significantly different on Angry Distress (p

= .032) and Goal-Corrected Partnership (p = .01). Females reported more
anger and males reported less partnership in their relationship with the
attachment figure.6 There was no significant gender difference observed
for Availability. Table II presents the means, 95% confidence intervals and
standard deviations for each AAQ scale by sex.

Convergent Validity

In the clinical sample, we examined the correspondence between the

AAQ and the three primary attachment classifications derived from the
AAI (secure, preoccupied, and dismissing) occurring in the absence of un-
resolved/disorganized response to trauma. Of the 133 participants, 68 had
no history of exposure to attachment related trauma (21 were classified as
secure, 8 as preoccupied, and 35 as dismissing). This strategy yields more
“pure” classifications since participants with an unresolved/disorganized re-
sponse to trauma can have more variation on primary classifications than
other participants. Independent t-tests were used to compare the mean
scores on each AAQ scale for each primary attachment classification vs.
6It should be noted that for all 3 scales, higher scores indicate more problems with respect
to the dimension measured.
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 669

Table III. Scale Statistics for the AAQ Scales by AAI Classifications: Clinical
Sample (n = 133)
Goal-Corrected
Angry Distress Availability Partnership
Secure (n = 21)
Mean 7.10 5.48 5.86
95% confidence interval 5.55, 8.64 4.61, 6.35 4.89, 6.83
Standard deviation 3.39 1.91 2.13
All others (n = 47)
Mean 6.77 7.11 7.23
95% confidence interval 5.99, 7.54 6.19, 8.02 6.39, 8.08
Standard deviation 2.64 3.12 2.89
t(df), p -.434(66), .665 2.21(66), .031 1.96(66), .055
Preoccupied (n = 8)
Mean 9.25 8.12 6.13
95% confidence interval 7.48, 11.02 5.25, 11.00 4.61, 764
Standard deviation 2.12 3.44 1.81
All others (n = 60)
Mean 6.55 6.40 6.90
95% confidence interval 5.82, 7.28 5.68, 7.12 6.17, 7.63
Standard deviation 2.82 2.78 2.84
t(df), P -2.61(66), .011 -1.60(66), .114 .749(66), .456
Dismissing (n = 35)
Mean 6.43 7.00 7.62
95% confidence interval 5.57, 7.29 5.94, 8.06 6.59, 8.67
Standard deviation 2.50 3.08 3.02
All others (n = 33)
Mean 7.33 6.18 5.94
95% confidence interval 6.20, 8.46 5.24, 7.13 5.19, 6.69
Standard deviation 3.19 2.66 2.12
t(df), p .31(66), .196 -1.17(66), .247 -2.65(66), .010

all other participants. Since numbers within each classification group were
small, males and females were not analysed separately. Participants classi-
fied as secure (n = 21) scored significantly different than other participants
on Availability (p = .031), the 8 participants classified as preoccupied had
significantly different scores on the AAQ scale of Angry Distress (p = .011),
and participants classified as dismissing (n = 35) scored significantly dif-
ferent on the scale Goal-Corrected Partnership (p = .010). Means, 95% con-
fidence intervals and standard deviations for each classification group are
given in Table III.

DISCUSSION

The aim of the present study was to develop scales to measure ado-
lescents’ perceptions of the relationship to their attachment figure (avail-
ability, responsiveness, partnership, and the like). In this undertaking we
670 West et al.

feel we were successful. All scales demonstrate acceptable internal and tem-
poral stability.
In the view of Crowell and Treboux (1995), developers of self-report
questionnaires of attachment have paid insufficient attention to the issue
of the construct validity of their measures. The AAI is generally considered
the “gold standard” for classifying attachment status in adolescents and
adults. The correspondence between the AAQ scales and the primary clas-
sifications according to the AAI supports the construct validity of the AAQ
scales. Adolescents who were classified as secure according to the AAI re-
ported more available responsiveness of their attachment figure. Adoles-
cents who were classified as dismissing of attachment according to the AAI
reported less partnership with their attachment figure. Adolescents who
were classified as preoccupied with attachment issues according to the AAI
reported more angry distress with their attachment figure.
Although the scales relate in a meaningful way to the traditional three-
category AAI classification system, it would be injudicious to regard the
scales as directly measuring security or insecurity in the relationship.
Whereas attachment status derived from a clinical interview such as the
AAI is ultimately based on an evaluation of unconscious defensive proc-
esses, self-report methodology cannot tap this important dimension.
Rather, self-report questionnaires such as ours are more likely to reflect
conscious evaluations of the self in relationships. Therefore, our scales
should be regarded only as assessing adolescents’ perceptions of the avail-
able responsiveness of their attachment figure and not as an index of the
security or insecurity in the relationship.
Gender differences in the goal-corrected partnership and angry distress
scales deserve comment. That females reported a greater sense of partner-
ship, yet at the same time reported more angry distress with their attach-
ment figure, typically mother, is consistent with Steinberg’s (1990)
observation that the mother-daughter relationship may be especially
strained during adolescence. It is possible that females are more likely to
be preoccupied with attachments than males, thus fostering both excessively
intimate and angry interactions with their attachment figures. Indeed, an
excess of preoccupied attachment in female adolescents has previously been
reported in two samples of nonclinical adolescents (Kobak and Sceery,
1988; Kobak et al., 1991).
In conclusion, the study reported here has yielded a short self-report
questionnaire, appropriate to adolescents, with good theoretical and psy-
chometric properties. Two characteristics are of particular importance.
First, the scales conform closely to attachment theory and represent im-
portant constructs within the definition of attachment. Second, the scales
demonstrate strong convergent validity with a widely used interview-based
Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 671

assessment of attachment, the Adult Attachment Interview. These scales

can be used in large scale studies of adolescents to assist in further char-
acterizing phenomena associated with various attachment organizations in
adolescence.

Appendix. Composition of Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire

Scale Item
Angry Distress 1. My parent only seems to notice me
when I am angry.
2. I often feel angry with my parent
without knowing why.
3. I get annoyed at my parent because it
seems I have to demand his/her caring
and support.
Availability (reverse score) 1. I’m confident that my parent will listen
to me
2. I’m confident that my parent will try to
understand of feelings.
3. I talk things over with my parent.
Goal-Corrected Partnership (reverse score) 1. I enjoy helping my parent whenever I
can.
2. I feel for my parent when he/she is
upset.
3. It makes me feel good to be able to do
things for my parent.

REFERENCES

Adam K.., Sheldon-Keller A., and West, M. (1996). Attachment organization and history of
suicidal behavior in clinical adolescents. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 64: 264-272.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1985). Attachments across the life span. Bull. NY.Acad. Med. 61: 792-812.
Ainsworth, M., and Eichberg, C. (1991). Effects on infant-mother attachment of mothers un-
resolved loss of an attachment figure, or other traumatic experience. In Parkes, C. M.,
Stevenson- Hinde, J., and Marris, P. (eds.), Attachment Across the Life Cycle. Routledge,
London and New York.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., and Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psy-
chological Study of the Strange Situation. Erlbaum Press, Hillsdale, NJ.
Armsden, G. C., and Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.
J. Youth Adolesc. 16: 427-54.
Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response
to Scarr. Child Develop. 64: 1299-1317.
Benoit, D., and Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three
generations. Child Develop. 65: 1444-1456.
Bland, J. M., and Altman, B. G. (1986). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between
two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1: 307-310.
Bowlby, J. (1969/82). Attachment and Loss. Vol 1. Attachment. Hogarth Press, London; Basic
Books, New York.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 2. Separation. Basic Books, New York.
672 West et al.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 3. Loss, Sadness and Depression. Basic Books,
New York.
Bukermans-Kranenburg, M. J., and van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A psychometric study of
the adult attachment interview: Reliability and discriminant validity. Develop. Psychol. 29:
870-880.
Crowell, J. A., and Treboux, D. (1995). A review of adult attachment measures: Implications
for theory and research. Social Develop. 4: 294-327.
Fonagy, P., Steele, H., and Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during
pregnancy predict organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child
Develop. 62: 891-905.
George, C., Kaplan, N., and Main, M. (1984-1996). Attachment Interview for Adults. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Grossman, K., Fremma-Bombik, E., Rudolph, J., and Grossman, K. E. (1988). Maternal at-
tachment representations as related to patterns of infant mother attachment and maternal
care during the first year. In Hinde, R. A., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.), Relationships
within Families: Mutual influences. Clarendon, Oxford.
Hansburg, H. G. (1972). Adolescent Separation Anxiety: A Method for the Study of Adolescent
Separation Problems. C. C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Hinde, R. (1982). Attachment: some conceptual and biological issues. In Parkes, M., and
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.), The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. Basic Books,
New York.
Jackson, D. N. (1971). A sequential system for personality scale development. Curr. Topics
Clin. Commun. Psychiat. 2: 61-96.
Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first year college
students. J. Youth Adolesc. 16: 17-29.
Kobak, R. R., and Sceery, A. (1988). The transition to college: Working models of attachment,
affect regulation, and perceptions of self and others. Child Develop. 59: 135-146.
Kobak, R., Sudler, N., and Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during
adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Develop. Psychopathal. 3: 461-474.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychol. Rep. 3:
635-694.
Main, M., and Goldwyn, R. (1985-1994). Adult Attachment Scoring and Classification System.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Psychology.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood:
A move to a level of representation. In Bretherton, I., and Waters, E. (eds.), Growing
Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development (Vol. 50). University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Marton, P., and Maharaj, M. A. (1993). Family factors in adolescent unipolar depression. Can.
J. Psychiat. 38: 373-382.
Marvin, R. S. (1977). An ethological-cognitive model for attenuation of mother-child attach-
ment behavior. In Alloway, T. M., Kramer, L., and Pliner, P. (eds.), Advances in the Study
of Communication and Affect (Vol. 3). Plenum Press, New York.
Parker, G., Tupling, M., and Brown, C. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. Br. J. Med.
Psychiat. 52: 1-10.
Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 19: 511-538.
Sroufe, L. A., and Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizing construct. Child Develop.
48: 1184-1199.
Steinberg, L. D. (1990). Interdependency in the family: Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in
the parent-adolescent relationship. In Feldman, S., and Elliot, G (eds.), At the Threshold:
The Developing Adolescent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ward, M. J., and Carlson, E. A. (1995). The predictive validity of the adult attachment inter-
view for adolescent mothers. Child Develop.66: 69-79.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In Parkes C. M., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.)
The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. Basic Books, New York.
 Adolescent Attachment Questionnaire 673

Weiss, R. S. (1991). The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In Parkes, C. M.,
Marris, P., and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (eds.) Attachment Across the Life Cycle. Routledge
New York.
West, M., and Sheldon-Keller, A. (1992). The assessment of dimensions relevant to adult re-
ciprocal attachment. Can. J. Psychiat. 37: 600-606.
West, M., and Sheldon-Keller, A. (1994). Patterns of Relating: An Adult Attachment Perspective,
Guilford Publications, New York.

View publication stats