09 e 4150 e 8173 BD 597 F 000000

An Interpersonal Analysis of Adult
Attachment Style: Circumplex Descriptions,

Recalled Developmental Experiences,
Self-Representations, and Interpersonal
Functioning in Adulthood
Linda C. Gallo
San Diego State University
Timothy W. Smith and John M. Ruiz
University of Utah
ABSTRACT Previous research suggests that the structure of adult
attachment is dimensional, but the specic dimensions remain unclear.
Given its relational nature, studies should examine attachment structure
in association with conceptually related interpersonal constructs. The
interpersonal model (Kiesler, 1996) provides an integrative framework to
examine this structure and associations between dimensions of attach-
ment security (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) and: 1) the dimensions
of the interpersonal circumplex, 2) the ve-factor model of personality, 3)
recollections of mothers and fathers, and 4) current self-processes
and adult social functioning. In two samples of undergraduates,
the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions were associated with a hostile-
submissive interpersonal style. Canonical correlation analyses revealed
Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by NIH Grant HL07560. We thank
Lorna Smith-Benjamin, Paul Florsheim, and three anonymous reviewers for their
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed to Linda C. Gallo,
SDSU/UCSD Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, 6363 Alvarado Court,
Suite 103, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, 92120. Electronic mail
may be sent to lcgallo@sciences.sdsu.edu.
Journal of Personality 71:2, April 2003.
Copyright r 2003 Blackwell Publishing.
that dimensions representing combinations of Anxiety and Avoidance,
and roughly corresponding to the dimensions from Secure (i.e.,
low Anxiety and Avoidance) to Fearful (i.e., high Anxiety and
Avoidance) attachment and from Preoccupied (i.e., high Anxiety and
low Avoidance) to Dismissive (i.e., low Anxiety and high Avoidance)
attachment related to the interpersonal constructs. The Secure to Fearful
dimension (i.e., overall attachment security) seemed to share relatively
more variance with the interpersonal constructs. These dimensions
were associated with theoretically consistent characteristics, recollections
of early experiences with parents, self-representations, and social
functioning.
An Interpersonal Analysis of Adult Attachment Style:
Circumplex Descriptions, Recalled Developmental
Experiences, Self-representations, and Interpersonal
Functioning in Adulthood
Based on the seminal work of Bowlby (1973) and Ainsworth
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), patterns of childhood
attachment have been examined in the context of adult relationships
(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This extension is consistent with
Bowlbys (1979) assertion that attachment mechanisms inuence
relationships from the cradle to the grave (p. 129). This continuity
is believed to reect the integration of early attachment experiences
into mental representations, or working models, of the self, others,
and relationships (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982). In
turn, working models inuence cognition, emotion, and behavior in
social relationships across the life course (Bowlby, 1973; Bretherton,
1985; Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986).
Early research on adult attachment focused on three discrete
types (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), as analogues of the Secure,
Anxious-Ambivalent, and Avoidant childhood patterns described
by Ainsworth. Subsequently, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)
suggested a four-type scheme, which distinguished two Avoidant
types: Fearful-Avoidant, or avoidance of close relationships due to
fear of mistreatment and rejection, and Dismissing-Avoidant, or
avoidance of close relationships due to a defensive sense of self-
sufciency and independence. In this model, two dimensions,
describing the valence of working models of self and others,
underlie the four types.
142 Gallo et al.
Recent research suggests that rather than a three- or four-
categorical scheme, a dimensional model may better represent adult
attachment (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999; Fraley & Waller,
1998; Grifn & Barthlomew, 1994). As shown in Figure 1 (Fraley &
Shaver, 2000), the dimensional model describes attachment structure
according to the degree of anxiety and avoidance in close
relationships (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley &
Waller, 1998). The model also species diagonal dimensions, with
poles corresponding to the attachment styles proposed by Bartho-
lomew. The continuum of low Avoidance and Anxiety to high
Avoidance and Anxiety corresponds with the Secure to Fearful
attachment dimension, or overall attachment security. The con-
tinuum of low Anxiety and high Avoidance to high Anxiety and low
Avoidance corresponds with the Dismissing to Preoccupied attach-
ment dimension. Either the horizontal and vertical dimensions, the
diagonal dimensions, or a single security dimension could represent
the optimal structure of attachment.
Research concerning the dimensional structure of adult attach-
ment has typically examined attachment scales or item pools. This
Low
Avoidance
Security Preoccupation
Low High
Anxiety Anxiety
Dismissing- Fearful-
Avoidance Avoidance
High
Avoidance
Figure1
The two-dimensional model of individual differences in adult
attachment. Reprinted from Fraley & Shaver, 2000, with permission.
An Interpersonal Analysis of Adult Attachment 143
approach is characterized by several limitations. First, the in-
dependence of the dimensions can be inuenced by the decision to
employ an orthogonal solution in factor analyses. This approach
would be consistent with conceptual models of attachment
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley, & Waller, 1998), but the
result might not represent the most accurate structure. Second, the
distinction between the horizontal and vertical versus diagonal
dimensions is inuenced by factor rotation, which has sometimes
been chosen on the basis of preexisting conceptual models (Fraley,
Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Finally, given that adult attachment is a
key inuence on many aspects of social functioning, its structure
should be examined in reference to other interpersonal processes
rather than attachment scales or items alone. This approach would
complement existing research by providing a conceptually derived
account of attachment structure.
Continuity of Attachment Across the Life Course
Although one of the central assumptions of attachment theory is
that early attachment experiences inuence later social functioning,
recent studies nd mixed support for this tenet. Two studies found
substantial continuity of attachment from infancy to adolescence
(Hamilton, 2000) and early adulthood (Waters, Merrick, Treboux,
Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000), whereas two others found evidence
for discontinuity (Lewis, Fering, & Rosenthal, 2000; Weineld,
Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000). Studies concerning attachment continuity
across later childhood or adulthood have also yielded inconsistent
results. Lewis and colleagues (2000) found that individuals with
negative recollections of childhood, recorded at age 13, tended to
show insecure attachment representations at age 18. A longitudinal
study by Klohnen and Bera (1998) found that women with an
Avoidant attachment style, assessed at age 52, had experienced less
successful relationship histories and more negative views of relation-
ships throughout their adult lives when compared with Secure
women. At ages 21 and 43, they also had more problematic
interpersonal styles and showed self-perceptions consistent with
attachment theory. In contrast, Baldwin and Fehr (1995) found that
about 30% of subjects chose different styles when retested with a
categorical measure after 1 week to a few months. Individuals with
144 Gallo et al.
an Anxious-Ambivalent style were most likely to changea nding
consistent with previous research (Klohnen & John, 1998; Mick-
elson, Kesler, & Shaver, 1997).
Evidence that individuals memories of childhood relate to their
adult attachment styles provides additional, albeit indirect, support
of attachment continuity. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that
Secure adults described warm, friendly relationships with their
parents, whereas Anxious-Ambivalent individuals characterized
their parents as intrusive and Avoidant persons described their
mothers as cold and rejecting. In a similar study, Avoidant and
Anxious-Ambivalent individuals reported less affectionate, more
rejecting experiences with their parents when compared with secure
individuals (Gerlsma, Buunk, & Mutsaers, 1996). A study using a
four-category measure found that the insecurely attached groups
described their current families and families of origin less positively
than did the secure group (Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, & Labouvie-
Vief, 1998). The Fearful attachment group provided particularly
negative descriptions of their families, which differed signicantly
from those of the Secure and Dismissive groups. Another study
using the four-category model found that insecure groups described
their parents as less accepting relative to the secure group, with
Fearful participants providing the most negative ratings (Brennan &
Shaver, 1998). The Secure and the Dismissing groups perceived their
parents to be more encouraging of independence than did the
Fearful and Preoccupied groups.
In summary, research suggests that early interpersonal experi-
ences, at least, set the stage for adult relationship processes,
although discontinuity in attachment clearly occurs. Recent
reviews conclude that the association between childparent and
later romantic attachment is of moderate strength (Crowell et al.,
1999; Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Importantly, although recollections of
childhood are likely to reect current circumstances and character-
istics as well as past experiences (e.g., Halverson, 1988;
Henry, Moftt, Caspi, Langley, & Silva, 1994; Lewis, 1997),
internalized views of important interpersonal others are associated
with adult social functioning regardless of their veracity (e.g.,
Benjamin, 1996; Bowlby, 1973). Thus, the study of links
between attachment style and both actual and recalled develop-
mental interactions with caregivers remains an important area of
research.
Interpersonal Models of Personality and Social Behavior
Research concerning the origins and correlates of adult attachment
could benet from the application of well-established theoretical
constructs and measures (cf. Shaver & Brennan, 1992). The
interpersonal approach to personality and social functioning
(Kiesler, 1991; 1996) may be useful in this regard. As shown in
Figure 2, the interpersonal circumplex (Kiesler, 1996) consists of two
dimensions that describe personality and social behavior as
dominant versus submissive and friendly versus hostile. These
dimensions underlie most aspects of interpersonal behavior (e.g.,
Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979), and can therefore be considered a
nomological net for elucidating interpersonal constructs and
measures (e.g., Gurtman, 1992). The association between dimen-
sions of attachment and of the interpersonal circumplex were noted
DOMINANCE
Ambitious-
Dominant(PA)
Gregarious-
Extraverted (NO)
Arrogant-
Calculating (BC)
HOSTILITY
Cold-
Quarrelsome (DE)
Aloof-
Introverted (FG)
Lazy-
Submissive(HI)
SUBMISSIVENESS
Unassuming-
Ingenuous (JK)
FRIENDLINESS
Warm-
Agreeable (LM)
Self-
Enhancing
Leading
Nurturant
Cooperative
Docile
Self-
Effacing
Distrustful
Critical
Figure2
The interpersonal circumplex. Horizontal axis is hostility vs. friendli-
ness. Vertical axis is dominance vs. submissiveness. The octant scales
are identied around the outside (with usual notation in parenth-
esis). Additional descriptors are noted within the octants.
146 Gallo et al.
by Horowitz, Dryer, and Krasnoperova (1997), who suggested that
individuals with negative mental models of others (i.e., Dismissing,
Fearful attachment) avoid intimacy and should therefore be low on
afliation. Persons with negative self-images (i.e., Fearful, Preoccu-
pied attachment) do not feel efcacious and should therefore be high
on submission. Similarly, Diehl and colleagues (1998) found that
individuals with positive self-models (i.e., Secure and Dismissing)
tended to show autonomous and resourceful (i.e., dominant)
characteristics, whereas those with positive other-models (i.e.,
Secure and Preoccupied) tended to be empathic, sociable, and
communal (i.e., afliative; see also Grifn & Bartholomew, 1994;
Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994).
Shaver and Brennan (1992) examined the association of attach-
ment with the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM; McCrae &
Costa, 1987; 1989). The two interpersonal dimensions of the FFM
Agreeableness and Extroversionare similar to afliation and
dominance in the circumplex, respectively (e.g., McCrae & Costa,
1989). More securely attached participants reported higher extro-
version and agreeableness and lower neuroticism and conscientious-
ness. More anxiously attached individuals showed lower
agreeableness and higher neuroticism. More avoidantly attached
persons reported lower extroversion, agreeableness, greater neuroti-
cism, and, to some extent, lower conscientiousness. Thus, pre-
liminary research, at least, suggests that adult attachment style is
related to interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of personality and
that insecure attachment is associated with hostile-submissiveness.
Like attachment theory, the interpersonal perspective maintains
that adult personality and relationships are inuenced by develop-
mental social experiences. Early interactions with important others
are thought to be internalized, exerting enduring effects on self-
concept and relationships over time (similar to the concept of
working models). For example, the Structural Analysis of Social
Behavior model (SASB; Benjamin, 1974; 1994) proposes that early
interactions inuence adult interpersonal behavior through three
interrelated processes (Benjamin, 1996): Identication, which occurs
when an individual adopts a parents interactional style through
observational learning; Recapitulation, which occurs when an
individual internalizes parental behavior and maintains the child-
hood interpersonal role; and Introjection which occurs when an
individual behaves toward him- or herself in the way that he or she
was treated as a child. The introject is similar to the concept of
working model of self. These hypothesized patterns can be used as a
framework through which to describe the relationship between early
interpersonal experiences and adult personality and social behavior.
The SASB model provides a well-validated metric for examining
representations of attachment gures, a renement of the basic
interpersonal circumplex. Instead of incorporating a single con-
ceptualization of control or dominance, the SASB includes a
distinction between enmeshment and differentiation. Dominance
and submission are not opposites, but represent complimentary
behaviors across relational partners. The opposite of exerting
dominance is granting autonomy or independence to others; the
opposite of submissiveness is asserting ones own autonomy. To
capture these distinctions, the SASB incorporates three separate
interpersonal foci. Individuals can rate their own or others actions
toward a target (i.e., transitive focus), their own or others reactions
to a target (i.e., intransitive focus), or their own self-directed
behaviors (i.e., introjects).
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) and interperso-
nal theory (Benjamin, 1994), securely attached persons should recall
their interactions with parents as generally afliative, with varying
degrees of differentiation and enmeshment, and should have
similarly positive introjects (Florsheim, Henry, & Benjamin, 1996).
Insecurely attached individuals should report less afliation in their
recollections of parents and in their introjects. A study by Pincus
and his colleagues (Pincus, Dickinson, Schut, Castonguay, & Bedics,
1999) provides some support for these assertions. Participants chose
from the four attachment categories and responded to SASB-based
measures of their recalled childhood interactions and of their current
self-directed behaviors. The Fearful and Preoccupied groups
reported more hostile self-directed behaviors in adulthood than
did the Secure group. The Fearful group also described their early
experiences with mothers and fathers as more hostile, and the
Preoccupied group described their fathers behaviors as more
hostile, when compared with the Secure group. A second sample
completed the Inventory of Adult Attachment (Lichtenstein &
Cassidy, 1991), a measure of childhood experiences with the primary
caregiver and the SASB questionnaires. Participants who recalled
their caregivers as rejecting on the attachment measure described
their mothers and fathers as more hostile, their own behavior with
148 Gallo et al.
their parents less autonomous, and their self-directed behaviors (i.e.,
introjects) as more hostile on the SASB measures. Participants who
reported greater dismissiveness, anger, and less extensive memories
of their childhood relationship with the primary caregiver also
described their parents as less afliative on the SASB measures.
Because the Inventory of Adult Attachment includes concepts closely
overlapping the SASB measures, common item content (Nichols,
Licht, & Pearl, 1982) may have contributed to the results. Therefore,
the study by Pincus and colleagues (1999) provides preliminary
support for the SASB approach to adult attachment style.
THE CURRENT STUDY
The purpose of the current study was to apply the interpersonal
approach to personality and social behavior to examine the
association between adult attachment and 1) the space dened by
the interpersonal circumplex, 2) an interpersonal version of the
FFM of personality, 3) recalled interactions with parents (i.e.,
representations of others) and current self-processes (i.e., represen-
tations of self) captured with the SASB circumplex model, and 4)
adult social functioning. This study extends previous research by
examining developmental antecedents and interpersonal correlates
of adult attachment through a common and well-validated
conceptual framework. In addition, the study uses a dimensional
measure, whereas much of the related previous research relied on
categorical assessments (e.g., Diehl et al., 1998; Hazan & Shaver,
1987; Pincus et al., 1999; Shaver & Brennan, 1992). In so doing, we
hope to contribute to the understanding of which dimensions of
attachment (i.e., the separate dimensions of anxiety and avoidance,
the alternative two-dimensional model, or a single variable reecting
secure attachment) relate most closely to interpersonal constructs.
The rst sample completed the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS;
Collins & Read, 1990), a measure of the Anxiety and Avoidance
attachment dimensions, and a measure of an interpersonal version
of the FFM (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). We examined the location
of the attachment scales in the conceptual space dened by the
interpersonal circumplex and predicted that both would be closely
associated with the horizontal axis (i.e., afliation). In addition, we
predicted that higher levels of Anxiety and Avoidance would be
associated with submissiveness (consistent with Brennan & Shaver,
1992). The association between the attachment dimensions and the
FFM were tested through canonical correlation analysis. This
procedure describes the nature and strength of relationships between
sets of variables. Overall, we predicted that greater attachment
security would be associated with a more afliative, dominant (i.e.,
more extroverted), conscientious, and less neurotic interpersonal
style. Because any of the dimensional representations of attachment
noted above were considered plausible based on previous research,
we did not formulate more specic predictions. Rather, we used
canonical correlation to examine which dimension(s) of attachment
related most consistently to the interpersonal constructs.
A second sample completed the AAS and SASB questionnaires
(Intrex; Benjamin, 1988), assessing their recalled interactions with
their mothers and fathers, their parents interactions with each
other, and their current self-directed behaviors (i.e., introjects).
Summary scores described the afliation and autonomy typical of
the respondents descriptions (Benjamin, 1988). Associations be-
tween the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions and the SASB scales
were assessed through a series of canonical correlation analyses.
Overall, we predicted that greater attachment security would be
associated with afliative, moderately differentiated recollections of
parents and with afliative, moderately differentiated self-represen-
tations. Consistent with the analyses for the FFM, we did not form
specic predictions about the structure of these associations, but
used canonical correlation to examine which dimension(s) of
attachment related most consistently to the SASB variables.
The second sample also completed assessments of their current
social functioning in the form of perceived social support and
exposure to social conict. Prior research suggests important
differences in general social functioning according to adult attach-
ment style (e.g., Florian, Mikulincer, & Bucholtz, 1995; Priel &
Shamai, 1995; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996), a nding that is
consistent with the tenets of the interpersonal model. We predicted
that greater attachment security would be associated with worse
interpersonal functioning in adulthood (i.e., more social conict, less
social support), and we used the canonical correlation procedure to
examine the specic nature of these associations.
Previous research on adult attachment has either not revealed
consistent gender differences (e.g., Diehl et al., 1998; Mikulincer &
150 Gallo et al.
Florian, 1999; Shaver & Brennan, 1992), or has not examined them
(e.g., Pfaller, Kiselica, & Gerstein, 1998; Pincus et al., 1999).
However, some research indicates that gender could moderate the
effects and correlates of attachment (e.g., Young & Acitelli, 1998;
Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992). For example, Gerlsma and
colleagues (1996) found that childhood experiences with the same-
sex parent were more important to adult attachment than were
experiences with the opposite sex parent. Thus, we performed gender
specic analyses, but given the paucity of previous research, specic
predictions were not formulated.
METHOD
Participants
The samples consisted of 294 (107 males, 187 females) and 274 (130
females, 145 males) undergraduate psychology students from the
University of Utah. Participants were tested alone or in groups
ranging from 2 to 20 persons. They received extra credit for their
involvement in the study.
Measures
Adult Attachment (Samples 1 and 2). The AAS (Collins & Read,
1990) consists of 18 items that form three dimensions describing 1)
comfort depending upon others and trust in others to fulll
relational needs (i.e., Depend); 2) comfort with closeness (i.e.,
Close); and 3) fear concerning abandonment or loss of love (i.e.,
Anxiety). The Close and Depend subscales are moderately
correlated, whereas the Anxiety scale is more weakly correlated
with the Close and Depend scales (Collins & Read, 1990). The
subscales have moderate test-retest stability (ranging from r 50.52
for Anxiety to r 50.71 for Depend across 2 months), and adequate
internal consistency (ranging from p50.69 for Anxiety to
p50.75 for Depend). Collins and Read (1990; Collins, 1996)
found that the dimensions of the AAS related in expected patterns to
working models of self (e.g., self-esteem, instrumentality) and others
(e.g., trustworthiness, dependability, human nature) and to the
quality of participants romantic relationships, and that they
predicted participants descriptions of their cognitive, emotional,
and probable behavioral responses to hypothetical relationship
scenarios. Factor-analytic studies have shown that a two-factor
structure best represents the AAS, with the Close/Depend
comprising an Avoidance dimension and the Anxiety items
comprising an Anxiety dimension (Brennan et al., 1998; Sanford,
1997). Thus, we formed two scales from the AAS data, representing
Avoidance (i.e., close1depend, reverse coded so that higher scores
reect higher Avoidance) and Anxiety (Collins, 1996). The internal
consistencies measured in the rst sample were p50.69 and .82,
and in the second sample, p5.71 and .85, for Anxiety and
Avoidance, respectively.
1
Adult Personality and Interpersonal Style (Sample 1). The 124-item
Big Five version of the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales
(IASR-B5; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990) was administered to assess an
interpersonal version of the FFM. Octant scores (i.e., Dominant,
Friendly-Dominant, Friendly, Friendly-Submissive, Submissive,
Hostile-Submissive, Hostile, and Hostile-Dominant) are derived
from 64 adjectives. These scales show excellent psychometric
properties (Kiesler, 1991; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991; Wiggins,
Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). The interpersonally focused dimensions
of the FFM, afliation and dominance, (i.e., replacing
Agreeableness and Extroversion) are represented through weighted
linear combinations of the octant scales. Scores for Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience are derived from the
additional 60 adjectives in the scale (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990).
Trapnell and Wiggins reported good internal consistency (a varied
from .87 to .94), and adequate divergent and convergent
characteristics for the ve-factor scales.
Recalled Interpersonal Experiences With Parents and Current Self-
Representations (Sample 2). As shown in Figure 3, the SASB
distinguishes among the focus of interpersonal ratings, as follows:
the transitive focus characterizes behaviors directed toward another
individual, the intransitive focus refers to behavioral reactions to an
interpersonal partner, and the introject describes self-directed
1. For both samples, one of the Anxiety scale items (I want to merge completely
with another person) had a very low inter-item correlation and was dropped.
Notably, other research has also shown this item to be problematic and it has
been excluded in a revision of the AAS (Collinis, 1996).
152 Gallo et al.
behaviors. This results in three separate interpersonal circumplexes
(i.e., surfaces). Dominance (i.e. control) and emancipation (i.e.,
autonomy granting) form the poles of the vertical axis in the
transitive surface, submission and separation (i.e., autonomy taking)
represent the poles in the intransitive surface, and self-control to
self-emancipation represent the poles in the introject surface. In each
case the horizontal axis is afliation, with poles representing hostile
versus loving behavior.
Recalling their interactions between the ages of 5 and 10,
participants rated both the transitive (i.e., active) and intransitive
(i.e., reactive) behaviors of each parent, as well as their own
transitive and intransitive behaviors with each parent. Participants
also rated their recollections of their mothers and fathers transitive
and intransitive behaviors with each other. Finally, participants
rated their adult behavior toward themselves (i.e., introjects) two
EMANCIPATE
SEPARATE
SELF-EMANCIPATE
IGNORE AFFIRM
WALL-OFF DISCLOSE
SELF-NEGLECT SELF-AFFIRM
ATTACK ACTIVE-LOVE
RECOIL REACTIVE-LOVE
SELF-ATTACK ACTIVE-SELF-LOVE
BLAME PROTECT
SULK TRUST
SELF-BLAME SELF-PROTECT
CONTROL
SUBMIT
SELF-CONTROL
Figure3
The transitive (bold print), intransitive (underlined), and introject
(italicized) surfaces of the Structural Analysis of Social Behavior
Model (3 foci collapsed into one surface; one word per cluster).
Vertical axis is autonomy (top5differentiation or emancipation;
bottom5interconnection or enmeshment). Horizontal axis is aflia-
tion (left 5hostile; right 5friendliness). Reproduced with permission
from Benjamin, 1993.
timesas they felt about themselves at best and at worst.
Participants completed the medium Intrex form (Benjamin, 1988),
which includes two items for each octant on each surface. Cluster
(i.e., octant) scores are the average of the item scores, and Afliation
and Autonomy composites are derived from a weighted sum of the
cluster scores (Benjamin, 1988; Pincus, Newes, Dickinson, & Ruiz,
1998). Higher scores represent greater afliation (i.e., less hostility)
or greater autonomy (i.e., less control or submission). Considerable
research supports the reliability and validity of the Intrex instrument
and of these composite scores (e.g., Benjamin, 1987, 1988; Henry,
1996; Henry, Schacht, & Strupp, 1986, 1990; Pincus et al., 1998).
Current Social Relationships (Sample 2). Participants completed the
48-item Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; Cohen &
Hoberman, 1983). The Likert-scale items assess perceived Appraisal
Support (i.e., availability of a condant), Tangible Support (i.e.,
material assistance), Self-Esteem Support (i.e., favorable
comparisons with ones peers), and Belonging Support (i.e.,
membership in a social group). Previous research supports the
four-factor structure (Brookings & Bolton, 1988) and the construct
validity of the subscales (e.g., Cohen & Hoberman, 1983; Heitzmann
& Kaplan, 1988). In the current study, internal consistencies ranged
from a 50.77 (Self-Esteem Support) to a 50.85 (Appraisal Support).
Participants also completed an assessment of their exposure to social
conict, the Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE; Ruehlman &
Karoly, 1991). Twenty Likert-scale items assess frequency of
exposure to Hostility and Impatience, Insensitivity, Interference,
and Ridicule from others during the past month. The scale authors
reported moderate intercorrelations for the subscales, ranging from
r 50.43 to r 50.56, good internal consistencies, and expected
patterns of correlations with measures of social hindrance and well
being. In the current study, Chronbachs a for the scales ranged from
0.66 (for Ridicule) and 0.85 (for Hostility/Impatience).
RESULTS
Bivariate Relationships Among Measures
The bivariate correlations between the Anxiety and Avoidance
attachment scales and the FFM, SASB, ISEL, and TENSE scales
are shown in Table 1, for both men and women.
154 Gallo et al.
Attachment in Circumplex Space
We used the procedure outlined by Wiggins and Broughton (1991;
also see Gurtman, 1992) to place the Anxiety and Avoidance scales
into circumplex space. Bivariate correlations indicate the degree to
which each scale is related to the horizontal and vertical axes of the
circumplex. The correlations locate the dimensions relative to the x
(x 5r
vx
) and y (y 5r
vy
) axes, so that r 50 would locate the variable
at the origin and r 571 would locate the variable at the positive or
negative pole of the axis. The extent to which the dimension is
interpersonal in nature is indicated by the multiple correlation
between the scale and the dominance and afliation factor scores.
This parameter is the vector length, and has a maximum of 1 and a
minimum of 0. The angle at which the variable is displaced from the
x axis is equal to q 5tan
1
(y/x). As shown in Table 1, for both men
and women, Anxiety and Avoidance were inversely associated with
Afliation, although the association between Anxiety and Afliation
was not statistically signicant for men. Both dimensions of
attachment also inversely related to Dominance. Thus, greater
attachment insecurity, either in terms of Avoidance or Anxiety
relates to a more hostile-submissive interpersonal style. Figure 4
shows the location of the AAS scales in circumplex space.
Attachment and the Five Factors of Personality
The associations between the attachment and the FFM scales (i.e.,
Afliation and Dominance from the circumplex, and Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness, and Openness) were tested through Canonical
Correlation, performed through procedure MANOVA in SPSS v. 10,
with separate analyses for men and women. Canonical correlation
extracts principal components (i.e., canonical variates) from sets of
variables in a manner that maximizes shared variance between the
sets. The canonical variate explaining the greatest proportion of
variance is selected rst, and additional orthogonal variates are
selected in descending order of importance (i.e., amount of shared
variance explained). Standardized coefcients indicate how the
canonical variable is calculated by weighting individual variables,
whereas correlations between individual and canonical variables
provide a description of the nature of the canonical variables.
In the analysis for women, the rst canonical correlation was .53
(28% of the variance) and the second was .25 (6% of the variance).
Table1
Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Reecting the Associations
Between the Attachment Scales and the FFM, SASB, ISEL, and TENSE
Scales
Women Men
Interpersonal Subscale Anxiety Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance
Five-Factor Model (Current)
Afliation (i.e.,
Agreeableness)
.20
nn
.36
nn
.12 .34
nn
Dominance (i.e.,
Extroversion)
.23
nn
.25
nn
.28
nn
.35
nn
Conscientiousness .23
nn
.21
nn
.06 .20
n
Neuroticism .39
nn
.29
nn
.44
nn
.35
nn
Openness .11 .01 .11 .16
Mother to Participant
(Recalled)
Transitive Afliation
(Active Love)
.22
n
.34
nn
.27
nn
.43
nn
Intransitive Afliation
(Reactive Love)
.25
nn
.40
nn
.29 .45
nn
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.12 .03 .07 .02
Intransitive Autonomy
(Separation)
.03 .05 .06 .15
Participant to Mother
(Recalled)
(Active Love)
.23
nn
.39
nn
.28
nn
.36
nn
(Reactive Love)
.30
nn
.47
nn
.36
nn
.40
nn
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.20
n
.22
n
.10 .09
(Separation)
.09 .06 .06 .08
Father to Participant
(Recalled)
(Active Love)
.24
nn
.37
nn
.20
n
.41
nn
(Reactive Love)
.26
nn
.35
nn
.15 .44
nn
156 Gallo et al.
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.11 .14 .01 .03
(Separation)
.08 .07 .12 .14
Participant to Father
(Recalled)
(Active Love)
.19
n
.21
n
.19
n
.39
nn
(Reactive Love)
.21
n
.28
n
.21
n
.40
nn
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.15 .07 .20
n
.12
(Separation)
.08 .11 .06 .02
Mother to Father (Recalled)
(Active Love)
.17 .13 .30
nn
.33
nn
(Reactive Love)
.23
n
.21
n
.23
nn
.29
nn
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.17 .11 .22
n
.10
(Separation)
.10 .16 .04 .06
Father to Mother (Recalled)
(Active Love)
.22
n
.18
n
.11 .25
nn
(Reactive Love)
.21
n
.17 .18
n
.28
nn
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.11 .17 .05 .11
(Separation)
.19 .06 .25
nn
.04
Introject (Current)
Afliation at Worst
(Self-Directed Love)
.30
nn
.22
n
.28
nn
.40
nn
Afliation at Best
.20
n
.46
nn
.30
nn
.37
nn
Table1 (cont.)
Women Men
The canonical correlations were statistically signicant in combina-
tion: F (10,360) 57.66, po .0001, and the second alone was also
signicant: F (4, 181) 52.99, po.05. The results from these analyses
are shown in Table 2. The correlations showed that the rst variate
was positively associated with Anxiety and Avoidance, suggesting
that it had captured the continuum from Secure to Fearful
attachment (i.e., general attachment security). Greater insecurity
was associated with higher Neuroticism, and lower Afliation,
Dominance, and Conscientiousness. The second canonical variate
was positively associated with Anxiety and inversely associated with
Avoidance, thereby reecting the continuum from Dismissing to
Preoccupied attachment. Greater preoccupied attachment related to
higher Afliation and Neuroticism and lower Openness.
The rst canonical correlation in the analysis for men was .58
tion: F(10, 200) 55.36, po .0001, but the second alone was not
signicant: F (4,101) 51.87, p 5.12. However, the pattern of
Autonomy at Worst
(Self-Emancipation)
.11 .10 .10 .11
Autonomy at Best
(Self-Emancipation)
.04 .03 .03 .06
Perceived Social Support
(Current)
Appraisal Support .26
nn
.50
nn
.35
nn
.63
nn
Belonging Support .13 .48
nn
.34
nn
.59
nn
Self-Esteem Support .29
nn
.37
nn
.33
nn
.46
nn
Tangible Support .35
nn
.38
nn
.49
nn
.52
nn
Social Conict (Current)
Hostility/Impatience .21
n
.16 .14 .08
Insensitivity .20
n
.21
n
.24
nn
.29
nn
Interference .02 .21
n
.02 .19
n
Ridicule .07 .03 .07 .10
n
po.05,
nn
po.01
Table1 (cont.)
Women Men
158 Gallo et al.
loadings for the attachment scales for the rst and second variate
were similar to those observed for women, and the second variate
accounted for a similar amount of variance in men and women. The
statistics for both variates are therefore shown in Table 2 for
purposes of comparison. The correlation coefcients showed that
this rst canonical variate again reected attachment insecurity (i.e.,
higher Anxiety, higher Avoidance), or the continuum from a Secure
to Fearful attachment style, along with higher Neuroticism, and
lower Dominance, Afliation, Conscientiousness, and Openness to
Experience. The second canonical variate was positively associated
with Anxiety and inversely associated with Avoidance (i.e., the
Dismissing to Preoccupied diagonal dimension). Greater preoccu-
Dominance
(PA)
(BC) (NO)
Hostility (DE) (LM) Friendliness
(FG) (JK)
(HI)
Submissiveness
Male Anxiety
Male Avoidance
Female Anxiety
Female Avoidance
Figure4
Projection of the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions from the AAS
into interpersonal circumplex space, for men and for women Men:
Vl
Anxiety
5.30, VL
Avoicance
5.47; Women: Vl
Anxiety
5.29, VL
Avoidance
5.42.
pied attachment related to greater Afliation, Conscientiousness,
and Neuroticism.
Attachment Style, Recalled Experiences With Parents, and
Current Self-Representations
Canonical correlation analyses examined relationships between the
attachment scales and sets of SASB afliation and autonomy
summary scales for 1) recalled interactions with mother (i.e.,
mothers and participants transitive and intransitive composite
scores); 2) recalled interactions with father; 3) recalled interactions
between mother and father; and 4) current self-directed behavior at
best and at worst (i.e., introject afliation and autonomy scores).
Separate analyses were performed for women and for men. Missing
data were excluded on an analysis-specic basis.
Table2
Standardized Canonical Coefcients and Correlations With
Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of the
Association Between the Attachment Dimensions and Scales of the
Five-Factor Model
Females Males
First
Variate
Second
Variate
First
Variate
Second
Variate
Variable SC R SC R SC R SC R
Attachment
Anxiety .59 .82 .90 .58 .61 .75 .83 .66
Avoidance .62 .84 .88 .55 .67 .81 .77 .59
Five-Factor Model
Afliation
(Agreeableness)
.38 .64 .92 .54 .23 .52 .98 .62
Dominance
(Extroversion)
.30 .55 .33 .06 .44 .71 .48 .15
Conscientiousness .28 .52 .35 .08 .02 .31 .11 .40
Neuroticism .58 .79 .66 .36 .62 .87 .92 .35
Openness .03 .14 .57 .37 .13 .30 .29 .13
Note. SC5Standardized canonical coefcient. R5correlation between individual
variables and canonical variable.
160 Gallo et al.
Recalled experiences with mother. In the analysis of the association
between attachment and recollections of mother provided by
women, the rst canonical correlation was .58 (34% of the
variance) and the second was .23 (5% of the variance). In
combination, the canonical correlations were statistically
signicant: F (16,224) 53.65, po .001, but the second alone was
not: F(7,113) 50.91. As shown in Table 3, the correlation coefcients
Table3
Canonical Variables from the Canonical Correlation Analyses of the
Association Between the Attachment Scales and Recalled
Interactions Between Mother and Participant
Females Males
First Variate First Variate Second Variate
Variable SC R SC R SC R
Attachment
Anxiety .43 .61 .55 .74 .88 .67
Avoidance .82 .91 .70 .85 .77 .53
Mother to Participant
(Active Love)
.63 .65 .37 .86 .28 .31
(Reactive Love)
.54 .74 .26 .89 .68 .31
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.02 .11 .21 .25 .20 .17
(Separation)
.07 .07 .15 .06 .31 .52
Participant to Mother
(Active Love)
.15 .73 .41 .75 .36 .03
(Reactive Love)
1.08 .91 .79 .91 1.22 .14
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.29 .51 .06 .02 .53 .61
(Separation)
.02 .04 .04 .19 .07 .02
indicated that the rst canonical variate was inversely associated
with Anxiety and Avoidance, reecting a general attachment security
dimension. All four afliation scales were positively correlated with
the variate (i.e., with greater attachment security). Daughters
transitive autonomy (i.e., tendency to grant autonomy in actions
toward mother) also positively correlated with the variable.
In the analysis for men, the rst canonical correlation was .49
In combination, the canonical correlations were statistically
signicant: F(16,232) 53.02, po .001, and the second correlation
alone was marginally signicant: F(7, 117) 51.87, p 5.08. The
second variate was further interpreted because it accounted for 10%
of the variance, but the ndings should be viewed tentatively. As
presented in Table 3, the correlation coefcients showed that Anxiety
and Avoidance were inversely associated with the rst canonical
variate. Thus, the variable again reected the Secure to Fearful
dimension, and greater attachment insecurity was associated with
lower levels on all four afliation variables. Anxiety was positively
related and Avoidance was inversely related to the second variable,
which is consistent with the Dismissing to Preoccupied dimension. A
more preoccupied style was associated with greater enmeshment
between mothers and sonsspecically, sons tendency to be
controlling toward their mothers, and mothers tendency to submit
in responseand to a lesser extent, mothers tendency to be more
loving in acting and reacting to their sons.
Recalled experiences with father. In the analysis for women, the rst
canonical correlation was .44 (20% of the variance) and the second
was .21 (5% of the variance). The canonical correlations were
statistically signicant in combination: F(16,216) 51.90, po.05, but
the second alone was not: F(7,109) 50.74. As shown in Table 4,
Avoidance and Anxiety were both inversely correlated with the rst
variate, reecting overall attachment security (i.e., the Secure to
Fearful dimension). Correlation coefcients showed that greater
security was related to recollections of greater afliation in fathers
actions and reactions, and to a lesser extent, greater afliation in
participants actions and reactions. The autonomy scales showed
weak correlations with the canonical variate (i.e., o .3), so that
more secure participants reported greater interpersonal
differentiation in acting toward and reacting to their fathers. In
162 Gallo et al.
addition, security was associated with recollections that fathers were
more autonomy-granting in actions and less submissive in reactions
toward participants.
In the analysis for men, two canonical variates emerged, with
values of .47 (22% of the variance) and .35 (12 % of the variance).
Together, the canonical correlations were statistically signicant: F
(16,222), po.0001, and the second correlation alone was signicant:
F(7,112) 52.24 po .05. As shown in Table 4, only Avoidance
contributed substantially to the rst variate. Lower Avoidance was
related to higher afliation in interactions between father and son
and to a lesser extent, lower interpersonal separation in sons actions
toward fathers (i.e., son controls father), and in fathers reactions to
sons (i.e., father submits). Only the Anxiety dimension contributed
substantially to the second variate, with higher levels relating to less
autonomy (i.e., more control) in sons actions toward father, greater
submission in fathers reactions, and less afliation in fathers
actions and in sons actions and reactions to fathers.
Recalled interactions between mother and father. In the analysis that
examined womens recollections of the interactions between their
mothers and fathers, the rst canonical correlation was .41 (17% of
the variance) and the second was .23 (5% of the variance). In
combination, the canonical correlations were only marginally
signicant: F(16, 210) 51.66, p 5.06, and the second alone was
not signicant: F (7,106) 50.85. Because the rst correlation
accounted for a moderate amount of variance, it was examined
further. As shown in Table 5, correlations suggested that this variate
reected attachment insecurity (i.e., high Anxiety, high Avoidance),
or the continuum from a Secure to a Fearful style. Greater insecurity
was associated with more hostile interactions between mothers and
fathers, across all four afliation scales. Higher insecurity also
related to fathers tendency to be controlling (i.e., transitive
autonomy) and mothers tendency to submit (i.e., intransitive
autonomy) in response, and to mothers tendency to be
controlling, and fathers tendency to assert himself in response.
tion: F(16,220) 52.41, po .01, but the second alone was not
statistically signicant: F (7,111) 51.21. Correlation coefcients
showed that the variate again reected attachment insecurity, or the
continuum from a Secure to Fearful style. Higher attachment
insecurity related to recollections of greater hostility in fathers and
mothers transitive and intransitive behaviors. Correlation coef-
cients also showed that individuals with greater insecurity recalled
their mothers as more controlling (i.e., transitive autonomy) and
Table4
Interactions Between Father and Participant
Females Males
First Variate First Variate Second Variate
Attachment
Anxiety .42 .57 .16 .17 1.04 .99
Avoidance .84 .91 1.04 .99 .18 .15
Father to Participant
(Active Love)
.55 .86 .39 .78 .16 .30
(Reactive Love)
.65 .86 1.09 .85 1.20 .12
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.13 .29 .10 .01 .27 .00
(Separation)
.05 .26 .28 .35 .61 .43
Participant to Father
(Active Love)
.22 .56 .69 .79 .18 .32
(Reactive Love)
.41 .69 .26 .75 .43 .34
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.34 .21 .31 .41 .48 .62
(Separation)
.16 .22 .39 .01 .11 .19
164 Gallo et al.
their fathers as more submissive in response (i.e., intransitive
autonomy).
Self-representations. In the analysis that examined the association
between Anxiety and Avoidance and self-directed behaviors at best and
at worst (i.e., introjects) for women, the rst canonical correlation was
.49 (24% of the variance) and the second was .30 (9% of the variance).
Table5
Interactions Between Mother and Father
Females Males
First Variate First Variate
Variable SC R SC R
Attachment
Anxiety .73 .85 .76 .89
Avoidance .54 .70 .47 .69
Mother to Father
(Active Love)
.27 .39 .91 .75
(Reactive Love)
.73 .61 .19 .65
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.67 .46 .02 .32
(Separation)
.42 .37 .39 .14
Father to Mother
(Active Love)
.29 .63 .58 .39
(Reactive Love)
.24 .60 .44 .49
Transitive Autonomy
(Emancipation)
.09 .39 .02 .07
(Separation)
.49 .42 .44 .35
variables and canonical varable.
When considered in combination, the canonical correlations were
statistically signicant: F(8,238) 56.00, po .0001, as was the second
after controlling for the rst correlation, F(3,120) 54.02, po .01. As
shown in Table 6, the rst canonical variate showed that lower
Avoidance related to higher self-directed love at best and to a lesser
extent, higher self-directed love at worst. For the second canonical
variate, correlation coefcients showed that women higher in anxious
attachment reported more hostility and self-emancipation at worst.
In the analysis for men, the rst canonical correlation was .52 (27%
of the variance) and the second was .10 (1% of the variance). In
aggregate, the canonical correlations were statistically signicant:
F(8,254) 55.56, po .0001, but the second alone was not: F
(3,128) 50.37. As shown in Table 6, correlation coefcients indicated
that the rst variate was positively associated with Anxiety and
Table6
Association Between the Attachment Scales and Current Self-Directed
Behaviors (i.e., Introject) At Best and At Worst
Females Males
First Variate Second Variate First Variate
Attachment
Anxiety .09 .34 1.03 .95 .43 .70
Avoidance .97 1.00 .35 .09 .76 .91
Introject
Afliation at Worst
.04 .47 1.06 .87 .59 .82
Afliation at Best
1.02 .98 .46 .09 .62 .82
Autonomy at Worst
(Self-Emancipation)
.22 .18 .30 .48 .04 .25
Autonomy at Best
(Self-Emancipation)
.23 .07 .11 .22 .01 .04
166 Gallo et al.
Avoidance and that it, therefore, represents the continuum from a
Secure to Fearful style. Afliation at best and at worst were both
strongly inversely correlated with the canonical variate, indicating that
more secure individuals treat themselves in a more loving manner. To a
lesser extent, men with lower attachment security reported less self-
control at worst (Table 7).
Attachment Style and Current Social Functioning
A canonical correlation analysis examined the association between
the Avoidance and Anxiety attachment scales and TENSE and ISEL
subscales. In the analysis for women, the rst correlation was .60
The canonical correlations were signicant in combination:
F(16,240) 55.40, po .0001, and the second correlation alone was
also statistically signicant: F(7,121) 53.24, po .01. Both Avoid-
ance and Anxiety were inversely associated with the rst canonical
variate, so that it again reected the continuum from a Secure to
Fearful style. The correlation coefcients showed that higher
security was associated with higher levels of all four types of
perceived social support and lower reports of Hostility/Impatience,
Insensitivity, and Interference from others. Correlation coefcients
showed that Anxiety was strongly positively related and that it was
inversely associated with the second variate. Thus, this variable
reected the continuum from a Dismissing to Preoccupied style. The
support and conict variables were fairly weakly associated with the
canonical variate. Greater Preoccupied attachment related positively
to Belonging support and the tendency to experience Hostility/
Impatience and inversely to Tangible support and Interference.
(50% of the variance), and the second was .38 (14% of the variance).
The canonical correlations were statistically signicant in aggregate:
F(16,270) 58.85, po .0001, and the second correlation alone was
also signicant: F (7,136) 53.17, po .01. Avoidance was strongly
inversely correlated, and Anxiety was more weakly inversely
correlated with the variable (i.e., the continuum of Secure to Fearful
attachment). Correlation coefcients showed that greater attach-
ment security was associated with higher levels of all types of
support and, more weakly, with lower levels of all types of conict.
Correlation coefcients showed that Anxiety was positively related
and Avoidance was inversely related to the second canonical variate
(i.e., the continuum of Dismissive to Preoccupied attachment). As in
women, the associations with the support and conict variables were
fairly weak. Greater preoccupied attachment related to lower
Tangible support and Interference and higher Hostility/Impatience.
Table7
Association Between the Attachment Scales and Current
Interpersonal Functioning (i.e., Perceived Social Support
and Social Conict)
Females Males
First Variate Second Variate First Variate Second Variate
Variable
SC R SC R SC R SC R
Attachment
Anxiety
.33 .53 .97 .85 .33 .62 1.01 .78
Avoidance
.87 .95 .55 .32 .84 .95 .67 .31
Perceived
Social
Support
(Current)
Appraisal
Support
.49 .88 .02 .06 .53 .90 .60 .18
Belonging
Support
.17 .77 1.01 .34 .19 .86 .76 .12
Self-Esteem
Support
.33 .70 .38 .21 .13 .70 .20 .08
Tangible
Support
.13 .74 .63 .33 .20 .84 1.30 .40
Experienced
Social
Conict
(Current)
Hostility/
Impatience
.20 .34 .36 .29 .13 .16 .39 .23
Insensitivity
.02 .41 .39 .19 .31 .45 .06 .13
Interference
.19 .31 .71 .24 .07 .23 .61 .28
Ridicule
.16 .00 .10 .22 .06 .14 .11 .01
168 Gallo et al.
Gender Differences in the Correlates of Attachment
Canonical correlation was chosen as the primary analytic procedure
because of its ability to examine the overall structure of associations
between sets of variables. However, canonical correlation does not
allow statistical tests of interaction effects, as would be needed to
determine if gender differences exist in the associations between
attachment and the interpersonal constructs. Because a key goal of
the current research was to explore gender differences, we followed
the canonical correlation analyses with a set of Multivariate
Analyses of Covariance (MANCOVA). The canonical analyses
were fairly consistent in showing that the diagonal dimensions of
attachment shown in Figure 1, as opposed to the horizontal and
vertical dimensions, related to the interpersonal constructs. Thus,
composite dimensions reecting Dismissive to Preoccupied Attach-
ment (i.e., standardized Anxietystandardized Avoidance) and
Secure to Fearful Attachment (i.e., standardized Anxiety1standar-
dized Avoidance) were entered as covariates. Between-subjects
effects for gender, the attachment composite scales, and the
gender attachment composite scale interactions were modeled in
all analyses. In the analyses of the SASB scales, dimension (i.e.,
afliation, autonomy) was a repeated factor, and effects for the
gender dimension, dimension attachment composite scale, and
gender dimension attachment composite scale interactions were
included. Across all analyses, only one signicant interaction
involving gender emerged. Specically, there was a signicant
multivariate Gender Secure to Fearful composite dimension
interaction effect for current social functioning: F(5, 262) 52.14,
po.05. Univariate tests revealed signicant interaction effects for
Appraisal: F (1,269) 58.30, po.01, Belonging, F (1,269) 56.48, po
.05 and Tangible Support: F (1,269) 512.52, po .001. Correlation
coefcients showed that higher attachment security was signicantly
associated with perceptions of higher Appraisal, Belonging, and
Tangible support in both men and women, but the associations were
somewhat stronger in men.
DISCUSSION
Using the interpersonal model of personality and social behavior, we
provide evidence concerning the structure, possible developmental
antecedents, and personality and social correlates of adult attach-
ment style. Many of the ndings were consistent with the predictions
of attachment and interpersonal theory. Specically, the attachment
dimensions were well represented in circumplex space, and adult
attachment security was associated with a warm and dominant
interpersonal style. Attachment also related to the scales from the
FFM in a manner generally consistent with predictions and with
prior research (Shaver & Brennan, 1992). The ndings also add to
previous research showing that insecure adult attachment relates to
more negative self-representations (e.g., Pietromonaco & Barrett,
2000) and to more negative recollections of parents in childhood
(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Pincus et al., 1999). Finally, consistent
with previous research (e.g., Priel & Shamai, 1995; Tidwell et al.,
1996) and with interpersonal theory (Kiesler 1991; 1996), greater
attachment security related to better social functioning.
In relation to theoretically relevant interpersonal constructs,
the diagonal dimensions of attachment organization depicted in
Figure 1 accounted for attachment organization at least as well as
the independent dimensions of Anxiety and Avoidance. In the
majority of analyses, the continuum of Secure (i.e., low Anxiety and
Avoidance) to Fearful (i.e., high Anxiety and Avoidance) attach-
ment, or overall attachment security, was particularly important.
When two variables emerged, the second, smaller variable most
frequently captured the continuum from Dismissive (i.e., low
Anxiety and high Avoidance) to Preoccupied (i.e., high Anxiety
and low Avoidance) attachment. The attachment structure identied
in prior studies of attachment scales or item pools, independent
dimensions of Anxiety and Avoidance (e.g., Fraley et al., 2000;
Fraley & Waller, 1998), emerged in only two instances.
Attachment Dimensions and Interpersonal Space
Consistent with predictions, the Anxiety and Avoidance scales were
located in the hostile submissive quadrant of circumplex space, for
both men and women. This nding may seem to contradict previous
research suggesting that Avoidant persons tend to be defensively
self-reliant and independent (e.g., Collins, 1996; Fraley & Shaver,
2000)characteristics that could be compared to a dominant
interpersonal style. However, these attributes are more likely to
describe Dismissive-Avoidant than Fearful-Avoidant individuals,
170 Gallo et al.
who maintain negative working models of themselves (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1991) and would therefore not feel self-reliant. The
items forming the avoidance dimension from the AAS were based on
Hazan and Shavers (1987) description of Avoidant attachment,
which is thought to conform to the Fearful-Avoidant type
(Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan,
Shaver, & Tobey, 1991). Research showing that Extroversion
equates with Dominance skewed toward friendliness (McCrae &
Costa, 1989, Hofstee, deRaad, & Goldberg, 1992) provides another
interpretation of this pattern of ndings. Specically, the results may
reect the fact that Avoidant attachment and Extraversion are
antithetical relational styles.
It is interesting to note that the vector length, or the degree of
interpersonal representation, was longer for Avoidance than for
Anxiety, in both men and women. The nding that Avoidance is
more interpersonal in nature seems consistent with the view that the
dimension reects ones working model of others (e.g., Bartholo-
mew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), or the desire for
closeness and intimacy in achieved relationships (Fraley & Shaver,
2000). Clearly, these goals are quite interpersonal in nature. In
contrast, Anxiety is closely related to the working model of self (e.g.,
Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), and might
therefore be expected to be less strongly interpersonal.
Consistent with ndings reported by Shaver and Brennan (1992),
adult attachment related to the broad dimensions of the FFM. The
structure of attachment in relation to the scales of the FFM seemed
to be represented by the diagonal dimensions, and especially the
dimension describing overall security (i.e., Secure to Fearful
attachment). Higher attachment security was associated with higher
Agreeableness and Extroversion (i.e., dominance) and lower
Neuroticism. The smaller dimension of Dismissive to Preoccupied
attachment also related to Agreeableness and Neuroticism, with
more preoccupied persons being more agreeable and more neurotic.
Both attachment dimensions also related more weakly to Openness
and to Conscientiousness, with patterns varying by gender.
Attachment Dimensions, Recalled Experiences With Parents,
and Current Self-Representations
Consistent with previous research (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987;
Diehl et al., 1998; Pincus et al., 1999) and with the tenets of
attachment (Bowlby, 1988) and interpersonal theory (Benjamin,
1994), adult attachment was systematically related to recollections of
interactions with parents, between parents, and to adult self-
representations. With only two exceptions (mens recollections of
fathers, womens self-representations) the structure of attachment in
relation to these interpersonal constructs consisted of combinations
of the attachment dimensions, or the diagonal factors depicted in
Figure 1. The continuum reecting overall attachment security
tended to account for the majority of the associations with the SASB
scales. Across all analyses, attachment insecurity related to
recollections that interactions with parents and between parents
were more hostile in nature. Thus, consistent with previous research,
more insecurely attached adults tended to recall less afliative
interactions with parents during development (e.g., Diehl et al.,
1998; Gerlsma et al., 1996; Pincus et al., 1999). Lower attachment
security also related to more hostile self-representations (i.e.,
introjects), providing additional evidence that attachment reects
working models of self (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Pietromonaco &
Barrett, 2000). In some cases, the enmeshment or autonomy
dimension describing recollections of parents or self-representations
also related to adult attachment style, although less consistently.
Attachment Dimensions and Current Interpersonal Functioning
Finally, canonical variates reecting the diagonal dimensions of
Secure to Fearful and Dismissive to Preoccupied attachment
described the association between attachment and current inter-
personal functioning for both men and women. The gender-specic
analyses showed variability in the patterns of association with the
support and conict dimensions, but overall, men and women with a
more Fearful, less Secure attachment style reported more negative
social relationships in adulthood (i.e., less support and more
conict). In contrast, the Dismissive to Preoccupied continuum
was associated with more variable interpersonal experiences.
Individuals with a more Preoccupied style tended to report elevated
levels of some types of social conict, but less interference from
others. This nding is interesting from the perspective that more
anxiously attached individuals desire a great deal of closeness, even
to the point of total enmeshment with others (e.g., Collins, 1996).
Consequently, they may experience others as insensitive, hostile, or
172 Gallo et al.
impatient, but they might be less likely to attribute interference to
them. In addition, individuals with more Preoccupied attachment
tended to report more Belonging and Appraisal Support but less
Self-Esteem and Tangible Support. This pattern of ndings seems
consistent with the fact that Preoccupied individuals perceive
closeness with others (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Collins, 1996),
yet hold negative self-concepts (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991). Preoccupied individuals may not feel that they receive the
level of tangible help that they need from others because of their
level of dependency.
Gender Differences in the Correlates of Adult Attachment
As noted above, previous research either has not identied (e.g.,
Diehl et al., 1998; Shaver & Brennan, 1992) or reported (e.g., Pfaller
et al., 1998; Pincus et al., 1999) gender differences in the precipitants
and correlates of attachment. The current study identied quite
similar ndings for men and women. Sporadic gender differences
occurred, but not consistently or within an obvious pattern.
Furthermore, follow-up analyses showed only one signicant gender
by attachment-composite-scale interaction effectfor the effect of
the Secure to Fearful dimension on adult social functioningand
the difference was in the strength as opposed to the pattern of the
associations. Further research should compare the organization,
antecedents, and correlates of adult attachment in men and women.
Utility of the Interpersonal Approach
The current study demonstrated the utility of the interpersonal
approach for research concerning adult attachment style. The
interpersonal approach allowed the examination of the concurrent
and recalled developmental correlates through a common conceptual
and methodological framework, thereby facilitating the placement of
attachment into a well-established nomological net. Specically, the
interpersonal approach showed that both interpersonal dimensions
were important for dening the structure of adult attachment,
although in respect to recalled interactions with parents, the
horizontal axis was clearly most relevant. The interpersonal model
also provides predictions for how developmental interpersonal
experiences might become integrated into adult attachment repre-
sentations, specically, through the processes of internalization,
recapitulation, and introjection (Benjamin, 1996). Consistent with
these processes, the SASB analyses showed that attachment was
related to recollections of interactions with mother and father,
between mother and father, and to adult self-representations. Also
consistent with these processes, attachment style related to current
adult social functioning. Use of validated theoretical frameworks in
research concerning adult attachment could facilitate a more
complete and integrated understanding of this construct.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Several limitations of the current research warrant discussion. First,
canonical correlation was the primary procedure used to examine the
associations between adult attachment and the relevant interpersonal
constructs. This approach was chosen because it can be used to
examine the nature and structure of associations between sets of
variables. However, the procedure is limited in important respects.
First, like factor analysis, canonical correlation infers structure by
analyzing variance shared between constructs within a specic
sample. As such, the solution can be data driven. Findings that show
a consistent pattern across measures and samples, such as the
importance of the diagonal attachment dimensions and especially the
security dimension, and the association between these dimensions and
the afliation axis in SASB circumplex space, should be interpreted
with greater condence. In contrast, sporadic ndings, such as the
connection between adult attachment and the autonomy dimension
of the SASB scales, should be viewed more tentatively until replicated
in future research. Similarly, the procedure lacks statistical tests for
examining interaction effects, as would be necessary to examine
statistical signicance of gender differences. Follow-up MANCOVA
analyses revealed only one signicant interaction effect involving
gender, but it should be noted that the canonical and MANCOVA
analyses are not equivalent. For example, in MANCOVA, the
diagonal attachment dimensions were created through an arithmetical
equation, whereas in the canonical correlation analyses, the dimen-
sions were identied in relation to the interpersonal constructs.
Finally, although canonical correlation can be used to assess patterns
in the structure of relationships between constructs, interpretation is
somewhat subjective, much like factor analysis. Again, ndings that
were observed with less consistency should therefore be considered
174 Gallo et al.
preliminary. On the other hand, use of this procedure provides a
useful complement to previous research that has addressed the
question of structure by examining attachment measures or item
pools independent of relevant interpersonal constructs.
A second limitation is that the study used retrospective
descriptions of early experiences. These descriptions may be accurate
(Brewin, Andrews & Gotlib, 1993), but they may also reect a
reconstruction of events, which is biased in accordance with the
respondents adult personality (Halverson, 1988). The veracity of
parental descriptions aside, ones internalized views of important
others and prior experiences are likely to have important ramica-
tions for adult social behavior (e.g., Benjamin, 1996; Bowlby, 1973).
Nevertheless, additional longitudinal research that examines pre-
dictors of attachment style from childhood into adulthood (e.g.,
Lewis et al., 2000; Waters et al., 2000) will be an important direction
for future studies.
Other limitations relate to the use of self-report measures.
Common method variance may have contributed to the ndings
(e.g., Nichols et al., 1982), and additional research is needed that
uses alternative modalities of assessment to study adult attachment
style. Relatedly, Brennan and her colleagues (1998) recently
presented a self-report measure of the Anxiety and Avoidance
dimensions of attachment, which represents a distillation of many
prior scales and has excellent psychometric properties. The use of
this measure in future research examining the structure of
attachment in relation to important interpersonal domains will
contribute to condence in the current ndings.
Finally, consistent with much of the previous attachment research,
this study concerned a young, undergraduate population, and a large
majority of the sample was Caucasian and middle class. Hence, the
ndings may not be generalizable to other ethnic and age groups.
Further research with varied samples (e.g., Diehl et al., 1998; Mickelson
et al., 1997) is another important avenue for future research.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study used the interpersonal approach to personality
and social behavior as a framework through which to study the
possible developmental antecedents and personality and social
correlates of adult attachment. Overall, the ndings conformed to
predictions based on interpersonal and attachment theory. Further-
more, our ndings provide information about the structure of
attachment as it relates to conceptually relevant interpersonal
domains. Specically, recent research concerning the measurement
of attachment suggests that the separate dimensions of Anxiety and
Avoidance may underlie most scales (e.g., Brennan et al., 1998;
Fraley et al., 2000; Sanford, 1997). However, the current ndings
suggest that it is the combinations of Anxiety and Avoidance
represented by the diagonal dimensions in Figure 1 (Fraley &
Shaver, 2000), rather than the individual dimensions, that relate
most closely to other interpersonal constructs. In particular, overall
attachment security, or the continuum from Secure to Fearful
attachment, might best describe the structure of attachment in
relation to interpersonal constructs. Thus, we recommend that
future research adopt a dimensional approach to conceptualizing
attachment that considers the independent as well as combined
effects of the Avoidance and Anxiety dimensions.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, MC., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings.
Personal Relationships, 2, 247261.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61, 226241.
Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB).
Psychological Review, 81, 11291133.
Benjamin, L. S. (1987). Use of the SASB dimensional model to develop treatment
plans for personality disorders, I: Narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders,
1, 4370.
Benjamin, L. S. (1988). Intrex users manual. Madison, WI: Intrex Interpersonal
Institute.
Benjamin, L. S. (1994). SASB: A bridge between personality theory and clinical
psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 273316.
Benjamin, L. S. (1996). An interpersonal theory of personality disorders. In J.
Clarkin (Ed.), Major theories of personality (pp. 141220). New York:
Guilford.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2 Separation, anxiety, and anger.
New York: Basic Books.
176 Gallo et al.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London:
Tavistock.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic
Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of
adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, & W.
S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 4676). New
York: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles and personality
disorders: Their connections to each other and to parental divorce, parental
death, and perceptions of parental caregiving. Journal of Personality, 66,
835878.
Brennan, K. A., Shaver, P. R., & Tobey, A. E. (1991). Attachment styles, gender,
and parental problem drinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
451466.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 335.
Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology and early
experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
8298.
Brookings, J. B., & Bolton, B. (1988). Conrmatory factor analysis of the
Interpersonal support Evaluation List. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 16, 137147.
Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports
as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13,
99125.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for
explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 644663 Costa & McCrae, 1985;.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measures of individual
differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp.
434365). New York: Guilford Press.
Diehl, M., Elnick, A. B., Bourbeau, L. S., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult
attachment styles: Their relations to family context and personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 16561669.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attachment style, communica-
tion, and satisfaction in the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew, & D.
Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Attachment processes in
adulthood (Vol. 5, pp. 269308). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Bucholtz, I. (1995). Effects of adult attachment
style on the perception and search for social support. Journal of Psychology,
129, 665676.
Florsheim, P., Henry, W. P., & Benjamin, L. S. (1996). Integrating individual
and interpersonal approaches to diagnosis: The structural analysis of
social behavior and attachment theory. In F. Kaslow (Ed.), Relational
Diagnosis: The structural analysis of attachment behavior (pp. 81101).
New York: Wiley.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of
General Psychology, 4, 132154.
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the
typological model. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory
and close relationships (pp. 77114). New York: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory
analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 78(2),350365.
Gerlsma, C. B., Buunk, B. P., & Mutsaers, W. C. M (1996). Correlates of self-
reported adult attachment styles in a Dutch sample of married men and
women. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 13, 313320.
Grifn, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:
Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430445.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures:
The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 105118.
Halverson, C. F. Jr. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reections on the
retrospective method. Journal of Personality, 56, 435443.
Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy
through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690694.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework
for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 122.
Heitzmann, C. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1988). Assessment of methods for
measuring social support. Health Psychology, 1, 75109.
Henry, B., Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., Langely, J., & Silva, P. A. (1994). On the
remembrance of things past: A longitudinal evaluation of the retrospective
method. Psychological Assessment, 6, 92101.
Henry, W. P. (1996). The structural analysis of social behavior as a common
metric for programmatic psychopathology and psychotherapy research.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 12631275.
Henry, W. P., Schacht, T. E., & Strupp, H. H. (1986). Structural analysis of social
behavior: Application to a study of interpersonal process in differential
psychotherapeutic outcome. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54,
2731.
178 Gallo et al.
Henry, W. P., Schacht, T. E., & Strupp, H. H. (1990). Patient and therapist
introject, interpersonal process, and differential psychotherapy outcome.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 768774.
Hofstee, W. K., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. (1992). Integration of the Big
Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality &
Horowitz, L. M., Dryer, D. C., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1997). The circumplex
structure of interpersonal problems. In R. Plutchik, & H. R. Conte (Eds.),
Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 347384). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kiesler, D. J. (1991). Interpersonal methods of assessment and diagnosis. In C. R.
Snyder, & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology:
The health perspective (pp. 438468). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality,
psychopathology, and psychotherapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of
avoidantly and securely attached women across adulthood: A 31-year
longitudinal perspective. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74,
211223.
Klohnen, E. C., & John, O. P. (1998). Working models of atttachment: A theory-
based prototype approach. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 115140).
Leary, T (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.
Lewis, M (1997). Altering fate: Why the past does not predict the future. New
York: Guilford.
Lewis, M., Fering, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over Time. Child
Development, 71, 707720.
Lichtenstein, J., & Cassidy, J. (1991, June). The Inventory of Adult Attachment:
Validation of a new measure. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society of
Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the ve-factor model of
personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality & Social
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:
Wigginss circumplex and the ve-factor model. Journal of Personality &
Mickelson, K. D., Kessler, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment in a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 10921106.
Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999). The association between parental reports of
attachment style and family dynamics, and offsprings reports of adult
attachment style. Family Process, 38, 243257.
Nichols, J. G., Licht, B. G., & Pearl, R. A. (1982). Some dangers of using
personality questionnaires to study personality. Psychological Bulletin, 92,
528537.
Pfaller, J., Kiselica, M., & Gerstein, L. (1998). Attachment style and family
dynamics in young adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 353357.
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Barrett, L. F. (2000). Attachment theory as an organizing
framework: A view from different levels of analysis. Review of General
Pincus, A. L., Dickinson, K. A., Schut, A. J., Castonguay, L. G., & Bedics, J.
(1999). Integrating interpersonal assessment and adult attachment using
SASB. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15, 206220.
Pincus, A. L., Newes, S. L., Dickinson, K. A., & Mark, A. R. (1998). A
comparison of three indexes to assess the dimensions of structural analysis of
social behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 145170.
Priel, B., & Shamai, D. (1995). Attachment style and perceived social support:
Effects on affect regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
235241.
Ruehlman, L. S., & Karoly, P. (1991). With a little ak from my friends:
Development and preliminary validation of the Test of Negative Social
Exchange (TENSE). Psychological Assessment, 3, 97104.
Sanford, K. (1997). Two dimensions of adult attachment: Further validation.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 133143.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the Big Five
personality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic
relationship outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
536545.
Simpson, J., Rholes, W., & Nelligan, J. (1992). Support seeking and support
giving within couples in an anxiety provoking situation: The role of
attachment styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 434446.
Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In W. Hartup, & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development
(pp. 5171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tidwell, M. C. O., Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. R. (1996). Attachment,
attractiveness, and social interaction: A diary study. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 729745.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjective
Scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59, 781790.
Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000).
Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year long-
itudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684689.
Weineld, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to
early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their
correlates. Child Development, 71, 695702.
Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The
interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37,
395412.
Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1991). A geometric taxonomy of personality
scales. European Journal of Personality, 5, 343365.
Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the
ve-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality:
Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 88167). New York: Guilford Press.
180 Gallo et al.
Wiggins, J. S., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric
characteristics of the revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Multi-
variate Behavioral Research, 23, 517530.
Young, A. M., & Acitelli, L. K. (1998). The role of attachment style and
relationship status of the perceiver in the perceptions of romantic partner.
Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 15, 161173.
182

09 e 4150 e 8173 BD 597 F 000000

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

09 e 4150 e 8173 BD 597 F 000000

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

An Interpersonal Analysis of Adult

Attachment Style: Circumplex Descriptions,

Anda mungkin juga menyukai