an interpersonal analysis of adult attachment style: circumplex …2014. 6. 17. · an interpersonal...

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 adultattachment is dimensional, but the specific dimensions remain unclear.Given its relational nature, studies should examine attachment structurein association with conceptually related interpersonal constructs. Theinterpersonal model (Kiesler, 1996) provides an integrative framework toexamine this structure and associations between dimensions of attach-ment security (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) and: 1) the dimensionsof the interpersonal circumplex, 2) the five-factor model of personality, 3)recollections of mothers and fathers, and 4) current self-processesand 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 [email protected].

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 andAvoidance) attachment and from Preoccupied (i.e., high Anxiety andlow Avoidance) to Dismissive (i.e., low Anxiety and high Avoidance)attachment related to the interpersonal constructs. The Secure to Fearfuldimension (i.e., overall attachment security) seemed to share relativelymore variance with the interpersonal constructs. These dimensionswere associated with theoretically consistent characteristics, recollectionsof early experiences with parents, self-representations, and socialfunctioning.

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 childhoodattachment have been examined in the context of adult relationships

(e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This extension is consistent withBowlby’s (1979) assertion that attachment mechanisms influencerelationships ‘‘from the cradle to the grave’’ (p. 129). This continuity

is believed to reflect the integration of early attachment experiencesinto mental representations, or working models, of the self, others,

and relationships (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982). Inturn, working models influence 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 discretetypes (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987), as analogues of the Secure,

Anxious-Ambivalent, and Avoidant childhood patterns describedby Ainsworth. Subsequently, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991)suggested a four-type scheme, which distinguished two Avoidant

types: Fearful-Avoidant, or avoidance of close relationships due tofear of mistreatment and rejection, and Dismissing-Avoidant, or

avoidance of close relationships due to a defensive sense of self-sufficiency 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 adultattachment (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 1999; Fraley & Waller,

1998; Griffin & 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 closerelationships (e.g., Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley &

Waller, 1998). The model also specifies diagonal dimensions, withpoles corresponding to the attachment styles proposed by Bartho-

lomew. The continuum of low Avoidance and Anxiety to highAvoidance and Anxiety corresponds with the Secure to Fearfulattachment dimension, or overall attachment security. The con-

tinuum of low Anxiety and high Avoidance to high Anxiety and lowAvoidance corresponds with the Dismissing to Preoccupied attach-

ment dimension. Either the horizontal and vertical dimensions, thediagonal 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

Figure 1The two-dimensional model of individual differences in adultattachment. 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 influenced by the decision toemploy 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, thedistinction between the horizontal and vertical versus diagonal

dimensions is influenced by factor rotation, which has sometimesbeen chosen on the basis of preexisting conceptual models (Fraley,

Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Finally, given that adult attachment is akey influence on many aspects of social functioning, its structureshould be examined in reference to other interpersonal processes

rather than attachment scales or items alone. This approach wouldcomplement 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 influence later social functioning,recent studies find mixed support for this tenet. Two studies foundsubstantial 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; Weinfield,Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000). Studies concerning attachment continuity

across later childhood or adulthood have also yielded inconsistentresults. Lewis and colleagues (2000) found that individuals with

negative recollections of childhood, recorded at age 13, tended toshow insecure attachment representations at age 18. A longitudinal

study by Klohnen and Bera (1998) found that women with anAvoidant attachment style, assessed at age 52, had experienced lesssuccessful relationship histories and more negative views of relation-

ships throughout their adult lives when compared with Securewomen. At ages 21 and 43, they also had more problematic

interpersonal styles and showed self-perceptions consistent withattachment theory. In contrast, Baldwin and Fehr (1995) found that

about 30% of subjects chose different styles when retested with acategorical measure after 1 week to a few months. Individuals with

144 Gallo et al.

an Anxious-Ambivalent style were most likely to change—a finding

consistent with previous research (Klohnen & John, 1998; Mick-elson, Kesler, & Shaver, 1997).

Evidence that individuals’ memories of childhood relate to theiradult attachment styles provides additional, albeit indirect, support

of attachment continuity. Hazan and Shaver (1987) found thatSecure adults described warm, friendly relationships with their

parents, whereas Anxious-Ambivalent individuals characterizedtheir parents as intrusive and Avoidant persons described their

mothers as cold and rejecting. In a similar study, Avoidant andAnxious-Ambivalent individuals reported less affectionate, morerejecting experiences with their parents when compared with secure

individuals (Gerlsma, Buunk, & Mutsaers, 1996). A study using afour-category measure found that the insecurely attached groups

described their current families and families of origin less positivelythan did the secure group (Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, & Labouvie-

Vief, 1998). The Fearful attachment group provided particularlynegative descriptions of their families, which differed significantly

from those of the Secure and Dismissive groups. Another studyusing the four-category model found that insecure groups describedtheir 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 theFearful 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. Recentreviews conclude that the association between child–parent and

later romantic attachment is of moderate strength (Crowell et al.,1999; Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Importantly, although recollections ofchildhood are likely to reflect current circumstances and character-

istics as well as past experiences (e.g., Halverson, 1988;Henry, Moffitt, Caspi, Langley, & Silva, 1994; Lewis, 1997),

internalized views of important interpersonal others are associatedwith adult social functioning regardless of their veracity (e.g.,

Benjamin, 1996; Bowlby, 1973). Thus, the study of linksbetween attachment style and both actual and recalled develop-

mental interactions with caregivers remains an important area ofresearch.


Interpersonal Models of Personality and Social Behavior

Research concerning the origins and correlates of adult attachmentcould benefit from the application of well-established theoretical

constructs and measures (cf. Shaver & Brennan, 1992). Theinterpersonal approach to personality and social functioning

(Kiesler, 1991; 1996) may be useful in this regard. As shown inFigure 2, the interpersonal circumplex (Kiesler, 1996) consists of twodimensions that describe personality and social behavior as

dominant versus submissive and friendly versus hostile. Thesedimensions underlie most aspects of interpersonal behavior (e.g.,

Leary, 1957; Wiggins, 1979), and can therefore be considered anomological 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

DOMINANCEAmbitious-Dominant(PA)

Gregarious-Extraverted (NO)

Arrogant-Calculating (BC)

HOSTILITYCold-Quarrelsome (DE)

Aloof-Introverted (FG)

Lazy-Submissive(HI)SUBMISSIVENESS

Unassuming-Ingenuous (JK)

FRIENDLINESSWarm-Agreeable (LM)

Self-Enhancing Leading

Nurturant

Cooperative

DocileSelf-Effacing

Distrustful

Critical

Figure 2The interpersonal circumplex. Horizontal axis is hostility vs. friendli-ness. Vertical axis is dominance vs. submissiveness. The octant scalesare identified 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

affiliation. Persons with negative self-images (i.e., Fearful, Preoccu-pied attachment) do not feel efficacious and should therefore be high

on submission. Similarly, Diehl and colleagues (1998) found thatindividuals 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, andcommunal (i.e., affiliative; see also Griffin & 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 Extroversion—are similar to affiliation 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 loweragreeableness 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 isrelated 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 influenced 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 ofworking models). For example, the Structural Analysis of Social

Behavior model (SASB; Benjamin, 1974; 1994) proposes that earlyinteractions influence adult interpersonal behavior through three

interrelated processes (Benjamin, 1996): Identification, which occurswhen an individual adopts a parent’s interactional style through

observational learning; Recapitulation, which occurs when anindividual internalizes parental behavior and maintains the child-

hood interpersonal role; and Introjection which occurs when anindividual 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 aframework 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 figures, a refinement of the basicinterpersonal circumplex. Instead of incorporating a single con-

ceptualization of control or dominance, the SASB includes adistinction between enmeshment and differentiation. Dominance

and submission are not opposites, but represent complimentarybehaviors across relational partners. The opposite of exertingdominance is granting autonomy or independence to others; the

opposite of submissiveness is asserting one’s own autonomy. Tocapture these distinctions, the SASB incorporates three separate

interpersonal foci. Individuals can rate their own or others’ actionstoward a target (i.e., transitive focus), their own or others’ reactions

to a target (i.e., intransitive focus), or their own self-directedbehaviors (i.e., introjects).

According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) and interperso-nal theory (Benjamin, 1994), securely attached persons should recalltheir interactions with parents as generally affiliative, with varying

degrees of differentiation and enmeshment, and should havesimilarly positive introjects (Florsheim, Henry, & Benjamin, 1996).

Insecurely attached individuals should report less affiliation in theirrecollections 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-basedmeasures of their recalled childhood interactions and of their current

self-directed behaviors. The Fearful and Preoccupied groupsreported more hostile self-directed behaviors in adulthood thandid the Secure group. The Fearful group also described their early

experiences with mothers and fathers as more hostile, and thePreoccupied group described their fathers’ behaviors as more

hostile, when compared with the Secure group. A second samplecompleted the Inventory of Adult Attachment (Lichtenstein &

Cassidy, 1991), a measure of childhood experiences with the primarycaregiver and the SASB questionnaires. Participants who recalled

their caregivers as rejecting on the attachment measure describedtheir 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 whoreported greater dismissiveness, anger, and less extensive memories

of their childhood relationship with the primary caregiver alsodescribed their parents as less affiliative on the SASB measures.

Because the Inventory of Adult Attachment includes concepts closelyoverlapping 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 interpersonalapproach to personality and social behavior to examine the

association between adult attachment and 1) the space defined bythe 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 byexamining developmental antecedents and interpersonal correlates

of adult attachment through a common and well-validatedconceptual framework. In addition, the study uses a dimensional

measure, whereas much of the related previous research relied oncategorical assessments (e.g., Diehl et al., 1998; Hazan & Shaver,

1987; Pincus et al., 1999; Shaver & Brennan, 1992). In so doing, wehope 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 reflecting

secure attachment) relate most closely to interpersonal constructs.The first 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 versionof the FFM (Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). We examined the location

of the attachment scales in the conceptual space defined by theinterpersonal circumplex and predicted that both would be closely

associated with the horizontal axis (i.e., affiliation). In addition, wepredicted that higher levels of Anxiety and Avoidance would be


associated with submissiveness (consistent with Brennan & Shaver,

1992). The association between the attachment dimensions and theFFM were tested through canonical correlation analysis. This

procedure describes the nature and strength of relationships betweensets of variables. Overall, we predicted that greater attachment

security would be associated with a more affiliative, dominant (i.e.,more extroverted), conscientious, and less neurotic interpersonal

style. Because any of the dimensional representations of attachmentnoted above were considered plausible based on previous research,

we did not formulate more specific predictions. Rather, we usedcanonical correlation to examine which dimension(s) of attachmentrelated 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 eachother, and their current self-directed behaviors (i.e., introjects).

Summary scores described the affiliation and autonomy typical ofthe respondents’ descriptions (Benjamin, 1988). Associations be-

tween the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions and the SASB scaleswere assessed through a series of canonical correlation analyses.Overall, we predicted that greater attachment security would be

associated with affiliative, moderately differentiated recollections ofparents and with affiliative, moderately differentiated self-represen-

tations. Consistent with the analyses for the FFM, we did not formspecific predictions about the structure of these associations, but

used canonical correlation to examine which dimension(s) ofattachment related most consistently to the SASB variables.

The second sample also completed assessments of their currentsocial functioning in the form of perceived social support and

exposure to social conflict. Prior research suggests importantdifferences in general social functioning according to adult attach-ment style (e.g., Florian, Mikulincer, & Bucholtz, 1995; Priel &

Shamai, 1995; Tidwell, Reis, & Shaver, 1996), a finding that isconsistent with the tenets of the interpersonal model. We predicted

that greater attachment security would be associated with worseinterpersonal functioning in adulthood (i.e., more social conflict, less

social support), and we used the canonical correlation procedure toexamine the specific nature of these associations.

Previous research on adult attachment has either not revealedconsistent 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 genderspecific analyses, but given the paucity of previous research, specific

predictions were not formulated.

METHOD

Participants

The samples consisted of 294 (107 males, 187 females) and 274 (130females, 145 males) undergraduate psychology students from the

University of Utah. Participants were tested alone or in groupsranging 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 fulfill

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 correlatedwith the Close and Depend scales (Collins & Read, 1990). The

subscales have moderate test-retest stability (ranging from r5 0.52for Anxiety to r5 0.71 for Depend across 2 months), and adequate

internal consistency (ranging from p5 0.69 for Anxiety top5 0.75 for Depend). Collins and Read (1990; Collins, 1996)

found that the dimensions of the AAS related in expected patterns toworking models of self (e.g., self-esteem, instrumentality) and others

(e.g., trustworthiness, dependability, human nature) and to thequality of participants’ romantic relationships, and that theypredicted participants’ descriptions of their cognitive, emotional,


and probable behavioral responses to hypothetical relationship

scenarios. Factor-analytic studies have shown that a two-factorstructure best represents the AAS, with the Close/Depend

comprising an Avoidance dimension and the Anxiety itemscomprising an Anxiety dimension (Brennan et al., 1998; Sanford,

1997). Thus, we formed two scales from the AAS data, representingAvoidance (i.e., close1depend, reverse coded so that higher scores

reflect higher Avoidance) and Anxiety (Collins, 1996). The internalconsistencies measured in the first sample were p5 0.69 and .82,

and in the second sample, p5 .71 and .85, for Anxiety andAvoidance, 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 aninterpersonal 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 psychometricproperties (Kiesler, 1991; Wiggins & Broughton, 1991; Wiggins,

Trapnell, & Phillips, 1988). The interpersonally focused dimensionsof the FFM, affiliation and dominance, (i.e., replacing

Agreeableness and Extroversion) are represented through weightedlinear combinations of the octant scales. Scores for Neuroticism,

Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience are derived from theadditional 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 convergentcharacteristics for the five-factor scales.

Recalled Interpersonal Experiences With Parents and Current Self-Representations (Sample 2). As shown in Figure 3, the SASBdistinguishes among the focus of interpersonal ratings, as follows:

the transitive focus characterizes behaviors directed toward anotherindividual, 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 thetransitive surface, submission and separation (i.e., autonomy taking)

represent the poles in the intransitive surface, and self-control toself-emancipation represent the poles in the introject surface. In eachcase the horizontal axis is affiliation, 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. Participantsalso rated their recollections of their mothers’ and fathers’ transitive

and intransitive behaviors with each other. Finally, participantsrated their adult behavior toward themselves (i.e., introjects) two

EMANCIPATESEPARATE

SELF-EMANCIPATE

IGNORE AFFIRMWALL-OFF DISCLOSE

SELF-NEGLECT SELF-AFFIRM

ATTACK ACTIVE-LOVERECOIL REACTIVE-LOVE

SELF-ATTACK ACTIVE-SELF-LOVE

BLAME PROTECTSULK TRUST

SELF-BLAME SELF-PROTECT

CONTROLSUBMIT

SELF-CONTROL

Figure 3The transitive (bold print), intransitive (underlined), and introject(italicized) surfaces of the Structural Analysis of Social BehaviorModel (3 foci collapsed into one surface; one word per cluster).Vertical axis is autonomy (top5differentiation or emancipation;bottom5 interconnection or enmeshment). Horizontal axis is affilia-tion (left5hostile; right5 friendliness). Reproduced with permission

from Benjamin, 1993.


times—as 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 Affiliationand Autonomy composites are derived from a weighted sum of the

cluster scores (Benjamin, 1988; Pincus, Newes, Dickinson, & Ruiz,1998). Higher scores represent greater affiliation (i.e., less hostility)

or greater autonomy (i.e., less control or submission). Considerableresearch 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 AppraisalSupport (i.e., availability of a confidant), Tangible Support (i.e.,

material assistance), Self-Esteem Support (i.e., favorablecomparisons with one’s peers), and Belonging Support (i.e.,

membership in a social group). Previous research supports thefour-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 a5 0.77 (Self-Esteem Support) to a5 0.85 (Appraisal Support).Participants also completed an assessment of their exposure to social

conflict, the Test of Negative Social Exchange (TENSE; Ruehlman &Karoly, 1991). Twenty Likert-scale items assess frequency ofexposure to Hostility and Impatience, Insensitivity, Interference,

and Ridicule from others during the past month. The scale authorsreported moderate intercorrelations for the subscales, ranging from

r5 0.43 to r5 0.56, good internal consistencies, and expectedpatterns of correlations with measures of social hindrance and well

being. In the current study, Chronbach’s a for the scales ranged from0.66 (for Ridicule) and 0.85 (for Hostility/Impatience).

RESULTS

Bivariate Relationships Among Measures

The bivariate correlations between the Anxiety and Avoidanceattachment scales and the FFM, SASB, ISEL, and TENSE scalesare 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 towhich each scale is related to the horizontal and vertical axes of the

circumplex. The correlations locate the dimensions relative to the x(x5 rvx) and y (y5 rvy) axes, so that r5 0 would locate the variableat the origin and r571 would locate the variable at the positive or

negative pole of the axis. The extent to which the dimension isinterpersonal in nature is indicated by the multiple correlation

between the scale and the dominance and affiliation 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 thex axis is equal to q5 tan� 1(y/x). As shown in Table 1, for both men

and women, Anxiety and Avoidance were inversely associated withAffiliation, although the association between Anxiety and Affiliation

was not statistically significant for men. Both dimensions ofattachment also inversely related to Dominance. Thus, greaterattachment insecurity, either in terms of Avoidance or Anxiety

relates to a more hostile-submissive interpersonal style. Figure 4shows 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.,

Affiliation 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 ofvariables in a manner that maximizes shared variance between the

sets. The canonical variate explaining the greatest proportion ofvariance is selected first, and additional orthogonal variates areselected in descending order of importance (i.e., amount of shared

variance explained). Standardized coefficients indicate how thecanonical variable is calculated by weighting individual variables,

whereas correlations between individual and canonical variablesprovide a description of the nature of the canonical variables.

In the analysis for women, the first canonical correlation was .53(28% of the variance) and the second was .25 (6% of the variance).


Table 1Pearson Product-Moment Correlations Reflecting the Associations

Between the Attachment Scales and the FFM, SASB, ISEL, and TENSEScales

Women Men

Interpersonal Subscale Anxiety Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance

Five-Factor Model (Current)

Affiliation (i.e.,

Agreeableness)

� .20nn � .36nn � .12 � .34nn

Dominance (i.e.,

Extroversion)

� .23nn � .25nn � .28nn � .35nn

Conscientiousness � .23nn � .21nn � .06 � .20n

Neuroticism .39nn .29nn .44nn .35nn

Openness � .11 � .01 � .11 � .16

Mother to Participant

(Recalled)

Transitive Affiliation

(Active Love)

� .22n � .34nn � .27nn � .43nn

Intransitive Affiliation

(Reactive Love)

� .25nn � .40nn � .29 � .45nn

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .12 � .03 .07 .02

Intransitive Autonomy

(Separation)

.03 .05 � .06 .15

Participant to Mother

(Recalled)


(Active Love)

� .23nn � .39nn � .28nn � .36nn


(Reactive Love)

� .30nn � .47nn � .36nn � .40nn

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .20n � .22n � .10 .09


(Separation)

.09 � .06 .06 .08

Father to Participant

(Recalled)


(Active Love)

� .24nn � .37nn � .20n � .41nn


(Reactive Love)

� .26nn .35nn � .15 � .44nn

156 Gallo et al.

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .11 � .14 � .01 � .03


(Separation)

.08 .07 � .12 .14

Participant to Father

(Recalled)


(Active Love)

� .19n � .21n � .19n � .39nn


(Reactive Love)

� .21n � .28n � .21n � .40nn

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .15 � .07 � .20n .12


(Separation)

.08 � .11 .06 .02

Mother to Father (Recalled)


(Active Love)

� .17 � .13 � .30nn � .33nn


(Reactive Love)

� .23n � .21n � .23nn � .29nn

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .17 � .11 � .22n � .10


(Separation)

� .10 � .16 � .04 � .06

Father to Mother (Recalled)


(Active Love)

.22n � .18n � .11 � .25nn


(Reactive Love)

� .21n � .17 � .18n � .28nn

Transitive Autonomy

(Emancipation)

� .11 � .17 � .05 � .11


(Separation)

.19 .06 � .25nn .04

Introject (Current)

Affiliation at Worst

(Self-Directed Love)

� .30nn � .22n � .28nn � .40nn

Affiliation at Best


� .20n � .46nn � .30nn � .37nn

Table 1 (cont.)

Women Men



The canonical correlations were statistically significant in combina-

tion: F (10,360)5 7.66, po .0001, and the second alone was alsosignificant: F (4, 181)5 2.99, po .05. The results from these analyses

are shown in Table 2. The correlations showed that the first variatewas positively associated with Anxiety and Avoidance, suggesting

that it had captured the continuum from Secure to Fearfulattachment (i.e., general attachment security). Greater insecurity

was associated with higher Neuroticism, and lower Affiliation,Dominance, and Conscientiousness. The second canonical variatewas positively associated with Anxiety and inversely associated with

Avoidance, thereby reflecting the continuum from Dismissing toPreoccupied attachment. Greater preoccupied attachment related to

higher Affiliation and Neuroticism and lower Openness.The first canonical correlation in the analysis for men was .58

(33% of the variance) and the second was .26 (7% of the variance).The canonical correlations were statistically significant in combina-

tion: F(10, 200)5 5.36, po .0001, but the second alone was notsignificant: F (4,101)5 1.87, p5 .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 � .26nn � .50nn � .35nn � .63nn

Belonging Support � .13 � .48nn � .34nn � .59nn

Self-Esteem Support � .29nn � .37nn � .33nn � .46nn

Tangible Support � .35nn � .38nn � .49nn � .52nn

Social Conflict (Current)

Hostility/Impatience .21n .16 .14 .08

Insensitivity .20n .21n .24nn .29nn

Interference .02 .21n .02 .19n

Ridicule .07 .03 .07 .10

npo.05, nnpo.01

Table 1 (cont.)

Women Men


158 Gallo et al.

loadings for the attachment scales for the first and second variate

were similar to those observed for women, and the second variateaccounted for a similar amount of variance in men and women. Thestatistics for both variates are therefore shown in Table 2 for

purposes of comparison. The correlation coefficients showed thatthis first canonical variate again reflected attachment insecurity (i.e.,

higher Anxiety, higher Avoidance), or the continuum from a Secureto Fearful attachment style, along with higher Neuroticism, and

lower Dominance, Affiliation, Conscientiousness, and Openness toExperience. The second canonical variate was positively associated

with Anxiety and inversely associated with Avoidance (i.e., theDismissing 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

Figure 4Projection of the Anxiety and Avoidance dimensions from the AASinto interpersonal circumplex space, for men and for women Men:VlAnxiety5 .30, VLAvoicance5 .47; Women: VlAnxiety5 .29, VLAvoidance5 .42.


pied attachment related to greater Affiliation, Conscientiousness,and Neuroticism.

Attachment Style, Recalled Experiences With Parents, and

Current Self-Representations

Canonical correlation analyses examined relationships between theattachment scales and sets of SASB affiliation and autonomysummary scales for 1) recalled interactions with mother (i.e.,

mother’s and participant’s transitive and intransitive compositescores); 2) recalled interactions with father; 3) recalled interactions

between mother and father; and 4) current self-directed behavior atbest and at worst (i.e., introject affiliation and autonomy scores).

Separate analyses were performed for women and for men. Missingdata were excluded on an analysis-specific basis.

Table 2Standardized Canonical Coefficients and Correlations With

Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation 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

Affiliation

(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 coefficient. R5 correlation between individual

variables and canonical variable.

160 Gallo et al.

Recalled experiences with mother. In the analysis of the associationbetween attachment and recollections of mother provided by

women, the first canonical correlation was .58 (34% of thevariance) and the second was .23 (5% of the variance). In

combination, the canonical correlations were statisticallysignificant: F (16,224)5 3.65, po .001, but the second alone was

not: F(7,113)5 0.91. As shown in Table 3, the correlation coefficients


Canonical Variables from the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation 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 first canonical variate was inversely associated

with Anxiety and Avoidance, reflecting a general attachment securitydimension. All four affiliation 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 first canonical correlation was .49

(24% of the variance) and the second was .32 (10% of the variance).In combination, the canonical correlations were statistically

significant: F(16,232)5 3.02, po .001, and the second correlationalone was marginally significant: F(7, 117)5 1.87, p5 .08. Thesecond variate was further interpreted because it accounted for 10%

of the variance, but the findings should be viewed tentatively. Aspresented in Table 3, the correlation coefficients showed that Anxiety

and Avoidance were inversely associated with the first canonicalvariate. Thus, the variable again reflected the Secure to Fearful

dimension, and greater attachment insecurity was associated withlower levels on all four affiliation variables. Anxiety was positively

related and Avoidance was inversely related to the second variable,which is consistent with the Dismissing to Preoccupied dimension. Amore preoccupied style was associated with greater enmeshment

between mothers and sons—specifically, sons’ tendency to becontrolling toward their mothers, and mothers’ tendency to submit

in response—and to a lesser extent, mother’s tendency to be moreloving in acting and reacting to their sons.

Recalled experiences with father. In the analysis for women, the firstcanonical correlation was .44 (20% of the variance) and the secondwas .21 (5% of the variance). The canonical correlations were

statistically significant in combination: F(16,216)5 1.90, po .05, butthe second alone was not: F(7,109)5 0.74. As shown in Table 4,

Avoidance and Anxiety were both inversely correlated with the firstvariate, reflecting overall attachment security (i.e., the Secure to

Fearful dimension). Correlation coefficients showed that greatersecurity was related to recollections of greater affiliation in fathers’

actions and reactions, and to a lesser extent, greater affiliation inparticipants’ actions and reactions. The autonomy scales showed

weak correlations with the canonical variate (i.e., o .3), so thatmore secure participants reported greater interpersonaldifferentiation 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 reactionstoward participants.

In the analysis for men, two canonical variates emerged, withvalues of .47 (22% of the variance) and .35 (12 % of the variance).

Together, the canonical correlations were statistically significant: F(16,222), po .0001, and the second correlation alone was significant:

F(7,112)5 2.24 po .05. As shown in Table 4, only Avoidancecontributed substantially to the first variate. Lower Avoidance was

related to higher affiliation in interactions between father and sonand to a lesser extent, lower interpersonal separation in sons’ actionstoward fathers (i.e., son controls father), and in fathers’ reactions to

sons (i.e., father submits). Only the Anxiety dimension contributedsubstantially to the second variate, with higher levels relating to less

autonomy (i.e., more control) in sons’ actions toward father, greatersubmission in father’s reactions, and less affiliation in fathers’

actions and in sons’ actions and reactions to fathers.

Recalled interactions between mother and father. In the analysis thatexamined women’s recollections of the interactions between their

mothers and fathers, the first canonical correlation was .41 (17% ofthe variance) and the second was .23 (5% of the variance). In

combination, the canonical correlations were only marginallysignificant: F(16, 210)5 1.66, p5 .06, and the second alone was

not significant: F (7,106)5 0.85. Because the first correlationaccounted for a moderate amount of variance, it was examined

further. As shown in Table 5, correlations suggested that this variatereflected 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 andfathers, across all four affiliation scales. Higher insecurity also

related to fathers’ tendency to be controlling (i.e., transitiveautonomy) and mothers’ tendency to submit (i.e., intransitive

autonomy) in response, and to mothers’ tendency to becontrolling, and fathers’ tendency to assert himself in response.

In the analysis for men, the first canonical correlation was .47(22% of the variance) and the second was .27 (7% of the variance).

The canonical correlations were statistically significant in combina-tion: F(16,220)5 2.41, po .01, but the second alone was notstatistically significant: F (7,111)5 1.21. Correlation coefficients


showed that the variate again reflected attachment insecurity, or thecontinuum from a Secure to Fearful style. Higher attachment

insecurity related to recollections of greater hostility in fathers’ andmothers’ transitive and intransitive behaviors. Correlation coeffi-

cients also showed that individuals with greater insecurity recalledtheir mothers as more controlling (i.e., transitive autonomy) and


Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation Between the Attachment Scales and Recalled

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., intransitiveautonomy).

Self-representations. In the analysis that examined the associationbetween Anxiety and Avoidance and self-directed behaviors at best and

at worst (i.e., introjects) for women, the first canonical correlation was.49 (24% of the variance) and the second was .30 (9% of the variance).


Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation Between the Attachment Scales and Recalled

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 significant: F(8,238)56.00, po .0001, as was the secondafter controlling for the first correlation, F(3,120)54.02, po .01. As

shown in Table 6, the first canonical variate showed that lowerAvoidance related to higher self-directed love at best and to a lesser

extent, higher self-directed love at worst. For the second canonicalvariate, correlation coefficients showed that women higher in anxious

attachment reported more hostility and self-emancipation at worst.In the analysis for men, the first canonical correlation was .52 (27%

of the variance) and the second was .10 (1% of the variance). Inaggregate, the canonical correlations were statistically significant:F(8,254)55.56, po .0001, but the second alone was not: F

(3,128)50.37. As shown in Table 6, correlation coefficients indicatedthat the first variate was positively associated with Anxiety and


Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation 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

Affiliation at Worst


� .04 .47 � 1.06 � .87 � .59 � .82

Affiliation 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. Affiliation at best and at worst were bothstrongly inversely correlated with the canonical variate, indicating that

more secure individuals treat themselves in a more loving manner. To alesser 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 ISELsubscales. In the analysis for women, the first correlation was .60(36% of the variance) and the second was .40 (16% of the variance).

The canonical correlations were significant in combination:F(16,240)5 5.40, po .0001, and the second correlation alone was

also statistically significant: F(7,121)5 3.24, po .01. Both Avoid-ance and Anxiety were inversely associated with the first canonical

variate, so that it again reflected the continuum from a Secure toFearful style. The correlation coefficients showed that higher

security was associated with higher levels of all four types ofperceived social support and lower reports of Hostility/Impatience,Insensitivity, and Interference from others. Correlation coefficients

showed that Anxiety was strongly positively related and that it wasinversely associated with the second variate. Thus, this variable

reflected the continuum from a Dismissing to Preoccupied style. Thesupport and conflict variables were fairly weakly associated with the

canonical variate. Greater Preoccupied attachment related positivelyto Belonging support and the tendency to experience Hostility/

Impatience and inversely to Tangible support and Interference.In the analysis for men, the first canonical correlation was .71

(50% of the variance), and the second was .38 (14% of the variance).The canonical correlations were statistically significant in aggregate:F(16,270)5 8.85, po .0001, and the second correlation alone was

also significant: F (7,136)5 3.17, po .01. Avoidance was stronglyinversely correlated, and Anxiety was more weakly inversely

correlated with the variable (i.e., the continuum of Secure to Fearfulattachment). Correlation coefficients showed that greater attach-

ment security was associated with higher levels of all types ofsupport and, more weakly, with lower levels of all types of conflict.

Correlation coefficients showed that Anxiety was positively relatedand 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 conflict variables werefairly weak. Greater preoccupied attachment related to lower

Tangible support and Interference and higher Hostility/Impatience.


Canonical Variables From the Canonical Correlation Analyses of theAssociation Between the Attachment Scales and CurrentInterpersonal Functioning (i.e., Perceived Social Support

and Social Conflict)

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

Conflict

(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 procedurebecause of its ability to examine the overall structure of associations

between sets of variables. However, canonical correlation does notallow statistical tests of interaction effects, as would be needed to

determine if gender differences exist in the associations betweenattachment and the interpersonal constructs. Because a key goal ofthe current research was to explore gender differences, we followed

the canonical correlation analyses with a set of MultivariateAnalyses of Covariance (MANCOVA). The canonical analyses

were fairly consistent in showing that the diagonal dimensions ofattachment shown in Figure 1, as opposed to the horizontal and

vertical dimensions, related to the interpersonal constructs. Thus,composite dimensions reflecting Dismissive to Preoccupied Attach-

ment (i.e., standardized Anxiety–standardized Avoidance) andSecure to Fearful Attachment (i.e., standardized Anxiety1standar-

dized Avoidance) were entered as covariates. Between-subjectseffects for gender, the attachment composite scales, and thegender� attachment composite scale interactions were modeled in

all analyses. In the analyses of the SASB scales, dimension (i.e.,affiliation, autonomy) was a repeated factor, and effects for the

gender� dimension, dimension� attachment composite scale, andgender� dimension� attachment composite scale interactions were

included. Across all analyses, only one significant interactioninvolving gender emerged. Specifically, there was a significant

multivariate Gender� Secure to Fearful composite dimensioninteraction effect for current social functioning: F(5, 262)5 2.14,po.05. Univariate tests revealed significant interaction effects for

Appraisal: F (1,269)5 8.30, po .01, Belonging, F (1,269)5 6.48, po.05 and Tangible Support: F (1,269)5 12.52, po .001. Correlation

coefficients showed that higher attachment security was significantlyassociated with perceptions of higher Appraisal, Belonging, and

Tangible support in both men and women, but the associations weresomewhat stronger in men.

DISCUSSION

Using the interpersonal model of personality and social behavior, weprovide evidence concerning the structure, possible developmental


antecedents, and personality and social correlates of adult attach-

ment style. Many of the findings were consistent with the predictionsof attachment and interpersonal theory. Specifically, the attachment

dimensions were well represented in circumplex space, and adultattachment security was associated with a warm and dominant

interpersonal style. Attachment also related to the scales from theFFM in a manner generally consistent with predictions and with

prior research (Shaver & Brennan, 1992). The findings also add toprevious 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 inFigure 1 accounted for attachment organization at least as well as

the independent dimensions of Anxiety and Avoidance. In themajority of analyses, the continuum of Secure (i.e., low Anxiety andAvoidance) 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., lowAnxiety and high Avoidance) to Preoccupied (i.e., high Anxiety

and low Avoidance) attachment. The attachment structure identifiedin 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 werelocated in the hostile submissive quadrant of circumplex space, for

both men and women. This finding may seem to contradict previousresearch 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 todescribe 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. Theitems forming the avoidance dimension from the AAS were based on

Hazan and Shaver’s (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 findings. Specifically, the results mayreflect the fact that Avoidant attachment and Extraversion areantithetical relational styles.

It is interesting to note that the vector length, or the degree ofinterpersonal representation, was longer for Avoidance than for

Anxiety, in both men and women. The finding that Avoidance ismore interpersonal in nature seems consistent with the view that the

dimension reflects one’s 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. Incontrast, Anxiety is closely related to the working model of self (e.g.,

Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), and mighttherefore be expected to be less strongly interpersonal.

Consistent with findings 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 seemedto be represented by the diagonal dimensions, and especially the

dimension describing overall security (i.e., Secure to Fearfulattachment). Higher attachment security was associated with higher

Agreeableness and Extroversion (i.e., dominance) and lowerNeuroticism. The smaller dimension of Dismissive to Preoccupiedattachment 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 ofinteractions with parents, between parents, and to adult self-

representations. With only two exceptions (men’s recollections offathers, women’s self-representations) the structure of attachment in

relation to these interpersonal constructs consisted of combinationsof the attachment dimensions, or the diagonal factors depicted in

Figure 1. The continuum reflecting overall attachment securitytended to account for the majority of the associations with the SASB

scales. Across all analyses, attachment insecurity related torecollections that interactions with parents and between parentswere more hostile in nature. Thus, consistent with previous research,

more insecurely attached adults tended to recall less affiliativeinteractions with parents during development (e.g., Diehl et al.,

1998; Gerlsma et al., 1996; Pincus et al., 1999). Lower attachmentsecurity also related to more hostile self-representations (i.e.,

introjects), providing additional evidence that attachment reflectsworking models of self (e.g., Collins & Read, 1990; Pietromonaco &

Barrett, 2000). In some cases, the enmeshment or autonomydimension describing recollections of parents or self-representationsalso related to adult attachment style, although less consistently.

Attachment Dimensions and Current Interpersonal Functioning

Finally, canonical variates reflecting the diagonal dimensions of

Secure to Fearful and Dismissive to Preoccupied attachmentdescribed the association between attachment and current inter-

personal functioning for both men and women. The gender-specificanalyses showed variability in the patterns of association with the

support and conflict dimensions, but overall, men and women with amore Fearful, less Secure attachment style reported more negative

social relationships in adulthood (i.e., less support and moreconflict). In contrast, the Dismissive to Preoccupied continuumwas associated with more variable interpersonal experiences.

Individuals with a more Preoccupied style tended to report elevatedlevels of some types of social conflict, but less interference from

others. This finding is interesting from the perspective that moreanxiously 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 attachmenttended to report more Belonging and Appraisal Support but less

Self-Esteem and Tangible Support. This pattern of findings seemsconsistent 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 thelevel 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 identified (e.g.,

Diehl et al., 1998; Shaver & Brennan, 1992) or reported (e.g., Pfalleret al., 1998; Pincus et al., 1999) gender differences in the precipitantsand correlates of attachment. The current study identified quite

similar findings for men and women. Sporadic gender differencesoccurred, but not consistently or within an obvious pattern.

Furthermore, follow-up analyses showed only one significant genderby attachment-composite-scale interaction effect—for the effect of

the Secure to Fearful dimension on adult social functioning—andthe 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 interpersonalapproach for research concerning adult attachment style. The

interpersonal approach allowed the examination of the concurrentand recalled developmental correlates through a common conceptual

and methodological framework, thereby facilitating the placement ofattachment into a well-established nomological net. Specifically, theinterpersonal approach showed that both interpersonal dimensions

were important for defining the structure of adult attachment,although in respect to recalled interactions with parents, the

horizontal axis was clearly most relevant. The interpersonal modelalso provides predictions for how developmental interpersonal

experiences might become integrated into adult attachment repre-sentations, specifically, through the processes of internalization,


recapitulation, and introjection (Benjamin, 1996). Consistent with

these processes, the SASB analyses showed that attachment wasrelated to recollections of interactions with mother and father,

between mother and father, and to adult self-representations. Alsoconsistent with these processes, attachment style related to current

adult social functioning. Use of validated theoretical frameworks inresearch 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 theassociations between adult attachment and the relevant interpersonal

constructs. This approach was chosen because it can be used toexamine 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 specificsample. As such, the solution can be data driven. Findings that show

a consistent pattern across measures and samples, such as theimportance of the diagonal attachment dimensions and especially thesecurity dimension, and the association between these dimensions and

the affiliation axis in SASB circumplex space, should be interpretedwith greater confidence. In contrast, sporadic findings, such as the

connection between adult attachment and the autonomy dimensionof the SASB scales, should be viewed more tentatively until replicated

in future research. Similarly, the procedure lacks statistical tests forexamining interaction effects, as would be necessary to examine

statistical significance of gender differences. Follow-up MANCOVAanalyses revealed only one significant interaction effect involving

gender, but it should be noted that the canonical and MANCOVAanalyses are not equivalent. For example, in MANCOVA, thediagonal attachment dimensions were created through an arithmetical

equation, whereas in the canonical correlation analyses, the dimen-sions were identified in relation to the interpersonal constructs.

Finally, although canonical correlation can be used to assess patternsin the structure of relationships between constructs, interpretation is

somewhat subjective, much like factor analysis. Again, findings thatwere 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 thequestion 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 reflect a

reconstruction of events, which is biased in accordance with therespondent’s adult personality (Halverson, 1988). The veracity of

parental descriptions aside, one’s internalized views of importantothers and prior experiences are likely to have important ramifica-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 directionfor future studies.

Other limitations relate to the use of self-report measures.Common method variance may have contributed to the findings

(e.g., Nichols et al., 1982), and additional research is needed thatuses alternative modalities of assessment to study adult attachmentstyle. Relatedly, Brennan and her colleagues (1998) recently

presented a self-report measure of the Anxiety and Avoidancedimensions of attachment, which represents a distillation of many

prior scales and has excellent psychometric properties. The use ofthis measure in future research examining the structure of

attachment in relation to important interpersonal domains willcontribute to confidence in the current findings.

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, thefindings 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 personalityand social behavior as a framework through which to study the

possible developmental antecedents and personality and socialcorrelates of adult attachment. Overall, the findings conformed to


predictions based on interpersonal and attachment theory. Further-

more, our findings provide information about the structure ofattachment as it relates to conceptually relevant interpersonal

domains. Specifically, recent research concerning the measurementof 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 findings

suggest that it is the combinations of Anxiety and Avoidancerepresented by the diagonal dimensions in Figure 1 (Fraley &

Shaver, 2000), rather than the individual dimensions, that relatemost closely to other interpersonal constructs. In particular, overallattachment security, or the continuum from Secure to Fearful

attachment, might best describe the structure of attachment inrelation to interpersonal constructs. Thus, we recommend that

future research adopt a dimensional approach to conceptualizingattachment 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, 247–261.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147–178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:

A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

61, 226–241.

Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior (SASB).

Psychological Review, 81, 1129–1133.

Benjamin, L. S. (1987). Use of the SASB dimensional model to develop treatment

plans for personality disorders, I: Narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders,

1, 43–70.

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, 273–316.

Benjamin, L. S. (1996). An interpersonal theory of personality disorders. In J.

Clarkin (Ed.), Major theories of personality (pp. 141–220). 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. 46–76). 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,

835–878.

Brennan, K. A., Shaver, P. R., & Tobey, A. E. (1991). Attachment styles, gender,

and parental problem drinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,

451–466.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. Monographs

of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 3–35.

Brewin, C. R., Andrews, B., & Gotlib, I. H. (1993). Psychopathology and early

experience: A reappraisal of retrospective reports. Psychological Bulletin, 113,

82–98.

Brookings, J. B., & Bolton, B. (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis of the

Interpersonal support Evaluation List. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 16, 137–147.

Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports

as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13,

99–125.

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, 644–663 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.

434–365). 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, 1656–1669.

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. 269–308). 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, 665–676.

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. 81–101).

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, 132–154.

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. 77–114). 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),350–365.

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, 313–320.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:

Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430–445.

Gurtman, M. B. (1992). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures:

The interpersonal circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 63, 105–118.

Halverson, C. F. Jr. (1988). Remembering your parents: Reflections on the

retrospective method. Journal of Personality, 56, 435–443.

Hamilton, C. E. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy

through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690–694.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an

attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,

511–524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework

for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1–22.

Heitzmann, C. A., & Kaplan, R. M. (1988). Assessment of methods for

measuring social support. Health Psychology, 1, 75–109.

Henry, B., Moffitt, 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, 92–101.

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, 1263–1275.

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,

27–31.

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, 768–774.

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. 347–384). 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. 438–468). 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,

211–223.

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. 115–140).

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, 707–720.

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 five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality & Social


McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits:

Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-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, 1092–1106.

Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999). The association between parental reports of

attachment style and family dynamics, and offspring’s reports of adult

attachment style. Family Process, 38, 243–257.

Nichols, J. G., Licht, B. G., & Pearl, R. A. (1982). Some dangers of using

personality questionnaires to study personality. Psychological Bulletin, 92,

528–537.

Pfaller, J., Kiselica, M., & Gerstein, L. (1998). Attachment style and family

dynamics in young adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 353–357.


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, 206–220.

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, 145–170.

Priel, B., & Shamai, D. (1995). Attachment style and perceived social support:

Effects on affect regulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,

235–241.

Ruehlman, L. S., & Karoly, P. (1991). With a little flak from my friends:

Development and preliminary validation of the Test of Negative Social

Exchange (TENSE). Psychological Assessment, 3, 97–104.

Sanford, K. (1997). Two dimensions of adult attachment: Further validation.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 133–143.

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,

536–545.

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, 434–446.

Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of

relationships. In W. Hartup, & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development

(pp. 51–71). 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, 729–745.

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, 781–790.

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, 684–689.

Weinfield, 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, 695–702.

Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The

interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37,

395–412.

Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1991). A geometric taxonomy of personality

scales. European Journal of Personality, 5, 343–365.

Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic-interactional perspective on the

five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-Factor Model of Personality:

Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 88–167). 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, 517–530.

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, 161–173.


an interpersonal analysis of adult attachment style: circumplex …2014. 6. 17. · an interpersonal...

Documents