Attachment and Biases in Adolescence

P1: VENDOR/GDX/LOV/GMF P2: GDX/GCQ
Journal of Child and Family Studies [jcfs] PH037-301674 April 3, 2001 12:39 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2001, pp. 51–64
Attachment Relationships as Predictors of Cognitive

Interpretation and Response Bias in Late Adolescence
Paula M. Barrett, Ph.D.1,3 and Jane Holmes2
We investigated behavioural and cognitive representations of attachment style.

Specifically, we sought to test continuity in attachment style and whether partic-
ipants’ perceptions of their attachments to parents, peers, and romantic partners
would predict cognitive interpretation and responses to 12 ambiguous situation
scenarios. Participants were 161 undergraduate students (17–20 years) who com-
pleted the Parental Bonding Instrument, the Attachment Style Questionnaire and
the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (peer subscale). Participants then in-
dicated whether they interpreted ambiguous situations as threatening versus non-
threatening and how they would respond (proactively, aggressively, or avoidantly).
Regression analyses revealed that insecure parental attachments were the main
predictor of participants’ interpretations and their planned responses, followed
by romantic attachments. Peer attachments played little role in the predictions.
These results suggest that interpretation of situations and subsequent plans of
action may be influenced by attachment related experiences. We discuss our find-
ings in terms of their relevance to attachment theory and their application to
our understanding of the concepts of attachment in development of interpersonal
relationships.
KEY WORDS: attachment; adolescents; cognitive interpretation; response bias.
Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) suggests that early attachment to care-

givers will provide a child with cognitive working models of the self, world and
others, which then guide the child in their interactions within the world in which
they live. These models of self and others are believed to be complimentary because
1 Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

2 School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
3 Correspondence should be directed to Paula Barrett, School of Applied Psychology, Faculty of Health
Science, Psychology Building, Mt Gravatt, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld, Australia, 4111, e-mail:
P.Barrett@mailbox.gu.edu.au.
51
1062-1024/01/0300-0051$19.50/0 °
C 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
52 Barrett and Holmes
of the reciprocal nature of the attachment process (Bowlby, 1981). For example,
a child who receives support and comfort from a caregiver will develop an in-
ternal working model of the self as worthy of love and support, and a model of
others as trustworthy and dependable. Alternatively, a child who has experienced
rejection and inconsistency from an attachment figure will develop a model of
the self as unworthy of love and a model of others as threatening, unreliable, and
unpredictable.
Attachment theorists (Lyddon, Bradford, & Nelson., 1993; Schneider, 1991)
further propose that once a child’s internal working model is developed, it is diffi-
cult to modify and it therefore biases the child toward interpreting new experiences
in ways which are consistent with existing working models. Two issues are raised
by this proposition. First, if internal working models are relatively stable, attach-
ment style should remain stable across the lifespan, from childhood through to
adolescence and adulthood. Second, if internal working models guide children in
their appraisals of new events, so to may they guide adolescents’ and adults’ ap-
praisals and responses to new events. The present study is concerned with exploring
both of these assumptions.
Although early research on attachment relationships focused primarily on
infancy, a growing body of longitudinal research has provided evidence for the
continuity of attachment from infancy to the early school years (Bretherton, 1985).
Subsequently, researchers have begun to examine attachments in adolescent peer
relationships. For example, Gold and Yanof (1985) investigated adolescent girls’
relationships with their mothers and closest female friends. They found that girls
who reported high levels of affection with their mothers had significantly more in-
timate relationships with friends, compared with girls who reported less affection
with their mothers. Similarly, Armsden and Greenberg (1987) found that almost
half of the participants who reported secure attachments to their parents also re-
ported a high quality of attachment to their peers. These combined results suggest
that individuals who have positive and nurturing relationships with their parents
may subsequently develop intimate peer relationships.
The question of continuity of attachments has also been extended from child-
hood to adult romantic relationships. Hazan and Shaver (1987) conducted ground-
breaking research by conceptualising romantic love as an attachment process.
Using two different adult samples, romantic attachments were found to be related
to retrospective reports of childhood relationships with parents. For example, se-
curely attached adults described their parents as more accepting and respectful than
avoidant or anxious adults. The findings of these research studies are consistent
with Bowlby’s (1981) view that individuals choose and create social environments
in ways that confirm their working models, thereby promoting continuity in at-
tachment patterns across the lifecycle (Collins & Read, 1990).
Continuity of attachment behaviour is presumed to be driven by continuity
of internal working models, or cognitive representations, of self, others and the
Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 53
world. These cognitive biases are believed to operate by processing information in

a way that maintains an individual’s internal working model (Bretherton, 1985).
For example, attachment theorists propose that negative internal working models
of self and others may contribute to a bias in interpreting disappointments and frus-
trations as personal failures, thus increasing susceptibility to depression (Bowlby,
1981). Conversely, individuals with secure attachments are more likely to perceive
themselves and others positively.
This proposition has been supported by a number of studies examining ro-
mantic and peer attachments. For example, Hazan and Shaver (1987) found that
adult attachment style in romantic relationships was related to beliefs about one-
self and one’s social relationships. Securely attached adults reported love rela-
tionships characterised by happiness and trust, described themselves as popular,
and described others as generally good hearted and well-intentioned. In con-
trast, adults classified as anxious reported relationships marked by emotional
highs and lows, and described themselves as self-doubting and misunderstood
by people. Collins and Read (1990) extended these findings to a sample of uni-
versity students (17–24 years). They found that participants with a secure at-
tachment (to both parents and romantic partners) reported a greater sense of
self-worth and social self-confidence, had positive beliefs about the social world
and perceived others as trustworthy, dependable and altruistic. In contrast, sub-
jects with an anxious attachment style reported negative beliefs about self and
others, as indicated by a lower sense of self-worth and social self-confidence,
and perceptions of other people as less altruistic. Several studies have docu-
mented similar findings with peer attachments (e.g., Greenberg, Siegel & Leitch,
1983).
Cognitive biases have also been found to influence an individual’s sense of
social competence. For example, Feeney and Noller (1990) examined romantic
attachment style, beliefs about relationships, and self-esteem in a sample of uni-
versity undergraduates. Secure participants reported a greater level of social and
personal self-esteem compared to participants with anxious or ambivalent attach-
ment styles. Furthermore, participants with a secure attachment style reported
lower scores on the self-conscious anxiety scale and the unfulfilled hopes scale,
and a high mean score on the self-confidence factor. This pattern of responses
indicates that securely attached individuals tend to be positive and self-assured in
their social interactions with others. In contrast, subjects with an anxious avoidant
or ambivalent attachment style reported high scores on the self-conscious anx-
iety scale and unfulfilled hopes scales. These participants also obtained a low
mean score on the self-confidence factor. Feeney and Noller (1990) concluded
that insecure subjects tended to be negative and uncertain in their social inter-
actions, compared to individuals who reported secure relationships. Although
these studies provide evidence for how cognitive biases influence an individ-
ual’s view of themselves and others, the research is limited to questionnaire
assessment of current emotional states or perceptions of relationships. To our

knowledge, no research has examined how these cognitive biases may influence
an individual’s processing of environmental stimuli. Previous research with clin-
ically anxious adults has shown that these individuals display cognitive biases in
the processing of environmental stimuli (MacLeod, Mathews & Tata, 1986). Com-
pared with non-clinic adults, they are more likely to interpret ambiguous events
as threatening and tend to think that negative threatening events are more likely
to happen to themselves than anyone else (Butler & Matthews, 1983). It would
seem logical to conclude that the cognitive biases that are inherent in attach-
ment style would similarly influence an individual’s interpretation of ambiguous
events.
Research examining the continuity of attachment relationships and cognitive
representations suggests that new situations or interactions may be interpreted in
a way which is complimentary to one’s existing view of the self, world, and other.
While this research base is suggestive of cognitive biases operating to perpetu-
ate an individual’s cognitive internal working model, studies explicitly examining
this cognitive bias are lacking. The current study was therefore designed to ex-
amine the behavioural and cognitive representations of attachment relationships
in late adolescence. Two aims were identified. First, we sought to examine the
behavioural continuity of adolescent attachment style. In accordance with the re-
search indicating that continuity in attachment style exists, it was hypothesised
that there would be behavioural continuity in adolescent’s attachment style, as in-
dicated by a consistent style across relationships with parents, peers, and romantic
partners. Second, we sought to determine whether attachment style was indicative
of an associated cognitive bias. In order to do this, we examined adolescent’s cog-
nitive interpretations and their plans of response to ambiguous social situations.
We hypothesised that attachment style would predict cognitive interpretation of
ambiguous social scenarios. We expected that securely attached individuals would
interpret ambiguous scenarios as less threatening than insecure individuals. We
also expected that attachment style would predict an individual’s behavioural plan
of response to these ambiguous situations, with securely attached individuals gen-
erating proactive plans of response, and insecure generating avoidant plans of
response.
METHOD
Participants
One hundred and sixty-one first year undergraduate psychology students (47
males, 114 females) from Griffith University received course credit for their par-
ticipation in the research study. The participants were aged between 17 and 20
years (M = 19.05, SD = .99).
Measures
All measures completed by the participants were administered as one large

questionnaire package containing the following instruments.
Parental Bonding
The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) mea-
sures memories of parental behaviour during the first 16 years of life and comprises
two scales, Care and Overprotection. The Care scale contains 12 items (score range
0–36) with higher scores indicative of individuals with a secure parental attach-
ment (Parker et al., 1979). The 13-item Overprotection scale (score range 0–39)
is indicative of an insecure parental attachment, characterised by controlling and
intrusive parental behaviour (Parker et al., 1979). The PBI has been found to have
sound psychometric properties (Parker, 1990; Parker et al., 1979; MacKinnon,
Henderson & Andrews, 1993; Wilhelm & Parker, 1990).
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg,
1987) is a self-report instrument that measures the quality of parent and peer attach-
ments in late adolescence and adulthood. Only the 28-item Peer Attachment sub-
scale was utilised in this study as the parental scale measures current attachments
and this scale has good psychometric properties (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
The three sub-scales of Peer Attachment are Trust (assessing mutual understanding
and respect), Communication (the quality and degree of spoken communication),
and Alienation (anger and interpersonal isolation). Medium to high scores on the
Trust and Communication scales represent a secure attachment to peers. Alter-
natively, an insecure peer attachment is characterised by medium to high scores
on the Alienation scale, and low scores on the Trust and Communication scales
(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987).
Attachment Style Questionnaire
The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan,

1994) was selected as a measure of current romantic attachment. The ASQ mea-
sures attachment style in romantic relationships and was designed for use with an
adolescent population, as well as individuals with limited experience in romantic
relationships. The ASQ contains 40 items and provides scores on 5 scales: Confi-
dence in Self and Others, Discomfort with Closeness, Relationships as Secondary,
Need for Approval, and Preoccupation with Relationships. Respondent’s rate each
of the 40 items on a 6-point scale ranging from totally disagree to totally agree,
with higher scores reflecting greater difficulty in intimate relationships. Feeney
et al. (1994) report sound psychometric properties for this scale.
Cognitive Interpretation Task
The cognitive interpretation task was based on Barrett, Rapee, Dadds, and
Ryan’s (1996) methodology of assessing cognitive biases. It consisted of twelve
ambiguous social scenarios. An example of an ambiguous scenario is: “You pass
a fellow student from your tutorial class in the corridor and you say hello. He/she
doesn’t acknowledge you”. The scenarios incorporated peer, partner, and family
contexts. For each scenario, the respondent’s were then asked to answer three
questions:
(a) “What do you think is happening” (free choice interpretation);
(b) “Which of the following explanations do you think is most likely?”
(forced choice interpretation with two threat and two neutral interpreta-
tions);
(c) “What will you do about it?” (respondent writes problem solution).
The measures derived were the mean number of threat interpretations, and the mean
number of proactive, avoidant or aggressive response plans to the 12 scenarios. The
type of response each participant gave to the first two questions was scored as threat
if the response indicated a potential social threat (e.g., “He/she doesn’t like me”).
They were scored as non-threats if either a neutral or positive explanation was
provided (e.g., “He/she didn’t see me”). The types of solutions suggested were
scored as prosocial (any course of action which recommended a constructive,
prosocial solution), aggressive (any solution which suggested a course of action
that was potentially harmful or embarrassing to others), or avoidant (any solution
which suggested actions that allowed escape from or avoidance of potentially
harmful or embarrassing situations). A failure to provide a response was coded as
“I don’t know” (Barrett et al, 1996). Prior to classification of attachment styles, the
scenarios were scored independently by two psychologists. It was planned that any
scoring disagreements between the two raters would be reconciled by discussion
to achieve a consensus scoring; however no disagreements occurred.
PROCEDURE
All students enrolled in a first year undergraduate psychology class were in-
vited by the researchers to participate in the study in return for course credit. All
participants received the measures as part of one larger questionnaire package,
which took 30–45 minutes to complete. Each package contained standardised
instructions for completing the attachment questionnaires and responding to the
ambiguous situations. The package also included a cover letter informing partic-
ipants about the nature of the project, and their right to withdraw from the study
without penalty. Questionnaires within the package were counterbalanced. Partic-
ipants provided informed consent to the project before completing the package.
No participants elected to withdraw.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table I displays the means and standard deviations for cognitive interpreta-
tion, proactive, aggressive and avoidant plans of response, the Parental Bonding
Instrument, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Peer subscale), and the
Attachment Style Questionnaire.
Factor Analysis
A factor analysis was performed on the data collected from the 12 subscales
of the three attachment questionnaires in order to reduce the data to a more man-
ageable and interpretable data set. The factor analysis was conducted on data
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Attachment Questionnaires,

Cognitive Interpretation, and Plans of Response
Measure Mean S.D. Range
PBI
1. Care of mother 25.49 8.74 0–37
2. Overprotection of mother 16.07 8.15 2–36
3. Care of father 22.91 9.01 0–36
4. Overprotection of father 14.00 7.60 1–37
IPPA (Peer subscale)
1. Communication 28.97 6.33 3– 40
2. Trust 40.29 7.94 9–50
3. Alienation 17.15 5.85 7– 43
ASQ
1. Confidence in self and others 32.23 8.07 9– 48
2. Discomfort with closeness 35.19 9.19 13–54
3. Need for approval 24.79 5.96 8–39
4. Preoccupation with relationships 25.92 6.78 11– 45
5. Relationships as secondary 16.19 5.76 7–35
Cognitive interpretation
Threat interpretation 3.53 1.89 1–8
Plans of response
1. Proactive 7.63 1.79 4 –11
2. Aggressive 1.35 1.00 0– 4
3. Avoidant 2.94 1.37 0–7
provided by 159 students, as there were 2 cases of missing data on the ASQ. The
data was highly structured as indicated by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of
sampling adequacy of .83, thus confirming the use of factor analysis. The analysis
yielded a 3-factor solution, which accounted for 51.7% of the common variance.
Factor 1 accounted for 34.5% of the variance and was labelled insecure parental
attachment. The subscales that loaded on this factor related to relationships with
parents characterised by overprotection and lack of care. The ASQ confidence
subscale had a split loading on the insecure parental factor. However, it should be
noted that this subscale only nominally exceeded the .3 loading criteria. The sec-
ond factor comprised the three subscales of the peer questionnaire and accounted
for 9.2% of the variance. Subscales loading on the secure peer attachment fac-
tor measured communication, trust, and inalienability in peer relations. The five
subscales relating to adult romantic attachment loaded on factor 3 and accounted
for 8% of the variance. This factor was labelled insecure romantic attachment and
measured the concepts of lack of confidence in self and others, relationships as
secondary, discomfort with closeness, need for approval, and preoccupation with
relationships.
Attachments as Predictors of Cognitive Interpretation Bias
Prior to statistical analyses, an evaluation of univariate and multivariate as-

sumptions was performed, with no violations identified. A standard multiple re-
gression analysis was conducted to determine whether current attachment signifi-
cantly predicted cognitive interpretation bias. Cognitive interpretation was entered
in the equation as the dependent variable, and current attachment factors (peer and
romantic) were entered as the independent variables. R for regression was sig-
nificantly different from zero, F(2,156) = 62.39, p < .001. Current attachment
accounted for 44% of variance for threat interpretation. Examination of B values
suggest that only the insecure romantic variable was a significant predictor of
cognitive threat interpretation, B = .046, p < .001.
After determining that current attachment predicted cognitive interpretation, it
was of further interest to examine whether these variables continued to significantly
predict cognitive interpretation, after controlling for parental attachment. Given
the theoretical importance of parent-child attachment relationships for subsequent
relationships and cognitive working models, parental attachment was entered in
the first step of the regression analysis, with current attachment variables added to
the analysis at step 2. Table II displays the correlations between the variables, the
unstandardised (B) and standardised regression coefficients (fl), R2 for step 1, R2
and R2 change (1R2 ) for step 2.
Step 1 of the analysis found that insecure parental attachment significantly
predicted cognitive threat interpretation, R = .63, F(1,157) = 105.63, p < .001,
and accounted for 40% of the variance. After step 2, with current attachment
Table II. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables Predicting
Cognitive Interpretation
Step Variable Threat Parent Peer Romantic B fl
1 Insecure Parent .045∗∗ .634

2 Insecure Parent .634∗∗ .028∗∗ .399
Secure Peer −.360∗∗ −.396∗∗ −.003 −.027
Insecure Romantic .658∗∗ .505∗∗ −.395∗∗ .033∗∗ .446
Means 3.53 53.69 94.59 125.93
Standard deviation 1.89 27.05 15.95 25.37
Note. R2 = .40 for step 1; R2 = .55 and 1R2 = .15 ( p < .001) at step 2, ** p < .001
entered in the equation, R = .75, F(3,155) = 64.57, p < .001. F change and R2
suggested that current attachment significantly improved the prediction of cogni-
tive interpretation, over that provided by parental attachment alone, F(3,155) =
6.97, p < .001. Fifteen percent additional variance was accounted for when cur-
rent attachments were entered. Together parental and current attachment variables
accounted for 55% of the variance for cognitive interpretation. Examination of Bs
indicated that only insecure romantic attachment and insecure parental attachment
were significant predictors of cognitive threat interpretation.
Given the significant correlations between attachment and behavioural plans
of response to events, it was of interest to examine whether current attachments
with peers and romantic partners continued to predict plans of response to events
after controlling for the influence of earlier attachment relationships with parents.
Table III (proactive), Table IV (aggressive) and Table V (avoidant) display the
correlations between the variables, the unstandardised (B) and standardised (fl)
regression coefficients, R2 for step 1, R2 and R2 change (1R2 ) for step 2.
Step 1 of the analysis presented in Table III found that insecure parental
attachment negatively predicted proactive plans of response, R = .62, F(1,157) =
96.63, p < .001, and accounted for 38% of the variance for proactive responses.
After adding current attachments to the equation R = .72, F(3,155) = 56.29,
p < .001, F (3,155) = 43.98, p < .001, and change reported that 14% additional
variance was accounted for when current attachments were entered. Examination
Table III. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables

Predicting Proactive Plans of Response
Step Variable Proactive Parent Peer Romantic B fl
1 Insecure Parent −.041∗∗ −.617

2 Insecure Parent −.617∗∗ −.027∗∗ −.406
Secure Peer .307∗∗ −.396∗∗ −.003 −.028
Insecure Romantic −.634∗∗ .505∗∗ −.395∗∗ −.031∗∗ −.440
Means 7.62 53.69 94.59 125.93
Note. R2 = .38 for step 1; R2 = .52 and 1R2 = .14 ( p < .001) at step 2 ** p < .001
Table IV. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables Predicting
Aggressive Plans of Response
Step Variable Aggressive Parent Peer Romantic B fl

2 Insecure Parent .285∗∗ .007∗ .203
Secure Peer −.048 −.396∗∗ .008 .139
Insecure Romantic .319∗∗ .505∗∗ −.395∗∗ .011∗ .272
Means 1.33 53.69 94.59 125.93
Standard deviation .98 27.05 15.95 25.37
Note. R2 = .08 for step 1; R2 = .14 and 1R2 = .06 ( p < .05) at step 2 * p < .05 ** p < .001
of B’s indicated that attachment relationships with parents and romantic partners,
but not relationships with peers, predicted the use of proactive plans of response
to various social events.
Step 1 of the analysis presented in Table IV found that insecure parental at-
tachment significantly predicted aggressive plans of response, R = .28, F(1,157) =
13.85, p < .001, and accounted for 8% of the variance for aggressive responses.
After step 2, with current attachment entered in the equation, R = .37, F(3,155) =
8.26, p < .001. F change suggested that current attachment significantly improved
the prediction of aggressive responses F(3,155) = 9.31, p < .05, R2 change ac-
counted for an additional 6% of the variance. Together parental and current attach-
ment variables accounted for 14% of the variance for aggressive plans of response.
Examination of Bs indicated that only insecure romantic attachment and parental
attachment were significant predictors of aggressive responses.
Step 1 of the analysis presented in Table V found that insecure parental at-
tachment significantly predicted avoidant plans of response, R = .62, F (1,157) =
98.30, p < .001 and accounted for 39% of the variance. After current attachments
were entered in the equation, R = .72, F(3,155) = 54.61, p < .001, and F change
suggested that current attachment significantly improved the prediction of avoidant
responses F (3,155) = 37.05, p < .001. R2 change reported that 12% additional
Table V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables

Predicting Avoidant Plans of Response
Step Variable Avoidant Parent Peer Romantic B fl

2 Insecure Parent .621∗∗ .020∗∗ .404
Secure Peer −.349∗∗ −.396∗∗ −.002 −.028
Insecure Romantic .622∗∗ .505∗∗ −.395∗∗ .022∗∗ .407
Means 2.96 53.69 94.59 125.93
Note. R2 = .39 for step 1; R2 = .51 and 1R2 = .12 ( p < .001) at step 2 ** p < .001
variance was accounted for when current attachments were entered. Examina-
tion of Bs indicated that only romantic attachment and parental attachment were
significant predictors of avoidant responses.
DISCUSSION
We sought to explore whether parental and current attachment relationships

would predict cognitive interpretation bias in a sample of late adolescents. The data
clearly indicates that insecure parental attachment predicts threat interpretation.
Specifically, adolescents who perceive an insecure attachment with parents, are
more prone to interpret ambiguous social situations in a threatening manner, com-
pared with individuals who reported a secure parental attachment. This result is
theoretically consistent with attachment theorists assertion that poor relationships
with parents during childhood may predispose an individual to the development of
maladaptive cognitions or internal working models, which influence the way future
interactions are interpreted (Bowlby, 1973; 1981). Furthermore, this finding is in
line with previous empirical research showing that insecure attachment is associ-
ated with more negative views of self and others (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987;
Collins & Read, 1990; McCormick & Kennedy, 1994). In addition, the present
result is consistent with studies which suggest that an individual’s working mod-
els of self; world and others may bias the way individuals interpreted situations
(MacKinnon, Henderson & Andrews, 1993; Papini & Roggman, 1992; Pedersen,
1994; Rey, 1995).
The present study also investigated whether attachment relationships with
others would predict cognitive interpretation bias. Romantic attachment accounted
for an additional 15% of variance for the prediction of cognitive interpretation
bias, after controlling for parental attachment. Specifically, the results suggest that
individuals who report an insecure romantic attachment, are more prone to interpret
ambiguous social situations in a threatening manner, compared with individuals
who perceive secure attachments in romantic relationships. The present studies
findings regarding the role of attachment within romantic relationships and its
implications for how one views the self; world, and other is consistent with several
other researchers’ work (Feeney & Noller, 1990).
In short, the results suggest that both parental and current romantic attach-
ments predict the way individuals perceive ambiguous social situations. This find-
ing may provide support for the work of Blain, Thompson and Whiffen (1993)
who hypothesised that internal working models served to direct attention, organise
and filter new information and determine the accessibility of past experience in
relation to ambiguous social stimuli. Thus the findings of the present study may
provide one explanation for why individuals who report insecure attachments with
parents and intimate partners, perceive more threat in ambiguous social situations.
A further aim of the study was to examine whether parental and current
attachment relationships in late adolescence would predict reported plans of action,
in response to the ambiguous situations. Overall the data indicates that parental and
current attachment significantly predicts proactive, aggressive and avoidant plans
of response. More specifically, the results suggest that individuals who perceive
an insecure attachment within parental and current romantic relationships, differ
in how they respond to ambiguous situations, compared with individuals who
perceived a secure parental attachment.
The results reveal that insecure parental attachment is negatively associated
with reported proactive plans of response. That is, individuals who perceive an
insecure attachment with parents report less proactive plans of response, and more
avoidant, and aggressive plans than individuals who perceive secure attachments
with parents. These findings are suggestive of an association between attachment
to parents, and social skills, and/or perceptions of competence in social environ-
ments. It may be hypothesised that individuals with more secure parental attach-
ments would be more outgoing and positive in social situations, whereas the person
from a less secure family background may withdraw from such situations. Such
findings and propositions are in line with that of Bowlby (1981), Kobak and Sceery
(1988), and Sroufe and Fleeson (1986) and who suggest that secure parental at-
tachments are influential in the level of social competence an individual possesses.
As well as parental attachments being found to be influential in how partic-
ipants interpreted events, present romantic attachment was found to account for
an additional 14% of variance for the prediction of proactive responses, after con-
trolling for parental attachment. This result tends to suggest that attachments in
intimate relationships may be important in developing proactive plans of action,
adopted in ambiguous social situations. This finding is supported somewhat by
Feeney and Noller (1990), who found that a secure attachment in romantic rela-
tionships was associated with more positive social interactions with others. The
present study goes further and suggests that insecure romantic attachments are pre-
dictive of the use of avoidant and aggressive responses during social encounters
where the meaning of the event may be unclear or the event can be construed as
positive or negative. That is, individuals with an insecure present romantic attach-
ment may display a tendency to interpret ambiguous social situations negatively
and thus respond accordingly.
With respect to peer attachment the present study found that present peer
attachment did not significantly predict either cognitive interpretation of events or
the way individuals plan to respond to events. While correlational analyses dis-
played relationships between adolescents who have positive peer attachments and
proactive plans of responding to social situations when parental attachment was
controlled for this relationship failed to reach significance in regression analyses.
However, given attachment theory’s proposition that attachment styles are con-
tinued across time (Bowlby, 1981; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), the finding that peer
attachments do not significantly add to the prediction of interpretation of events

or response to events is not unexpected. Another explanation for the failure of
present peer attachments to predict cognitive interpretation of events or plans of
response to events is provided by Weiss (1982) who argues that the attachment bond
may only be found in primary relationships such as parent-child relationships and
adult romantic relationships. This argument suggests that only close attachment
relationships may have the capacity to change cognitive working models.
While the present study identified that past parent attachment styles and
present romantic attachment styles combine to predict how one would interpret and
respond to a range of ambiguous social situations, several limitations within the
methodology need to be considered when attempting to generalise these findings
to other studies and to other populations. First, this study is limited by it’s sole
reliance on information derived from self-report questionnaires. Second, this study
was based on correlational analysis, rather than a longitudinal design and as such
the causal direction of relationships between these variables could not be deter-
mined. Future longitudinal research is required to address the causal fink between
attachment relationships and cognitions. Finally, the theoretical and practical im-
plications of the present findings are limited, as they may only be generalised to
late adolescents. Future research could explore the association amongst attachment
relationships, cognitive interpretation and plans of response across different age
groups.
Despite the above limitations, the present study provides empirical evidence
which has been lacking in the literature, that the type of significant attachment re-
lationships which one possesses either in the past with parents and/or in the present
with romantic patterns predicts cognitive interpretation biases to ambiguous social
situations and subsequently the individual’s plans to respond to the said event/s.
The findings of the present study can be seen to advance current knowledge of
theoretical concepts within attachment theory and their relationship to cognitive
processing within social contexts.
REFERENCES
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual
differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.
Barrett, P. M., Rapee, R. M., Dadds, M. R., & Ryan, S. M. (1996). Family enhancement of cognitive
style in anxious and aggressive children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 187–203.
Blain, M. D., Thompson, J. M., & Whiffen, V. E. (1993). Attachment and perceived social support in late
adolescence: The interaction between working models of self and others. Journal of Adolescent
Research, 8, 226–241.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume 2. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1981). Attachment and loss: Volume 3. Victoria: Penguin Books.
Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing points in attachment theory and research. Monograph for the society for research in child
development (pp.3–35). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in
dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–693.
Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 281–291.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanraharn, M. (1994). Assessing Adult Attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W.
H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128–152).
New York: Guilford Press.
Gold, M., & Yanof, D. S. (1985). Mothers, daughters, and girlfriends. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 654–659.
Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of attachment
relationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12,
373–386.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualised as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation,
and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.
Lyddon, W. J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J. P. (1993). Assessing adolescent and adult attachment: A
review of current self-report measures. Journal of Counselling and Development, 71, 390–395.
Mackinnon, A. J., Henderson. A. S., & Andrews, G. (1993). Parental affectionless control as an
antecedent to adult depression: A risk factor refined. Psychological Medicine, 23, 24–27.
McCormick, C. B. & Kennedy, J. H. (1994). Parent-child attachment working models and self-esteem
in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 1–18.
Papini, D. R., & Roggman, L. A. (1992). Adolescence perceived attachment to parents in relation to
competence, depression, and anxiety: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 12,
420–440.
Parker, G. (1979). Parental characteristics in relation to depressive disorders. British Journal of Psy-
chiatry, 134, 138–147.
Parker, G. (1990). The parental bonding instrument: A decade of research. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 25, 281–282.
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 52, 1–10.
Pedersen, W. (1994). Parental relations, mental health, and delinquency in adolescence. Adolescence,
29, 975–990.
Rey, J. M. (1995). Perceptions of poor maternal care are associated with adolescent depression. Journal
of Affective Disorders, 34, 95–100.
Schneider, E. L. (1991). Attachment theory and research: Review of the literature. Clinical Social Work
Journal, 19, 251–266.
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: Erlbaurn.
Weiss, R S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes and J. S. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The
place of attachment in human behaviour (pp. 268–294). New York: Basic Books.
Wilhelm, K., & Parker, G. (1990). Reliability of the parental bonding instrument and intimate bonds
measure scales. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 24, 199–202.
Copyright of Journal of Child & Family Studies is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Attachment and Biases in Adolescence

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Attachment and Biases in Adolescence

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

P1: VENDOR/GDX/LOV/GMF P2: GDX/GCQ

Attachment Relationships as Predictors of Cognitive

We investigated behavioural and cognitive representations of attachment style.

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) suggests that early attachment to care-

1 Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.

52 Barrett and Holmes

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 53

world. These cognitive biases are believed to operate by processing information in

54 Barrett and Holmes

assessment of current emotional states or perceptions of relationships. To our

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 55

All measures completed by the participants were administered as one large

Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment

Attachment Style Questionnaire

The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan,

56 Barrett and Holmes

Cognitive Interpretation Task

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 57

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Attachment Questionnaires,

58 Barrett and Holmes

Attachments as Predictors of Cognitive Interpretation Bias

Prior to statistical analyses, an evaluation of univariate and multivariate as-

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 59

1 Insecure Parent .045∗∗ .634

Table III. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables

1 Insecure Parent −.041∗∗ −.617

60 Barrett and Holmes

1 Insecure Parent .011∗∗ .285

Table V. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Attachment Variables

1 Insecure Parent .031∗∗ .621

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 61

We sought to explore whether parental and current attachment relationships

62 Barrett and Holmes

Attachment Relationships and Cognitive Biases 63

attachments do not significantly add to the prediction of interpretation of events

64 Barrett and Holmes

Você também pode gostar