- Email: [email protected]
Attachment contexts of adolescent friendship and romance
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Adolescence Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206 www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Attachment contexts of adolescent friendship and romance Judi Beinstein Miller*, Tova Hoicowitz Department of Psychology, Severance Lab, 120 West Lorain Street, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074, USA
Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare memories of attachments to parents, friends, and romantic partners in relation to the maintenance of high school friendships and romantic relationships. College students recorded the length of their friendships and romantic relationships during high school and rated the quality of each. They also rated their memories of attachments to parents, friends, and partners during that time. Parental attachments were the most reliable predictor of friendship outcomes and romantic attachments the most reliable predictor of romantic outcomes, but attachments to parents, friends, and partners each predicted unique variation in maintenance of romantic relationships. r 2003 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Childhood friendships develop in a context of parental attachments, and adolescent romantic relationships in a context of affiliations with friends, yet only recently have these contexts been compared in adolescents’ maintenance of friendship and romance. A major purpose of our study was to compare attachments to parents, friends, and romantic partners in relation to the maintenance of high school friendships and romantic relationships. We studied the length and quality of these relationships because the capacity to sustain high quality, close relationships is of paramount importance to well being (Berscheid, 1999). We reasoned that attachment-related experiences with parents, friends, and romantic partners, would each have effects on these outcomes, because each provides beliefs that guide behaviour in close relationships. Bowlby (1969, 1973) theorized that early treatment by attachment figures had enduring effects on later social relationships because it created beliefs about protection and guidelines for *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-440-775-8756. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.B. Miller). 0140-1971/$30.00 r 2003 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS 192
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
behaviour. Responsive treatment would create confidence about protection and foster secure behaviour whereas unresponsive treatment would create concerns about protection and foster insecure behaviour. However, Bowlby also recognized that later attachment experiences afforded opportunities to revise earlier beliefs and guidelines. Because friendships and romantic relationships can afford novel attachment experiences, they can create new beliefs about behaviour in close relationships. Indeed, attachment representations have been depicted as a hierarchy of interrelated attachment models that is constructed from specific relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners at the lowest level, from generalized representations of parents friends, and partners at an intermediate level, and from a global representation of all attachment-related relationships at the highest level (Collins & Read, 1994; Furman & Wehner, 1997). We consequently reasoned that the common experience of maintaining close relationships with parents, friends, and partners would create multiple attachment beliefs, each of which could influence relationship behaviour. Multiple attachment relationships and beliefs Evidence for multiple attachment beliefs comes from a variety of studies. Infant attachment classifications can be different for one parent than for the other (Fox, Kimmerly, & Schaefer, 1991). By early adolescence, attachment functions have begun to transfer from parents to peers (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Fraley & Davis, 1997; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997); as parental interaction and perceived support decrease, peer interaction and perceived support increase (Furman & Wehner, 1997; Laursen & Williams, 1997). By late adolescence, most college students can recall having had relationships in which they experienced different attachment beliefs (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996). Relationships among attachment beliefs Attachment beliefs for parents, friends, and romantic partners nevertheless show small to moderate, positive correlations (Furman & Wehner, 1997; Hodges, Finnegan, & Perry, 1999; Asendorpf & Wilpers, 2000; Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002), and correlations between perceived support from parents, friends, and romantic partners tend to be positive, though small (Connolly & Johnson, 1996; Davis, Morris, & Kraus, 1998). Consistent with these results, significant between person variation, as well as within person variation, has been demonstrated in attachment beliefs for family members (Cook, 2000) and for parents, friends, and romantic partners (LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). Correlations among beliefs most likely occur because relationship competencies and expectations that are acquired in the family are carried over to peer interaction (Parke & O’Neil, 1999; Kenny & Gallagher, 2002). The quality of parental relationships influences peer interaction in childhood (Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001), and its lessons in adolescence influence romantic relations and expectations years later (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000; Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman, & Klessinger, 2001). Early parental attachments thus appear to influence close relationships by imparting instrumental and relational skills, as well as attitudes and feelings about significant others (Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
193
The present study In the present study we examined the length and quality of friendships and romantic relationships in high school as a function of multiple attachment beliefs. We asked first and second year undergraduates to think back to those years, to indicate the length and quality of their close friendships and romantic relationships, and to rate their attachment beliefs about parents, close friends, and romantic partners during that time. We used retrospective reports not only because these are easy to collect, but also because these enabled us to collect information about the length of high school friendships and romantic relationships. However, we recognized that memory for attachment beliefs could be biased by current beliefs, even though correlations between prior beliefs and their recall are moderately strong (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1998). Consequently, we also obtained measures of study participants’ current, general attachment beliefs from a separate testing session, to demonstrate that the effects of attachment memories were independent of current beliefs. We obtained separate information about attachments to mothers and fathers because primary attachments in childhood are usually to the mother and often differ from attachments to fathers (Fox et al., 1991). We obtained information about general attachments to close friends and romantic partners, rather than to specific friends and partners, because attachment studies of young adults and late adolescents commonly use attachment styles or orientations as predictors and these are based on general beliefs about close relationships or romantic relationships. In addition, general beliefs about friendships and romantic relationships are likely to provide guidelines for the development of new friendships and romantic relationships, when the potential friend or romantic partner is not yet well known. Based on prior research regarding the positive consequences of attachment security for interpersonal functioning in childhood (Parke & O’Neil, 1999) and adulthood (Feeney, 1999), we predicted that memories of friendships and romantic relationships would reflect comfort with acceptance and closeness in high school relationships with parents, close friends, and romantic partners, as measured by two major attachment dimensions, attachment anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Attachment anxiety entails worry about acceptance from others, which can lower perceptions of others’ regard and reduce relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). Attachment avoidance entails discomfort with closeness and dependency, which can encourage emotional distance from others and limit problem-solving and intimacy (Rholes, Simpson, & Stevens, 1998). We therefore predicted that attachment anxiety and avoidance would be negatively correlated with two major outcomes of friendship and romantic relationships, their length and quality. Low anxiety and avoidance, which correspond to secure attachment, would be associated with relationship success. Our comparisons of attachment anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents, friends and partners were guided by five research questions. The first was whether friendship outcomes would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to friends and the second was whether romantic relationship outcomes would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners. Because correlations between attachment beliefs and perceived support tend to be stronger within than between relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 2000), we thought that a similar pattern might be obtained for the length and quality of relationships. Our third question was whether attachment beliefs regarding parents and partners would predict
ARTICLE IN PRESS 194
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
variation in friendship outcomes, beyond that predicted by beliefs about friends. Our fourth, related question was whether attachment beliefs regarding parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about romantic partners. Because parental attachment beliefs are theorized to have enduring effects on close relationships, and because social competencies acquired in parental relationships are further refined in interaction with friends, we thought that parental and friendship beliefs would also predict variation in relationship outcomes. One final question stemmed from previous research on gender-related differences in same-sex friendships. Because female adolescents tend to maintain more intimate and supportive friendships than males do, it was possible that their friendship attachments would be more relevant to romantic relationships than were those of males, for whom parental attachments might be more influential. Consequently, there might be sex differences in the magnitude of correlations between outcomes of romantic relationships and attachment beliefs regarding friends and parents. This study enabled us to compare attachment correlates of romance among females and males and to determine whether the correlations differed because of gender.
Method Participants There were 118 first and second year students from an introductory psychology course who participated in return for partial course credit. Females constituted 69% of the sample and firstyear students constituted 81%. Their age range was 16–21 and their mean age was 18.5 years (s.d.=0.80). Eighty-nine per cent reported at least one high school romance, but only 54% were currently involved in a romantic relationship. Seventy-three per cent were Caucasian, 9% were Asian American, 7% were African American, and the remainder were from other ethnic backgrounds. Participants were tested in groups of approximately 10–20, several weeks after the beginning of the semester. Two who reported a high school romance did not provide attachment ratings for their partners, but these participants were retained in all analyses except those for which their data were missing. Questionnaires During testing sessions, participants first listed their high school romantic relationships, recorded the length of each, and rated each on a 7-point scale for its global quality. Then they repeated this procedure for each of their close friendships. These responses were used to compute the average length of each participant’s high school friendships and romantic relationships (M ¼ 3:94 years, s.d.=1.62 years and M ¼ 10:38 months, s.d.=9.90 months, respectively) and their average quality (M ¼ 5:60; s.d.=0.72 and M ¼ 4:55; s.d.=1.27, respectively). The distributions of relationship lengths were each negatively skewed and corrected by taking their natural logarithms for use in subsequent analyses.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
195
Participants next rated their attachments to mother, father, close friends (in general), and romantic partners (in general) during high school, using 12 items from Brennan et al.’s (1998) attachment anxiety and avoidance scales.1 They rated six anxiety items that were relevant to parental, friendship, and romantic relations (e.g., ‘‘I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by y’’ and ‘‘I worry that y won’t care about me as much as I care about him/her/them’’) and six avoidance items that were relevant to parental, friendship, and romantic relations (e.g., I don’t feel comfortable opening up to y’’ and ‘‘I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on y’’), each on 7-point scales. If they had a step-parent in addition to a biological parent, they rated the one with whom they felt closest. Mean anxiety ratings were computed to obtain anxiety scores for mothers (M ¼ 3:02; s.d.=0.94), fathers (M ¼ 3:04; s.d.=1.02), close friends (M ¼ 4:11; s.d.=1.12), and partners (M ¼ 4:74; s.d.=1.30). Mean avoidance ratings were computed to obtain avoidance scores for mothers (M ¼ 3:16; s.d.=1.49), fathers (M ¼ 4:06; s.d.=1.61), close friends (M ¼ 2:57; s.d.=1.11), and partners (M ¼ 2:85; s.d.=1.36). Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.61 to 0.78 for anxiety scores and from 0.80 to 0.90 for avoidance scores. Analytic procedures We began by intercorrelating all study variables, to determine the magnitude and overlap of their effects. Then we performed four sets of hierarchical regression analyses to address our research questions. In regressions of friendship outcomes we entered participant sex (dummy coded for male) first, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for friends. These steps of the analysis addressed our first research question, whether friendship anxiety and avoidance would predict significant variation in the length and quality of high school friendships. Similarly, in regressions of romantic relationship outcomes we entered participant sex first, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for partners. This step addressed our second research question, whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners would predict significant variation in length and quality of romantic relationships. To address our third research question—whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and partners would predict variation in friendship outcomes beyond that predicted by anxiety and avoidance for friends—we entered anxiety and avoidance scores for mothers, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for partners, as third and fourth steps in analyses of friendship length and quality ratings. Similarly, to address our fourth research question—whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by anxiety and avoidance for partners—we entered anxiety and avoidance scores for mothers, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for friends, as third and fourth steps in analyses of romantic relationship length and quality ratings. We performed a 1
The scales were created from 60 subscales used by previous attachment researchers to measure attachment style. Because factor analysis of subscale responses yielded two independent factors corresponding to anxiety and avoidance, anxiety and avoidance scales were constructed by selecting those items that correlated most strongly with the two factors. The 18 items selected for each scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.91 and 0.94, for the anxiety and avoidance scales, respectively) when used by over 1000 undergraduate females and males to rate romantic partners. The scales were also validated by their correlations with other attachment measures and by their correlations with intimacy behaviours (Brennan et al., 1998).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 196
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
second set of analyses using scores for fathers instead of scores for mothers because sample size and multicollinearity limited their simultaneous use in the analyses.2 Because the attachment scores could have interaction effects as well as additive effects, we next entered the interactions between anxiety and avoidance scores for a given relationship. In the analysis of friendship outcomes we entered the anxiety avoidance interaction for friends first, then the comparable interactions for parents and partners. In the analysis of romantic relationship outcomes we entered the anxiety avoidance interaction for partners first, then the comparable interactions for parents and friends. Finally, we entered the interactions with participant sex, first the two-way, sex anxiety and sex avoidance interactions, then the three-way, sex anxiety avoidance interaction. These final steps addressed our fifth research question, whether correlations between the attachment scores and relationship outcomes would differ because of gender. Because there were a total of 48 possible interaction effects, and because there were no predicted interactions, we adopted a criterion of po0:01 in evaluating all interaction effects. We report all main effects but only those interaction effects that were statistically significant.
Results Correlations among study variables Attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners were reliable predictors of the relationship outcomes. As indicated in Table 1, friendship length and quality ratings were each negatively correlated with avoidance scores for mothers and fathers. The quality ratings were also negatively correlated with anxiety scores for friends. Romantic relationship length and quality ratings were each negatively correlated with avoidance scores for partners. The quality ratings were also negatively correlated with anxiety scores for mothers, fathers, and friends. Avoidance scores for parents appeared to be the best predictors of friendship outcomes, although anxiety in regard to friends also made a difference. Attachment scores for partners appeared to be the best predictors of romantic relationship outcomes, although anxiety scores for parents and friends also made a difference. In addition, there were positive correlations between relationship length and quality ratings and between quality ratings for friendships and romantic relationships. Females reported longer romantic relationships than males and had higher avoidance scores for partners. Regression analyses Predictors of high school friendships In the analysis of friendship length, attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation, but the addition of attachment scores for mothers yielded a significant effect (see 2 We also performed analyses in which we entered the parental attachment scores last. However, we present the initial analyses because attachments to parents are formed first and because there was little difference in results from the two sets of analyses. Additionally, we would have liked to compare the effects of scores for parents and the scores for stepparents, but there were too few participants who reported step-parents (n ¼ 8) to make this comparison, and we did not ask them to specify whether they were responding for step-parents or parents.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
197
Table 1 Intercorrelations among study variables
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Sex (male) Mother anxiety Mother avoidance Father anxiety Father avoidance Friend anxiety Friend avoidance Partner anxiety Partner avoidance Friendship length Friendship quality Romance length Romance quality
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
— 0.17 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.12
— 0.07 0.54 0.10 0.45 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.32
— 0.06 0.31 0.21 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.31 0.03 0.03
— 0.01 0.18 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.22
— 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.13
— 0.17 0.48 0.28 0.03 0.19 0.12 0.27
— 0.08 0.27 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.12
— 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.16
— 0.02 0.09 0.27 0.56
— 0.26 — 0.11 0.12 — 0.16 0.21 0.38
Note: po0:001; po0:01; po0:05; the same rs can have different p values because sample size varies and because of rounding.
Table 2 Regression of friendship length Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Friend anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety and avoidance
0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00
0.01 0.70 3.68 0.04
Note: po0:05:
Table 2). This was because avoidance scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:07; t ¼ 2:62; p ¼ 0:01). The effect of anxiety scores was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:21; p ¼ 0:84). A similar pattern of results was obtained when attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, but the effects were weaker and not statistically significant.3 The addition of attachment scores for partners did not predict significant variation in friendship length. There were no significant interaction effects. In the analysis of friendship quality ratings, as in the analysis of friendship length, attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation, but the addition of attachment scores for mothers yielded a significant effect (see Table 3). This was because avoidance scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:13; t ¼ 2:74; p ¼ 0:007). The effect of anxiety scores was not significant (b ¼ 0:05; t ¼ 0:53; p ¼ 0:60). A similar pattern of results was obtained when attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, 3
Statistical results for fathers are not reported to conserve space and because they were redundant with yet weaker than those for mothers. However, the results are available from the first author upon request.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 198
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Table 3 Regression of friendship quality ratings Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Friend anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety and avoidance
0.00 0.05 0.07 0.00
0.01 2.74 3.76 0.12
Note: po0:05: Table 4 Regression of romantic relationship length Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Partner anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Friend anxiety and avoidance
0.04 0.10 0.01 0.05
4.35 5.80 0.69 3.08
Note: po0:01 and po0:05:
but the effects were weaker and not statistically significant. The addition of attachment scores for partners did not predict significant variation in ratings. There were no significant interaction effects. Predictors of high school romantic relationships The outcomes of romantic relationships were predicted by a larger variety of variables than were friendship outcomes. In the analysis of romantic relationship length, participant sex predicted significant variation (see Table 4). Males had shorter relationships than females (b ¼ 0:39; t ¼ 2:09; p ¼ 0:04). The addition of attachment scores for partners also predicted significant variation in length. This was because avoidance scores for partners had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:21; t ¼ 3:38; p ¼ 0:001). The effect of anxiety scores for partners was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:20; p ¼ 0:84). The addition of attachment scores for mothers did not yield significant effects, nor did the addition of attachment scores for friends. However, the latter effect was of borderline significance (p ¼ 0:051), because avoidance scores for friends had a positive effect (b ¼ 0:19; t ¼ 2:47; p ¼ 0:02). When we used attachment scores for fathers in the analysis, instead of attachment scores for mothers, we obtained a similar result, except that the addition of attachment scores for friends predicted significant variation, rather than borderline variation, in relationship length (R2 change=0.07, Fchange=3.75, p ¼ 0:03). In the analysis of quality ratings for romantic relationships, participant sex did not have a significant effect, but the addition of attachment scores for partners predicted significant variation (see Table 5). This was because avoidance scores for partners had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:49; t ¼ 6:35; po0:001). The effect of anxiety scores for partners was not significant (b ¼ 0:09; t ¼ 1:13; p ¼ 0:26). The addition of attachment scores for mothers also predicted significant variation in ratings. This was because anxiety scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:30;
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
199
Table 5 Regression of romantic relationship quality ratings Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sex (male) Partner anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Friend anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety avoidance interaction Mother anxiety avoidance interaction
0.03 0.29 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.04
2.72 21.38 3.29 0.27 11.92 6.95
Note: po0:001; po0:01; and po0:05:
t ¼ 2:54; p ¼ 0:01). The effect of avoidance scores for mothers was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:10; p ¼ 0:92). A similar effect occurred when attachment scores for fathers were used instead of attachment scores for mothers. The addition of attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation in quality ratings. This analysis also yielded two interaction effects between anxiety and avoidance scores. The addition of the two-way interactions between anxiety and avoidance scores for partners and for mothers each predicted significant variation in ratings.4 When attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, only the interaction effect between anxiety and avoidance scores for partners was statistically significant. To evaluate the nature of the interaction effects we used the regression equation to predict quality ratings when anxiety and avoidance scores for the target relationship were one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the total sample means and all other attachment scores were held constant at their means (see Figs. 1 and 2). The interaction between attachment scores for partners indicated a negative effect of avoidance scores that was stronger when anxiety scores were low than when they were high. The net effect of the interaction was that participants who scored low on both attachment dimensions had the highest ratings. The interaction between attachment scores for mothers indicated a negative effect of avoidance scores when anxiety scores were high, but as anxiety scores decreased, the effect decreased and became positive at low levels of anxiety. The net effect of the interaction was that participants with high avoidance and low anxiety scores had the highest ratings and those with high avoidance and high anxiety scores had the lowest. Supplementary analyses Because of the retrospective nature of this study, it was desirable to determine whether current attachment expectations could explain our pattern of results. We obtained current, general attachment scores for 109 of our participants who had rated themselves at the beginning of the 4
We repeated the analysis, adding all related terms of an interaction—anxiety scores, avoidance scores, and the anxiety avoidance interaction—in a single step. The terms for partners were added second, after participant sex, and yielded an R2 change of 0.38, F change=20.70, po0:001: The terms for mothers were added third and yielded an R2 change of 0.07, F change=4.26, p ¼ 0:007:
ARTICLE IN PRESS 200
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Romantic relationship quality
6
5.5
5
4.5
4 -1 SD partner anxiety
3.5
+1 SD partner anxiety 3 +1 SD
-1 SD
Partner avoidance Fig. 1. Differences in romantic relationship quality that are predicted by attachment scores for partners.
Romantic relationship quality
6
5.5
5
4.5
4 -1 SD mother anxiety
3.5
+1 SD mother anxiety
3 +1 SD
-1 SD
Mother avoidance Fig. 2. Differences in romantic relationship quality that are predicted by attachment scores for mothers.
semester on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) prototypes for secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment, using 7-point rating scales. We computed a general anxiety score for these participants, as recommended by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994), by subtracting the sum of secure and dismissing ratings from the sum of preoccupied and fearful ratings (M ¼ 0:34; s.d.=4.45). We computed a general avoidance score by subtracting the sum of secure and preoccupied ratings from the sum of dismissing and fearful ratings (M ¼ 1:29; s.d.=4.44). Current anxiety scores were correlated with anxiety scores for friends (r ¼ 0:28; p ¼ 0:003) and partners (r ¼ 0:34; p ¼ 0:001), and current avoidance scores were correlated with avoidance scores
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
201
for friends (r ¼ 0:45; po0:001) and partners (r ¼ 0:34; p ¼ 0:001), but there was little evidence that current attachment beliefs had biased our results. Zero-order correlations between current attachment scores and relationship outcomes yielded only two significant effects. Current anxiety scores were negatively correlated with friendship quality ratings (r ¼ 0:19; p ¼ 0:05) and with romantic relationship length (r ¼ 0:21; p ¼ 0:04). When current anxiety scores were added first to the regression of friendship quality ratings, addition of attachment scores for mothers predicted only marginal variation in ratings (R2 change=0.06, F change=2.82, p ¼ 0:07), but the effect of avoidance scores for mothers was as strong as in the initial analysis (b ¼ 0:12; t ¼ 2:36; p ¼ 0:02). When current anxiety scores were added first to the regression of romantic relationship length, addition of attachment scores for partners and friends each continued to predict significant variation in duration (R2 change=0.06, F change=3.28, p ¼ 0:04 and R2 change=0.07, F change=3.92, p ¼ 0:03; respectively).
Discussion Negative effects of anxiety and avoidance scores We began our study with one prediction, that attachment anxiety and avoidance would have negative effects on friendships and romantic relationships because these curtail comfort with acceptance and closeness in relationships. Consistent with this prediction, we obtained a variety of negative, zero-order correlations between avoidance scores and relationship outcomes. Avoidance scores for parents were negatively correlated with friendship length and quality ratings. Avoidance scores for partners were negatively correlated with romantic relationship length and quality ratings. Similarly, we obtained negative, zero-order correlations between anxiety scores and relationship outcomes. Anxiety scores for friends were negatively correlated with friendship quality ratings and anxiety scores for parents and friends were negatively correlated with romantic relationship quality ratings. Attachment avoidance appeared to limit both length and quality of relationships whereas attachment anxiety appeared to limit quality primarily. However, in regression analyses we found two exceptions to these trends. In the analysis of romantic relationship length, the independent effect of avoidance scores for friends was positive. In the analysis of romantic relationship quality, the effect of avoidance scores for mothers was negative only when anxiety scores for mothers were high; when anxiety scores were low, the effect was positive. These exceptions could reflect the continued importance of attachment in adolescence and the tradeoffs that occur to satisfy attachment-related needs. In the case of romantic relationship length, limited closeness with friends might increase needs to maintain romantic relationships, whereas closeness with friends might decrease such needs. Alternatively, maintenance of relatively enduring romantic relationships might decrease closeness with friends (Connolly & Johnson, 1996). In the case of romantic relationship quality, confidence regarding maternal acceptance might facilitate the transfer of closeness from mothers to partners, whereas lack of confidence might hinder the transfer. Alternatively, high quality romantic relationships might decrease closeness with mothers among adolescents who are confident about maternal acceptance.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 202
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Predictive power of attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners We also began our study with five research questions about the relative power of attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners to predict friendship and romantic relationship outcomes. The first question was whether friendship length and quality would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to friends. The second was whether romantic relationship length and quality would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners. We addressed these questions with regression analyses in which we entered participant sex first and attachment scores for the target relationship second. We found that attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation either in friendship length or in friendship quality, but that attachment scores for partners predicted substantial variation in romantic relationship outcomes, especially their perceived quality. Why did attachment scores for friends not predict significant variation in friendship outcomes? One reason could be that friendships do not depend as much on intimacy and support as romantic relationships do. Successful friendships might depend more on provisions of companionship than on intimacy (Weiss, 1986). Even romantic relationships are thought to serve affiliative rather than attachment functions prior to late adolescence (Furman & Wehner, 1997). Another reason could be that variation in attachments to friends diluted their effects on friendship outcomes. The median number of close friendships reported was 7, in contrast to a median of 2 for romantic relationships. Analyses of best friendships might have yielded different results. Attachment scores for partners had more complex effects in the analysis of romantic relationship quality than in the analysis of romantic relationship length. Avoidance scores for partners appeared to have simple, negative effects on relationship length, but their effects on relationship quality ratings were qualified by their interaction with anxiety scores. Low avoidance appeared to enhance quality more when anxiety was low than when anxiety was high. Consistent with attachment theory, the highest quality romantic relationships appeared to require comfort with both acceptance and closeness in relationships, a combination that characterizes secure attachment. The third research question was whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and partners would predict variation in friendship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about friends. The fourth was whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about partners. We addressed the third question in regressions of friendship outcomes by entering attachment scores for parents and partners after those for friends. We addressed the fourth question in regressions of romantic relationship outcomes by entering attachment scores for parents and friends after those for partners. We found that avoidance scores for parents alone predicted significant variation in friendship outcomes but that scores for friends and parents predicted significant variation in romantic relationship outcomes. We think that the effects of parental avoidance on friendship outcomes reflect the instrumental and relational skills that are imparted in relationships with parents (Collins, Henninghausen, Schmit, & Sroufe, 1997). Avoidance could decrease parental interaction, observation, and direct instruction, thereby limiting social learning. This interpretation is consistent with previous findings that relationship competencies are associated with positive parental attachment (Parke & O’Neil, 1999; Kenny & Gallagher, 2002). One reason why results for maternal beliefs were stronger than those for paternal beliefs could be that adolescents generally report spending more
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
203
time in a greater diversity of activities with mothers than with fathers (Laursen & Williams, 1997) and receiving more support from the former than from the latter (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). There would consequently be more opportunities for mothers than for fathers to convey relational lessons. Consistent with this interpretation, avoidance scores for fathers were generally higher than avoidance scores for mothers, tð112Þ ¼ 5:16; po0:001: Although attachment scores for parents also predicted significant variation in romantic relationship quality ratings, they did not predict significant variation in romantic relationship length. One reason for this result could be that adolescent relationships are sustained for a variety of reasons, only some of which are related to intimacy. Adolescent romantic relationships are also influenced by peer culture and status considerations and by sexuality and affiliation needs (Brown, 1999). Consistent with this interpretation, attachment scores for friends had significant independent effects on romantic relationship length. Avoidance was associated with longer relationships. In general, attachment scores for friends had fewer and weaker independent effects on relationship outcomes than did attachment scores for parents and partners. We have suggested that this is because friendship depends less on intimacy and support than parental and romantic relationships do. Related to this interpretation is that attachment variables were generally better predictors of romantic relationship outcomes than of friendship outcomes. Our analyses predicted 21% of the variation in romantic relationship length and 48% of the variation in romantic relationship quality but only 8% of the variation in friendship length and 12% of the variation in friendship quality. These results are consistent with previous research in which attachment functions have been shown to transfer more fully and quickly to romantic partners than to friends (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Fraley & Davis, 1997). Gender effects One final research question stemmed from gender-related differences in same-sex friendships and tendencies for females to maintain more intimate and supportive friendships than males do. We wanted to know whether females’ friendship attachments would be more relevant for romantic relationships than were those of males, and whether the magnitude of correlations between romantic relationship outcomes and attachment scores for friends and parents would therefore differ by sex. We found no significant sex differences in these correlations. We obtained only one sex difference in relationship outcomes, females had longer romantic relationships than males, a result that could reflect tendencies for females to select somewhat older, more mature partners than males do. Attachment beliefs regarding friends and parents appeared to have similar effects on the romantic relationships of females and males. One reason for this result could be that successful romantic relationships in adolescence depend more heavily on affiliation and sexuality and less heavily on intimacy than they will in young adulthood (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). However, our male sample was small relative to our female sample, and a larger male sample might have yielded different results. Conclusions and caveats In summary, our results suggest that attachment beliefs have greater relevance for romantic relationship outcomes than for friendship outcomes and that beliefs regarding romantic partners
ARTICLE IN PRESS 204
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
have the strongest effects on these relationships. Low anxiety and low avoidance with regard to partners are associated with high quality relationships, and low avoidance is associated with longer relationships. Nevertheless, our results additionally suggest that attachments to parents— especially mothers—continue to play a role in adolescents’ close relationships and that attachments to friends also play a significant but smaller role. In considering these results, it is important to recognize our study’s limitations. This was a retrospective study, involving college students’ high school memories. We do not know how accurate their memories were. We know that other retrospective studies have produced moderately accurate results, but that memories can be biased by current experiences (Ross, 1989; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1998). We therefore obtained estimates of participants’ current attachment beliefs, to determine the independence of our results from current outlook. But although we demonstrated their independence, our measures of current attachment beliefs were general. Had we measured current beliefs about parents, friends, and partners, our results might have been different. Another limitation of our study was its correlational nature. We measured attachment beliefs, we did not manipulate them, and we measured them at the same time we measured relationship length and quality. As a result, most of our results could have been interpreted by reversing the direction of causality, or by employing third variable explanations. We have already suggested some alternative interpretations for our results. Correlations between attachment scores and relationship outcomes could have occurred because attachment beliefs guide relationship behaviour or because relationship outcomes influence attachment beliefs. Despite these limitations, we think our results have important implications for the way attachment beliefs and interpersonal functioning are studied. Our results demonstrate the importance of differentiating attachment beliefs for parents, friends, and partners and of examining their relative power in the prediction of outcomes related to adolescent friendship and romance. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (2000). Attachment security and available support: Closely linked relationship qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 115–138. Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social- cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, separation: Anxiety and anger. Vol. 2. New York: Basic Books.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
205
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press. Brown, B. B. (1999). You’re going out with who? Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291–329). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., Henninghausen, K. C., Schmit, D. T., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Developmental precursors of romantic relationships: A longitudinal analysis. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: New directions for child development (pp. 69–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5 (pp. 53–90). London: Jessica Kingsley. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224–237. Connolly, J. A., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relationships in adolescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and development. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 266–290). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Connolly, J. A., & Johnson, A. M. (1996). Adolescents’ romantic relationships and the structure and quality of their close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships, 3, 185–195. Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285–294. Davis, M. H., Morris, M. M., & Kraus, L. A. (1998). Relationship-specific and global perceptions of social support associations with well-being and attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 468–481. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 355–377). New York: Guilford. Fox, N. W., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schaefer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to mother/attachment to father: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 62, 210–225. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115. Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: developmental perspectives (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. (pp. 151–178). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hodges, V. E, Finnegan, R. A., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Skewed autonomy-relatedness in preadolescents’ conceptions of their relationships with mother, father, and best friend. Developmental Psychology, 35, 737–748. Kenny, M. E., & Gallagher, L. A. (2002). Instrumental and social/relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal attachment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 203–219. LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. Laursen, B., & Williams, V. A. (1997). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: Developmental perspectives (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 206
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498. Parke, R. D., & O’Neil, R. (1999). Social relationships across contexts: Family peer linkages. In W. A. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Relationships as developmental contexts, Vol. 30. (pp. 211–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict resolution. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 166–188). New York: Guilford Press. Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357. Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1998). Do you remember?: Recollections of adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 5, 219–234. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100. Seiffge-Krenke, I., Shulman, S., & Klessinger, N. (2001). Adolescent precursors of romantic relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 327–346. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. A. (1999). One social world: The integrated development of parent-child and peer relationships. In W. A. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Relationships as developmental contexts, Vol. 30. (pp. 241–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603–625. Weiss, R. S. (1986). Continuities and transformations in social relationships from childhood to adulthood. In W. W. Hartup, & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 95–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Journal of Adolescence Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206 www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Attachment contexts of adolescent friendship and romance Judi Beinstein Miller*, Tova Hoicowitz Department of Psychology, Severance Lab, 120 West Lorain Street, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074, USA
Abstract The purpose of this study was to compare memories of attachments to parents, friends, and romantic partners in relation to the maintenance of high school friendships and romantic relationships. College students recorded the length of their friendships and romantic relationships during high school and rated the quality of each. They also rated their memories of attachments to parents, friends, and partners during that time. Parental attachments were the most reliable predictor of friendship outcomes and romantic attachments the most reliable predictor of romantic outcomes, but attachments to parents, friends, and partners each predicted unique variation in maintenance of romantic relationships. r 2003 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Childhood friendships develop in a context of parental attachments, and adolescent romantic relationships in a context of affiliations with friends, yet only recently have these contexts been compared in adolescents’ maintenance of friendship and romance. A major purpose of our study was to compare attachments to parents, friends, and romantic partners in relation to the maintenance of high school friendships and romantic relationships. We studied the length and quality of these relationships because the capacity to sustain high quality, close relationships is of paramount importance to well being (Berscheid, 1999). We reasoned that attachment-related experiences with parents, friends, and romantic partners, would each have effects on these outcomes, because each provides beliefs that guide behaviour in close relationships. Bowlby (1969, 1973) theorized that early treatment by attachment figures had enduring effects on later social relationships because it created beliefs about protection and guidelines for *Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-440-775-8756. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.B. Miller). 0140-1971/$30.00 r 2003 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.11.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS 192
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
behaviour. Responsive treatment would create confidence about protection and foster secure behaviour whereas unresponsive treatment would create concerns about protection and foster insecure behaviour. However, Bowlby also recognized that later attachment experiences afforded opportunities to revise earlier beliefs and guidelines. Because friendships and romantic relationships can afford novel attachment experiences, they can create new beliefs about behaviour in close relationships. Indeed, attachment representations have been depicted as a hierarchy of interrelated attachment models that is constructed from specific relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners at the lowest level, from generalized representations of parents friends, and partners at an intermediate level, and from a global representation of all attachment-related relationships at the highest level (Collins & Read, 1994; Furman & Wehner, 1997). We consequently reasoned that the common experience of maintaining close relationships with parents, friends, and partners would create multiple attachment beliefs, each of which could influence relationship behaviour. Multiple attachment relationships and beliefs Evidence for multiple attachment beliefs comes from a variety of studies. Infant attachment classifications can be different for one parent than for the other (Fox, Kimmerly, & Schaefer, 1991). By early adolescence, attachment functions have begun to transfer from parents to peers (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Fraley & Davis, 1997; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997); as parental interaction and perceived support decrease, peer interaction and perceived support increase (Furman & Wehner, 1997; Laursen & Williams, 1997). By late adolescence, most college students can recall having had relationships in which they experienced different attachment beliefs (Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996). Relationships among attachment beliefs Attachment beliefs for parents, friends, and romantic partners nevertheless show small to moderate, positive correlations (Furman & Wehner, 1997; Hodges, Finnegan, & Perry, 1999; Asendorpf & Wilpers, 2000; Furman, Simon, Shaffer, & Bouchey, 2002), and correlations between perceived support from parents, friends, and romantic partners tend to be positive, though small (Connolly & Johnson, 1996; Davis, Morris, & Kraus, 1998). Consistent with these results, significant between person variation, as well as within person variation, has been demonstrated in attachment beliefs for family members (Cook, 2000) and for parents, friends, and romantic partners (LaGuardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). Correlations among beliefs most likely occur because relationship competencies and expectations that are acquired in the family are carried over to peer interaction (Parke & O’Neil, 1999; Kenny & Gallagher, 2002). The quality of parental relationships influences peer interaction in childhood (Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001), and its lessons in adolescence influence romantic relations and expectations years later (Conger, Cui, Bryant, & Elder, 2000; Seiffge-Krenke, Shulman, & Klessinger, 2001). Early parental attachments thus appear to influence close relationships by imparting instrumental and relational skills, as well as attitudes and feelings about significant others (Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
193
The present study In the present study we examined the length and quality of friendships and romantic relationships in high school as a function of multiple attachment beliefs. We asked first and second year undergraduates to think back to those years, to indicate the length and quality of their close friendships and romantic relationships, and to rate their attachment beliefs about parents, close friends, and romantic partners during that time. We used retrospective reports not only because these are easy to collect, but also because these enabled us to collect information about the length of high school friendships and romantic relationships. However, we recognized that memory for attachment beliefs could be biased by current beliefs, even though correlations between prior beliefs and their recall are moderately strong (Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1998). Consequently, we also obtained measures of study participants’ current, general attachment beliefs from a separate testing session, to demonstrate that the effects of attachment memories were independent of current beliefs. We obtained separate information about attachments to mothers and fathers because primary attachments in childhood are usually to the mother and often differ from attachments to fathers (Fox et al., 1991). We obtained information about general attachments to close friends and romantic partners, rather than to specific friends and partners, because attachment studies of young adults and late adolescents commonly use attachment styles or orientations as predictors and these are based on general beliefs about close relationships or romantic relationships. In addition, general beliefs about friendships and romantic relationships are likely to provide guidelines for the development of new friendships and romantic relationships, when the potential friend or romantic partner is not yet well known. Based on prior research regarding the positive consequences of attachment security for interpersonal functioning in childhood (Parke & O’Neil, 1999) and adulthood (Feeney, 1999), we predicted that memories of friendships and romantic relationships would reflect comfort with acceptance and closeness in high school relationships with parents, close friends, and romantic partners, as measured by two major attachment dimensions, attachment anxiety and avoidance (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Attachment anxiety entails worry about acceptance from others, which can lower perceptions of others’ regard and reduce relationship satisfaction (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 2000). Attachment avoidance entails discomfort with closeness and dependency, which can encourage emotional distance from others and limit problem-solving and intimacy (Rholes, Simpson, & Stevens, 1998). We therefore predicted that attachment anxiety and avoidance would be negatively correlated with two major outcomes of friendship and romantic relationships, their length and quality. Low anxiety and avoidance, which correspond to secure attachment, would be associated with relationship success. Our comparisons of attachment anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents, friends and partners were guided by five research questions. The first was whether friendship outcomes would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to friends and the second was whether romantic relationship outcomes would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners. Because correlations between attachment beliefs and perceived support tend to be stronger within than between relationships (Asendorpf & Wilpers, 2000), we thought that a similar pattern might be obtained for the length and quality of relationships. Our third question was whether attachment beliefs regarding parents and partners would predict
ARTICLE IN PRESS 194
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
variation in friendship outcomes, beyond that predicted by beliefs about friends. Our fourth, related question was whether attachment beliefs regarding parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about romantic partners. Because parental attachment beliefs are theorized to have enduring effects on close relationships, and because social competencies acquired in parental relationships are further refined in interaction with friends, we thought that parental and friendship beliefs would also predict variation in relationship outcomes. One final question stemmed from previous research on gender-related differences in same-sex friendships. Because female adolescents tend to maintain more intimate and supportive friendships than males do, it was possible that their friendship attachments would be more relevant to romantic relationships than were those of males, for whom parental attachments might be more influential. Consequently, there might be sex differences in the magnitude of correlations between outcomes of romantic relationships and attachment beliefs regarding friends and parents. This study enabled us to compare attachment correlates of romance among females and males and to determine whether the correlations differed because of gender.
Method Participants There were 118 first and second year students from an introductory psychology course who participated in return for partial course credit. Females constituted 69% of the sample and firstyear students constituted 81%. Their age range was 16–21 and their mean age was 18.5 years (s.d.=0.80). Eighty-nine per cent reported at least one high school romance, but only 54% were currently involved in a romantic relationship. Seventy-three per cent were Caucasian, 9% were Asian American, 7% were African American, and the remainder were from other ethnic backgrounds. Participants were tested in groups of approximately 10–20, several weeks after the beginning of the semester. Two who reported a high school romance did not provide attachment ratings for their partners, but these participants were retained in all analyses except those for which their data were missing. Questionnaires During testing sessions, participants first listed their high school romantic relationships, recorded the length of each, and rated each on a 7-point scale for its global quality. Then they repeated this procedure for each of their close friendships. These responses were used to compute the average length of each participant’s high school friendships and romantic relationships (M ¼ 3:94 years, s.d.=1.62 years and M ¼ 10:38 months, s.d.=9.90 months, respectively) and their average quality (M ¼ 5:60; s.d.=0.72 and M ¼ 4:55; s.d.=1.27, respectively). The distributions of relationship lengths were each negatively skewed and corrected by taking their natural logarithms for use in subsequent analyses.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
195
Participants next rated their attachments to mother, father, close friends (in general), and romantic partners (in general) during high school, using 12 items from Brennan et al.’s (1998) attachment anxiety and avoidance scales.1 They rated six anxiety items that were relevant to parental, friendship, and romantic relations (e.g., ‘‘I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by y’’ and ‘‘I worry that y won’t care about me as much as I care about him/her/them’’) and six avoidance items that were relevant to parental, friendship, and romantic relations (e.g., I don’t feel comfortable opening up to y’’ and ‘‘I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on y’’), each on 7-point scales. If they had a step-parent in addition to a biological parent, they rated the one with whom they felt closest. Mean anxiety ratings were computed to obtain anxiety scores for mothers (M ¼ 3:02; s.d.=0.94), fathers (M ¼ 3:04; s.d.=1.02), close friends (M ¼ 4:11; s.d.=1.12), and partners (M ¼ 4:74; s.d.=1.30). Mean avoidance ratings were computed to obtain avoidance scores for mothers (M ¼ 3:16; s.d.=1.49), fathers (M ¼ 4:06; s.d.=1.61), close friends (M ¼ 2:57; s.d.=1.11), and partners (M ¼ 2:85; s.d.=1.36). Reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from 0.61 to 0.78 for anxiety scores and from 0.80 to 0.90 for avoidance scores. Analytic procedures We began by intercorrelating all study variables, to determine the magnitude and overlap of their effects. Then we performed four sets of hierarchical regression analyses to address our research questions. In regressions of friendship outcomes we entered participant sex (dummy coded for male) first, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for friends. These steps of the analysis addressed our first research question, whether friendship anxiety and avoidance would predict significant variation in the length and quality of high school friendships. Similarly, in regressions of romantic relationship outcomes we entered participant sex first, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for partners. This step addressed our second research question, whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners would predict significant variation in length and quality of romantic relationships. To address our third research question—whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and partners would predict variation in friendship outcomes beyond that predicted by anxiety and avoidance for friends—we entered anxiety and avoidance scores for mothers, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for partners, as third and fourth steps in analyses of friendship length and quality ratings. Similarly, to address our fourth research question—whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by anxiety and avoidance for partners—we entered anxiety and avoidance scores for mothers, followed by anxiety and avoidance scores for friends, as third and fourth steps in analyses of romantic relationship length and quality ratings. We performed a 1
The scales were created from 60 subscales used by previous attachment researchers to measure attachment style. Because factor analysis of subscale responses yielded two independent factors corresponding to anxiety and avoidance, anxiety and avoidance scales were constructed by selecting those items that correlated most strongly with the two factors. The 18 items selected for each scale had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha=0.91 and 0.94, for the anxiety and avoidance scales, respectively) when used by over 1000 undergraduate females and males to rate romantic partners. The scales were also validated by their correlations with other attachment measures and by their correlations with intimacy behaviours (Brennan et al., 1998).
ARTICLE IN PRESS 196
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
second set of analyses using scores for fathers instead of scores for mothers because sample size and multicollinearity limited their simultaneous use in the analyses.2 Because the attachment scores could have interaction effects as well as additive effects, we next entered the interactions between anxiety and avoidance scores for a given relationship. In the analysis of friendship outcomes we entered the anxiety avoidance interaction for friends first, then the comparable interactions for parents and partners. In the analysis of romantic relationship outcomes we entered the anxiety avoidance interaction for partners first, then the comparable interactions for parents and friends. Finally, we entered the interactions with participant sex, first the two-way, sex anxiety and sex avoidance interactions, then the three-way, sex anxiety avoidance interaction. These final steps addressed our fifth research question, whether correlations between the attachment scores and relationship outcomes would differ because of gender. Because there were a total of 48 possible interaction effects, and because there were no predicted interactions, we adopted a criterion of po0:01 in evaluating all interaction effects. We report all main effects but only those interaction effects that were statistically significant.
Results Correlations among study variables Attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners were reliable predictors of the relationship outcomes. As indicated in Table 1, friendship length and quality ratings were each negatively correlated with avoidance scores for mothers and fathers. The quality ratings were also negatively correlated with anxiety scores for friends. Romantic relationship length and quality ratings were each negatively correlated with avoidance scores for partners. The quality ratings were also negatively correlated with anxiety scores for mothers, fathers, and friends. Avoidance scores for parents appeared to be the best predictors of friendship outcomes, although anxiety in regard to friends also made a difference. Attachment scores for partners appeared to be the best predictors of romantic relationship outcomes, although anxiety scores for parents and friends also made a difference. In addition, there were positive correlations between relationship length and quality ratings and between quality ratings for friendships and romantic relationships. Females reported longer romantic relationships than males and had higher avoidance scores for partners. Regression analyses Predictors of high school friendships In the analysis of friendship length, attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation, but the addition of attachment scores for mothers yielded a significant effect (see 2 We also performed analyses in which we entered the parental attachment scores last. However, we present the initial analyses because attachments to parents are formed first and because there was little difference in results from the two sets of analyses. Additionally, we would have liked to compare the effects of scores for parents and the scores for stepparents, but there were too few participants who reported step-parents (n ¼ 8) to make this comparison, and we did not ask them to specify whether they were responding for step-parents or parents.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
197
Table 1 Intercorrelations among study variables
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
Sex (male) Mother anxiety Mother avoidance Father anxiety Father avoidance Friend anxiety Friend avoidance Partner anxiety Partner avoidance Friendship length Friendship quality Romance length Romance quality
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
— 0.17 0.03 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.02 0.20 0.12
— 0.07 0.54 0.10 0.45 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.15 0.32
— 0.06 0.31 0.21 0.27 0.13 0.13 0.26 0.31 0.03 0.03
— 0.01 0.18 0.07 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.22
— 0.27 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.09 0.13
— 0.17 0.48 0.28 0.03 0.19 0.12 0.27
— 0.08 0.27 0.09 0.18 0.07 0.12
— 0.10 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.16
— 0.02 0.09 0.27 0.56
— 0.26 — 0.11 0.12 — 0.16 0.21 0.38
Note: po0:001; po0:01; po0:05; the same rs can have different p values because sample size varies and because of rounding.
Table 2 Regression of friendship length Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Friend anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety and avoidance
0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00
0.01 0.70 3.68 0.04
Note: po0:05:
Table 2). This was because avoidance scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:07; t ¼ 2:62; p ¼ 0:01). The effect of anxiety scores was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:21; p ¼ 0:84). A similar pattern of results was obtained when attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, but the effects were weaker and not statistically significant.3 The addition of attachment scores for partners did not predict significant variation in friendship length. There were no significant interaction effects. In the analysis of friendship quality ratings, as in the analysis of friendship length, attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation, but the addition of attachment scores for mothers yielded a significant effect (see Table 3). This was because avoidance scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:13; t ¼ 2:74; p ¼ 0:007). The effect of anxiety scores was not significant (b ¼ 0:05; t ¼ 0:53; p ¼ 0:60). A similar pattern of results was obtained when attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, 3
Statistical results for fathers are not reported to conserve space and because they were redundant with yet weaker than those for mothers. However, the results are available from the first author upon request.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 198
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Table 3 Regression of friendship quality ratings Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Friend anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety and avoidance
0.00 0.05 0.07 0.00
0.01 2.74 3.76 0.12
Note: po0:05: Table 4 Regression of romantic relationship length Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4
Sex (male) Partner anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Friend anxiety and avoidance
0.04 0.10 0.01 0.05
4.35 5.80 0.69 3.08
Note: po0:01 and po0:05:
but the effects were weaker and not statistically significant. The addition of attachment scores for partners did not predict significant variation in ratings. There were no significant interaction effects. Predictors of high school romantic relationships The outcomes of romantic relationships were predicted by a larger variety of variables than were friendship outcomes. In the analysis of romantic relationship length, participant sex predicted significant variation (see Table 4). Males had shorter relationships than females (b ¼ 0:39; t ¼ 2:09; p ¼ 0:04). The addition of attachment scores for partners also predicted significant variation in length. This was because avoidance scores for partners had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:21; t ¼ 3:38; p ¼ 0:001). The effect of anxiety scores for partners was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:20; p ¼ 0:84). The addition of attachment scores for mothers did not yield significant effects, nor did the addition of attachment scores for friends. However, the latter effect was of borderline significance (p ¼ 0:051), because avoidance scores for friends had a positive effect (b ¼ 0:19; t ¼ 2:47; p ¼ 0:02). When we used attachment scores for fathers in the analysis, instead of attachment scores for mothers, we obtained a similar result, except that the addition of attachment scores for friends predicted significant variation, rather than borderline variation, in relationship length (R2 change=0.07, Fchange=3.75, p ¼ 0:03). In the analysis of quality ratings for romantic relationships, participant sex did not have a significant effect, but the addition of attachment scores for partners predicted significant variation (see Table 5). This was because avoidance scores for partners had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:49; t ¼ 6:35; po0:001). The effect of anxiety scores for partners was not significant (b ¼ 0:09; t ¼ 1:13; p ¼ 0:26). The addition of attachment scores for mothers also predicted significant variation in ratings. This was because anxiety scores for mothers had a negative effect (b ¼ 0:30;
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
199
Table 5 Regression of romantic relationship quality ratings Step
Predictors
R2 change
F change
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sex (male) Partner anxiety and avoidance Mother anxiety and avoidance Friend anxiety and avoidance Partner anxiety avoidance interaction Mother anxiety avoidance interaction
0.03 0.29 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.04
2.72 21.38 3.29 0.27 11.92 6.95
Note: po0:001; po0:01; and po0:05:
t ¼ 2:54; p ¼ 0:01). The effect of avoidance scores for mothers was not significant (b ¼ 0:01; t ¼ 0:10; p ¼ 0:92). A similar effect occurred when attachment scores for fathers were used instead of attachment scores for mothers. The addition of attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation in quality ratings. This analysis also yielded two interaction effects between anxiety and avoidance scores. The addition of the two-way interactions between anxiety and avoidance scores for partners and for mothers each predicted significant variation in ratings.4 When attachment scores for fathers were used in the analysis instead of attachment scores for mothers, only the interaction effect between anxiety and avoidance scores for partners was statistically significant. To evaluate the nature of the interaction effects we used the regression equation to predict quality ratings when anxiety and avoidance scores for the target relationship were one standard deviation below and one standard deviation above the total sample means and all other attachment scores were held constant at their means (see Figs. 1 and 2). The interaction between attachment scores for partners indicated a negative effect of avoidance scores that was stronger when anxiety scores were low than when they were high. The net effect of the interaction was that participants who scored low on both attachment dimensions had the highest ratings. The interaction between attachment scores for mothers indicated a negative effect of avoidance scores when anxiety scores were high, but as anxiety scores decreased, the effect decreased and became positive at low levels of anxiety. The net effect of the interaction was that participants with high avoidance and low anxiety scores had the highest ratings and those with high avoidance and high anxiety scores had the lowest. Supplementary analyses Because of the retrospective nature of this study, it was desirable to determine whether current attachment expectations could explain our pattern of results. We obtained current, general attachment scores for 109 of our participants who had rated themselves at the beginning of the 4
We repeated the analysis, adding all related terms of an interaction—anxiety scores, avoidance scores, and the anxiety avoidance interaction—in a single step. The terms for partners were added second, after participant sex, and yielded an R2 change of 0.38, F change=20.70, po0:001: The terms for mothers were added third and yielded an R2 change of 0.07, F change=4.26, p ¼ 0:007:
ARTICLE IN PRESS 200
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Romantic relationship quality
6
5.5
5
4.5
4 -1 SD partner anxiety
3.5
+1 SD partner anxiety 3 +1 SD
-1 SD
Partner avoidance Fig. 1. Differences in romantic relationship quality that are predicted by attachment scores for partners.
Romantic relationship quality
6
5.5
5
4.5
4 -1 SD mother anxiety
3.5
+1 SD mother anxiety
3 +1 SD
-1 SD
Mother avoidance Fig. 2. Differences in romantic relationship quality that are predicted by attachment scores for mothers.
semester on Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) prototypes for secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful attachment, using 7-point rating scales. We computed a general anxiety score for these participants, as recommended by Griffin and Bartholomew (1994), by subtracting the sum of secure and dismissing ratings from the sum of preoccupied and fearful ratings (M ¼ 0:34; s.d.=4.45). We computed a general avoidance score by subtracting the sum of secure and preoccupied ratings from the sum of dismissing and fearful ratings (M ¼ 1:29; s.d.=4.44). Current anxiety scores were correlated with anxiety scores for friends (r ¼ 0:28; p ¼ 0:003) and partners (r ¼ 0:34; p ¼ 0:001), and current avoidance scores were correlated with avoidance scores
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
201
for friends (r ¼ 0:45; po0:001) and partners (r ¼ 0:34; p ¼ 0:001), but there was little evidence that current attachment beliefs had biased our results. Zero-order correlations between current attachment scores and relationship outcomes yielded only two significant effects. Current anxiety scores were negatively correlated with friendship quality ratings (r ¼ 0:19; p ¼ 0:05) and with romantic relationship length (r ¼ 0:21; p ¼ 0:04). When current anxiety scores were added first to the regression of friendship quality ratings, addition of attachment scores for mothers predicted only marginal variation in ratings (R2 change=0.06, F change=2.82, p ¼ 0:07), but the effect of avoidance scores for mothers was as strong as in the initial analysis (b ¼ 0:12; t ¼ 2:36; p ¼ 0:02). When current anxiety scores were added first to the regression of romantic relationship length, addition of attachment scores for partners and friends each continued to predict significant variation in duration (R2 change=0.06, F change=3.28, p ¼ 0:04 and R2 change=0.07, F change=3.92, p ¼ 0:03; respectively).
Discussion Negative effects of anxiety and avoidance scores We began our study with one prediction, that attachment anxiety and avoidance would have negative effects on friendships and romantic relationships because these curtail comfort with acceptance and closeness in relationships. Consistent with this prediction, we obtained a variety of negative, zero-order correlations between avoidance scores and relationship outcomes. Avoidance scores for parents were negatively correlated with friendship length and quality ratings. Avoidance scores for partners were negatively correlated with romantic relationship length and quality ratings. Similarly, we obtained negative, zero-order correlations between anxiety scores and relationship outcomes. Anxiety scores for friends were negatively correlated with friendship quality ratings and anxiety scores for parents and friends were negatively correlated with romantic relationship quality ratings. Attachment avoidance appeared to limit both length and quality of relationships whereas attachment anxiety appeared to limit quality primarily. However, in regression analyses we found two exceptions to these trends. In the analysis of romantic relationship length, the independent effect of avoidance scores for friends was positive. In the analysis of romantic relationship quality, the effect of avoidance scores for mothers was negative only when anxiety scores for mothers were high; when anxiety scores were low, the effect was positive. These exceptions could reflect the continued importance of attachment in adolescence and the tradeoffs that occur to satisfy attachment-related needs. In the case of romantic relationship length, limited closeness with friends might increase needs to maintain romantic relationships, whereas closeness with friends might decrease such needs. Alternatively, maintenance of relatively enduring romantic relationships might decrease closeness with friends (Connolly & Johnson, 1996). In the case of romantic relationship quality, confidence regarding maternal acceptance might facilitate the transfer of closeness from mothers to partners, whereas lack of confidence might hinder the transfer. Alternatively, high quality romantic relationships might decrease closeness with mothers among adolescents who are confident about maternal acceptance.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 202
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Predictive power of attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners We also began our study with five research questions about the relative power of attachment scores for parents, friends, and partners to predict friendship and romantic relationship outcomes. The first question was whether friendship length and quality would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to friends. The second was whether romantic relationship length and quality would be predicted by anxiety and avoidance with regard to partners. We addressed these questions with regression analyses in which we entered participant sex first and attachment scores for the target relationship second. We found that attachment scores for friends did not predict significant variation either in friendship length or in friendship quality, but that attachment scores for partners predicted substantial variation in romantic relationship outcomes, especially their perceived quality. Why did attachment scores for friends not predict significant variation in friendship outcomes? One reason could be that friendships do not depend as much on intimacy and support as romantic relationships do. Successful friendships might depend more on provisions of companionship than on intimacy (Weiss, 1986). Even romantic relationships are thought to serve affiliative rather than attachment functions prior to late adolescence (Furman & Wehner, 1997). Another reason could be that variation in attachments to friends diluted their effects on friendship outcomes. The median number of close friendships reported was 7, in contrast to a median of 2 for romantic relationships. Analyses of best friendships might have yielded different results. Attachment scores for partners had more complex effects in the analysis of romantic relationship quality than in the analysis of romantic relationship length. Avoidance scores for partners appeared to have simple, negative effects on relationship length, but their effects on relationship quality ratings were qualified by their interaction with anxiety scores. Low avoidance appeared to enhance quality more when anxiety was low than when anxiety was high. Consistent with attachment theory, the highest quality romantic relationships appeared to require comfort with both acceptance and closeness in relationships, a combination that characterizes secure attachment. The third research question was whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and partners would predict variation in friendship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about friends. The fourth was whether anxiety and avoidance with regard to parents and friends would predict variation in romantic relationship outcomes beyond that predicted by beliefs about partners. We addressed the third question in regressions of friendship outcomes by entering attachment scores for parents and partners after those for friends. We addressed the fourth question in regressions of romantic relationship outcomes by entering attachment scores for parents and friends after those for partners. We found that avoidance scores for parents alone predicted significant variation in friendship outcomes but that scores for friends and parents predicted significant variation in romantic relationship outcomes. We think that the effects of parental avoidance on friendship outcomes reflect the instrumental and relational skills that are imparted in relationships with parents (Collins, Henninghausen, Schmit, & Sroufe, 1997). Avoidance could decrease parental interaction, observation, and direct instruction, thereby limiting social learning. This interpretation is consistent with previous findings that relationship competencies are associated with positive parental attachment (Parke & O’Neil, 1999; Kenny & Gallagher, 2002). One reason why results for maternal beliefs were stronger than those for paternal beliefs could be that adolescents generally report spending more
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
203
time in a greater diversity of activities with mothers than with fathers (Laursen & Williams, 1997) and receiving more support from the former than from the latter (Furman & Buhrmester, 1992). There would consequently be more opportunities for mothers than for fathers to convey relational lessons. Consistent with this interpretation, avoidance scores for fathers were generally higher than avoidance scores for mothers, tð112Þ ¼ 5:16; po0:001: Although attachment scores for parents also predicted significant variation in romantic relationship quality ratings, they did not predict significant variation in romantic relationship length. One reason for this result could be that adolescent relationships are sustained for a variety of reasons, only some of which are related to intimacy. Adolescent romantic relationships are also influenced by peer culture and status considerations and by sexuality and affiliation needs (Brown, 1999). Consistent with this interpretation, attachment scores for friends had significant independent effects on romantic relationship length. Avoidance was associated with longer relationships. In general, attachment scores for friends had fewer and weaker independent effects on relationship outcomes than did attachment scores for parents and partners. We have suggested that this is because friendship depends less on intimacy and support than parental and romantic relationships do. Related to this interpretation is that attachment variables were generally better predictors of romantic relationship outcomes than of friendship outcomes. Our analyses predicted 21% of the variation in romantic relationship length and 48% of the variation in romantic relationship quality but only 8% of the variation in friendship length and 12% of the variation in friendship quality. These results are consistent with previous research in which attachment functions have been shown to transfer more fully and quickly to romantic partners than to friends (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Fraley & Davis, 1997). Gender effects One final research question stemmed from gender-related differences in same-sex friendships and tendencies for females to maintain more intimate and supportive friendships than males do. We wanted to know whether females’ friendship attachments would be more relevant for romantic relationships than were those of males, and whether the magnitude of correlations between romantic relationship outcomes and attachment scores for friends and parents would therefore differ by sex. We found no significant sex differences in these correlations. We obtained only one sex difference in relationship outcomes, females had longer romantic relationships than males, a result that could reflect tendencies for females to select somewhat older, more mature partners than males do. Attachment beliefs regarding friends and parents appeared to have similar effects on the romantic relationships of females and males. One reason for this result could be that successful romantic relationships in adolescence depend more heavily on affiliation and sexuality and less heavily on intimacy than they will in young adulthood (Connolly & Goldberg, 1999). However, our male sample was small relative to our female sample, and a larger male sample might have yielded different results. Conclusions and caveats In summary, our results suggest that attachment beliefs have greater relevance for romantic relationship outcomes than for friendship outcomes and that beliefs regarding romantic partners
ARTICLE IN PRESS 204
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
have the strongest effects on these relationships. Low anxiety and low avoidance with regard to partners are associated with high quality relationships, and low avoidance is associated with longer relationships. Nevertheless, our results additionally suggest that attachments to parents— especially mothers—continue to play a role in adolescents’ close relationships and that attachments to friends also play a significant but smaller role. In considering these results, it is important to recognize our study’s limitations. This was a retrospective study, involving college students’ high school memories. We do not know how accurate their memories were. We know that other retrospective studies have produced moderately accurate results, but that memories can be biased by current experiences (Ross, 1989; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1998). We therefore obtained estimates of participants’ current attachment beliefs, to determine the independence of our results from current outlook. But although we demonstrated their independence, our measures of current attachment beliefs were general. Had we measured current beliefs about parents, friends, and partners, our results might have been different. Another limitation of our study was its correlational nature. We measured attachment beliefs, we did not manipulate them, and we measured them at the same time we measured relationship length and quality. As a result, most of our results could have been interpreted by reversing the direction of causality, or by employing third variable explanations. We have already suggested some alternative interpretations for our results. Correlations between attachment scores and relationship outcomes could have occurred because attachment beliefs guide relationship behaviour or because relationship outcomes influence attachment beliefs. Despite these limitations, we think our results have important implications for the way attachment beliefs and interpersonal functioning are studied. Our results demonstrate the importance of differentiating attachment beliefs for parents, friends, and partners and of examining their relative power in the prediction of outcomes related to adolescent friendship and romance. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers who provided helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (2000). Attachment security and available support: Closely linked relationship qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 115–138. Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social- cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist, 54, 260–266. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, separation: Anxiety and anger. Vol. 2. New York: Basic Books.
ARTICLE IN PRESS J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
205
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press. Brown, B. B. (1999). You’re going out with who? Peer group influences on adolescent romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 291–329). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Collins, W. A., Henninghausen, K. C., Schmit, D. T., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Developmental precursors of romantic relationships: A longitudinal analysis. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: New directions for child development (pp. 69–84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5 (pp. 53–90). London: Jessica Kingsley. Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder Jr, G. H. (2000). Competence in early adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224–237. Connolly, J. A., & Goldberg, A. (1999). Romantic relationships in adolescence: The role of friends and peers in their emergence and development. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 266–290). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Connolly, J. A., & Johnson, A. M. (1996). Adolescents’ romantic relationships and the structure and quality of their close interpersonal ties. Personal Relationships, 3, 185–195. Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285–294. Davis, M. H., Morris, M. M., & Kraus, L. A. (1998). Relationship-specific and global perceptions of social support associations with well-being and attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 468–481. Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 355–377). New York: Guilford. Fox, N. W., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schaefer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to mother/attachment to father: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 62, 210–225. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144. Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115. Furman, W., Simon, V. A., Shaffer, L., & Bouchey, H. A. (2002). Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Development, 73, 241–255. Furman, W., & Wehner, E. A. (1997). Adolescent romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: developmental perspectives (pp. 21–36). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew, & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. (pp. 151–178). London: Jessica Kingsley. Hodges, V. E, Finnegan, R. A., & Perry, D. G. (1999). Skewed autonomy-relatedness in preadolescents’ conceptions of their relationships with mother, father, and best friend. Developmental Psychology, 35, 737–748. Kenny, M. E., & Gallagher, L. A. (2002). Instrumental and social/relational correlates of perceived maternal and paternal attachment in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 203–219. LaGuardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. Laursen, B., & Williams, V. A. (1997). Perceptions of interdependence and closeness in family and peer relationships among adolescents with and without romantic partners. In S. Shulman, & W. A. Collins (Eds.), Romantic relationships in adolescence: Developmental perspectives (pp. 3–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 206
J.B. Miller, T. Hoicowitz / Journal of Adolescence 27 (2004) 191–206
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 478–498. Parke, R. D., & O’Neil, R. (1999). Social relationships across contexts: Family peer linkages. In W. A. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Relationships as developmental contexts, Vol. 30. (pp. 211–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Stevens, J. G. (1998). Attachment orientations, social support, and conflict resolution. In J. A. Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 166–188). New York: Guilford Press. Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357. Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1998). Do you remember?: Recollections of adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships, 5, 219–234. Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100. Seiffge-Krenke, I., Shulman, S., & Klessinger, N. (2001). Adolescent precursors of romantic relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 327–346. Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. A. (1999). One social world: The integrated development of parent-child and peer relationships. In W. A. Collins, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Relationships as developmental contexts, Vol. 30. (pp. 241–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603–625. Weiss, R. S. (1986). Continuities and transformations in social relationships from childhood to adulthood. In W. W. Hartup, & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 95–110). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.