The association between working models of attachment and personality: Toward an integrative framework operationalizing global relational models

Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109 www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

The association between working models of attachment and personality: Toward an integrative framework operationalizing global relational models q Chris G. Sibley

*

Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Available online 4 May 2006

Abstract A theoretical framework is presented which outlines the association between relational models of romantic relationships (romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance) and the conceptually similar dual dimensions of autonomy and sociotropy identified in the literature on personality diatheses of depression. Two studies, along with a meta-analysis of previous research, lend support to the notion that autonomy and avoidance share a common element reflecting variation in the degree to which people seek out or avoid closeness with others, whereas sociotropy and anxiety share a common element reflecting variation in the degree to which people worry about or are content in their social relations. The measures differ in relational specificity, however, as attachment anxiety and avoidance assess models of close and romantic relationships, whereas sociotropy and autonomy reflect more abstracted representations that encompass broader categories of social relation. The proposed framework offers a variety of avenues for research operationalizing and elaborating upon the function of global relational models in the attachment system.  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Personality; Working models; Adult attachment; Anxiety; Avoidance; Autonomy; Sociotropy

q This manuscript comprises part of Chris G. Sibley’s doctoral dissertation completed under the supervision of James Liu and Ronald Fischer. This research was supported by a research grant from the Foundation for Research Science and Technology, New Zealand. I thank James Liu, Ronald Fischer, Chris Fraley, Garth Fletcher and Marc Wilson for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. * Present address: Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail address: [email protected]

0092-6566/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.002

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

91

1. Introduction Research has consistently documented two reliable dimensions underlying individual differences in attachment system functioning (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). These dimensions are commonly referred to as attachment anxiety (or model of self), and attachment avoidance (or model of others). Attachment anxiety has been defined as the predisposition for an ‘‘intense need to be close, accepted, supported, and reassured,’’ whereas attachment avoidance reflects a tendency to be ‘‘uncomfortable with closeness, self-disclosure, feelings and expressions of vulnerability, and dependency’’ in close and romantic relationships (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002, pp. 135–136). These dual dimensions, cognitive representations, or relational models, are thought to be hierarchically organized according to their relational specificity, with specific models of particular persons nested under models of particular relationship domains, which are in turn nested under global and highly abstracted personality-level models (Bowlby, 1979; Collins & Read, 1994; Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003).1 The current research presents a conceptual framework that draws upon Beck’s (1983) concepts of autonomous and sociotropic personality to operationalize the most global level of this cognitive hierarchy (see Fig. 1). In recent years, researchers have begun to consider the relationship between domainspecific models of romantic relationships and more global autonomous and sociotropic dispositions identified in the literature on personality vulnerabilities to depression (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2003; Murphy & Bates, 1997; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995). In a similar vein to the aforementioned definitions of attachment anxiety and avoidance, Beck (1983, p. 272) defined sociotropy as a ‘‘person’s investment in positive interchange with others,’’ whereas autonomy, reflects a ‘‘person’s investment in preserving his [sic] independence, mobility, and personal rights.’’ As implicated in both Bowlby’s (1977, 1979) and Beck’s (1983) writings, the distinction between sociotropic and autonomous personality bears considerable conceptual resemblance to the aforementioned distinction between dimensions of attachment anxiety and avoidance. Indeed, Mongrain, Vettese, Shuster, and Kendal (1998, p. 239) commented on the similarity of these constructs and suggested that ‘‘future research should focus on the distinctions and parallels between attachment theory and personality factors in vulnerability to depression to better differentiate these sets of constructs.’’ As outlined in Fig. 1, it is proposed that these constructs are systematically related as attachment anxiety and avoidance assess variation in the cognitive subsystems that guide interpersonal behaviors in close or romantic relationships (e.g., proximity seeking behaviors, or the lack thereof, in interactions with attachment figures); whereas from the perspective of attachment theory, sociotropy and autonomy may be conceived as more abstracted and generalized interpersonal dispositions and cognitions that encompass representations of the self in

1 Following Mikulincer and Shaver (2003), these two dimensions are defined as cognitive representations that may be most aptly characterized as reflecting variation in the attachment subsystems governing the use of hyperactivating and deactivating secondary attachment strategies. To remain consistent with the majority of the literature on adult attachment, and pending resolution of the most appropriate terminology for describing these two dimensions, the terms model and representation are used interchangeably when referring to the different hierarchically ordered components theorized to underlie individual differences in these two dimensions (see for example, Crittenden, 1990; Fraley & Shaver, 2000; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; for commentaries on this issue).

92

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

Fig. 1. Conceptual distinction between domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance and personality-based sociotropic and autonomous interpersonal dispositions according to content and relational specificity.

relation to non-close or unfamiliar others and hence may govern behavior in both close interpersonal relationships and more broad categories of social interaction to varying degrees. Consider the following randomly selected items from Fraley, Waller, and Brennan’s (2000) Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) questionnaire measure of romantic attachment avoidance and anxiety and Robins et al.’s (1994) Personal Style Inventory (PSI) measures of autonomous and sociotropic personality, displayed in Table 1. As clearly illustrated by these example items, it appears that avoidance and autonomy are similar in content although they differ in relational specificity, as are anxiety and sociotropy. According to the framework proposed in Fig. 1, sociotropy and attachment anxiety share a common element reflecting variation in the degree to which people worry about or are content with their relationships and generally perceive others as being available and attentive, at varying levels of relational specificity. Autonomy and avoidance, in contrast, share a common element reflecting variation in the degree to which people seek out or avoid closeness with others, which may also be differentiated according to their specificity. Collins and colleagues’ (Collins & Allard, 2001; Collins & Read, 1994; Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996; see also Crittenden, 1990) alluded to this possibility when they argued that theories regarding the hierarchical structure of attachment representations should incorporate a more global level of model encompassing different relationship domains. Such higher-order models, Collins has argued, may correspond to the ‘‘most general

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

93

Table 1 Example items from Fraley et al.’s (2000) ECR-R measure of romantic attachment avoidance and anxiety in the romantic relationship domain and Robins et al.’s (1994) PSI measure of autonomous and sociotropic personality Model dimension characterized by the degree to which people worry about or are content in their social relations Example ECR-R items assessing romantic attachment avoidance I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to get very close (r) Example PSI items assessing autonomous personality I tend to keep other people at a distance It is hard for me to open up and talk about my feelings and other personal things Model dimension characterized by the degree to which people seek out or avoid closeness in their social relations Example ECR-R items assessing romantic attachment anxiety I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like Example PSI items assessing sociotropic personality I get uncomfortable when I’m not sure whether or not someone likes me I am very sensitive to the effects I have on the feelings of other people Note. (r) item reverse scored.

representations about people and the self, abstracted from a history of relationship experiences with caretakers and peers’’ (Collins & Allard, 2001, p. 68). Cross-overs between the literature on adult attachment (which has dealt primarily with understanding how people think, feel and behave in their close interpersonal and romantic relationships; see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) and the literature on sociotropy and autonomy (which has dealt primarily with understanding the role of these personality traits in vulnerability to depression; see Coyne & Whiffen, 1995; Zuroff, Mongrain, & Santor, 2004) are consistent with the proposed model and indicate that attachment and depressive personality are similar, although psychometrically distinct constructs that differ in specificity or bandwidth. Research on attachment, for instance, suggests that anxiety and avoidance display similar patterns of associations with depressive symptoms to those observed using measures of autonomy and sociotropy (e.g., Bifulco, Moran, Ball, & Lillie, 2002; Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1994; Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998; Hammen et al., 1995). Similarities in prediction are particularly pronounced with regard to stressful events in interpersonal relationships (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, Campbell, Tran, & Wilson, 2003b). Similarly, research within the framework of depressive personality has reported that sociotropy and autonomy predict associations with romantic relationship satisfaction and relationship ideals akin to those observed using measures of attachment (e.g., Kurdek, 2000; Zuroff & de Lorimier, 1989; see also Santor, Pringle, & Israeli, 2000; Vettese & Mongrain, 2000; Zuroff & Duncan, 1999). These two research traditions also tend to offer somewhat similar theoretical predictions when assessing both depression and relationship-related processes. Simpson et al. (2003b), for example, argued that attachment anxiety functioned as a personal vulnerability in that it interacted with perceptions of partner support to predict postnatal depression. Consistent with this personality-as-diathesis hypothesis, Simpson et al. (2003b, p. 1173) stated that attachment security ‘‘should serve as an inner resource that facilitates adjustment to stressful life events and buffers secure individuals from experiencing depressive symptoms.’’

94

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

Consistent with Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2003) model of attachment anxiety and avoidance as reflections of hyperactivating and deactivating strategies used to regulate feelings of insecurity, sociotropic/dependent individuals have been shown to be more concerned with maintaining positive interpersonal relations during conflict-resolution tasks with their romantic partners (Mongrain et al., 1998) and during social interactions with unfamiliar others (Bieling & Alden, 1998). Like those defined as anxiously attached, sociotropic individuals typically perceive their partners as withdrawing, and describe their own behavior in romantic relationships as demanding (Lynch, Robins, & Morse, 2001). Like those defined as avoidant, people high in autonomy/self-criticism, in contrast, have been judged by independent observers to express greater hostility toward their romantic partner during conflict resolution tasks (Mongrain et al., 1998). Autonomous individuals have also been shown to attempt to exit or avoid conflict-related situations (Zuroff & Duncan, 1999), and generally perceive their partners as demanding and their own behaviors as withdrawing (Lynch et al., 2001). In sum then, key findings in both of these relatively disparate literatures indicate that measures of attachment and depressive personality may be integrated to elaborate upon our theoretical understanding and prediction of a range of general interpersonal and attachment-related cognitions and experiences (see also Brennan & Carnelley, 1999; Shaver, Schachner, & Mikulincer, 2005). Toward this goal, a meta-analysis of previous research assessing the relationship between PSI measures of autonomy and sociotropy and dimensional measures of adult attachment is first presented. Two additional studies are then described which elaborate upon the meta-analysis and test additional predictions derived from the framework proposed in Fig. 1. 1.1. Meta-analysis of previous research Research examining the associations between dimensional measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance and PSI measures of sociotropic and autonomous personality-based vulnerabilities within a coherent theoretical framework is limited. To date, only a handful of published studies have reported data on the correlations between these variables (i.e., Davila, 2001, study one; Kurdek, 2000; Murphy & Bates, 1997; Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995; study one and two). To provide preliminary summary information for the proposed framework, a meta-analysis of these five studies was conducted that examined the average strength of associations between sociotropy, autonomy, avoidance and anxiety (total n = 962).2 As shown in Table 2, autonomy and attachment avoidance displayed an average weighted correlation of .51, whereas autonomy and anxiety correlated at .35 on average. Sociotropy and anxiety displayed an average correlation of .42, whereas sociotropy corre2

Research considering the relationship between working models of attachment and dependency (akin to sociotropy) and self-criticism (akin to autonomy) measured using the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ; Blatt, D’Affliti, & Quinlan, 1976) has yielded results that were inconsistent with those reported in studies using the PSI (e.g., Besser & Priel, 2003; see also Whiffen, Aube´, Thompson, & Campbell, 2000). Thus, although the PSI and DEQ may both provide similar and equally valid indicators of personality-based vulnerability to depression (Alden & Bieling, 1996), it appears that the PSI may yield a more clear and consistent pattern of associations with measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance. In the present context, this suggests that the PSI therefore provides a more suitable measure for (a) operationalizing the hypothesized higher-order relational models and (b) assessing the relationship of such dual dimensions with more specific working models of attachment in romantic and close interpersonal relationships (cf. Zuroff & Fitzpatrick, 1995).

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

95

Table 2 Summary information and meta-analysis of studies examining the correlations between PSI measures of autonomy and sociotropy and measures of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance Sample size Associations between variables Autonomy Autonomy Sociotropy Sociotropy Anxiety Sociotropy avoidance anxiety anxiety avoidance avoidance autonomy Davila (2001, study one) Kurdek (2000) Murphy and Bates (1997) Zuroff and Fitzpatrick (1995, study one) Zuroff and Fitzpatrick (1995, study two) Homogeneity statistic (Q) Weighted r

220 128 305

.46 .51 .52

.37 .27 .48

.52 .25 .32

.04 .41 .06

160

.60

.19

.51

.18

149

.47

.31

.52

.17

4.05 .51

13.55* .35

16.74* .42

.33 .33 —

.18 .62 .44

.08

.31

—

—

3.30 .05

* Q was significant at p < .05. r coefficients were transformed to z-scores using the formula: zr = .5 log [(1 + r)/ e (1  r)] then weighted by their df (n P  3) and averaged before being converted back to r. Homogeneity tests were calculated using the formula: Q = dfi(zri  mean zr)2, where Q is distributed as a v2 with k  1 degrees of freedom. Analyses using population correlation coefficients, calculated using the formula: q = r + (r (1  r2))/ (2(n  3)), yielded results that were the same to 2 decimal places in all cases. See Lipsey and Wilson (2001) for an accessible introduction to these meta-analytic procedures.

lated with attachment avoidance at .05. As expected, the results indicate that autonomy and avoidance are moderately to strongly positively correlated, as are sociotropy and anxiety. It appears however, that autonomy and anxiety are also moderately positively correlated. Further analyses of the partial correlation between autonomy and anxiety indicated that these two variables remained moderately positively correlated after controlling for sociotropy, r = .29. Thus it appears that the association between autonomy and attachment anxiety was not explained by their shared association with sociotropy. Analyses also indicated that the sample of correlations between both autonomy and anxiety, and sociotropy and anxiety displayed significantly more variation than would be expected by chance alone, Qs = 13.55 and 16.74, respectively. It is possible that such variation is due to unidentified moderators that may affect the association between these variables. One possible moderator is differences in the measures used to assess attachment anxiety across the studies sampled. Research indicates, for instance, that Bartholomew and Horowitz’s Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) measure of attachment anxiety tends to load relatively weakly on the anxiety dimension assessed by more recently developed multi-item measures of attachment anxiety, whereas RQ avoidance tends to load quite strongly on the same dimension assessed using recent multi-item measures of attachment avoidance (Sibley, Fischer, & Liu, 2005). 2. Study 1 Study 1 elaborated upon the aforementioned meta-analytic findings using two recently developed self-report measures of global working models of romantic attachment. The first sample assessed attachment using Brennan et al.’s (1998) Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire, whereas the second sample used Fraley et al.’s (2000) recent revision, the ECR-R. Initial research using these measures suggests that they

96

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

provide two of the most reliable and valid self-report measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance currently available (Brennan et al., 1998; Fraley et al., 2000; Sibley & Liu, 2004). It is expected that autonomy and romantic attachment avoidance will be moderately positively correlated, as will sociotropy and attachment anxiety. However, autonomy (controlling for sociotropy) should be unrelated to romantic attachment anxiety, and sociotropy (controlling for autonomy) should be unrelated to attachment avoidance. Thus, autonomy will be directly associated with attachment avoidance, whereas sociotropy will not, and sociotropy will be directly associated with attachment anxiety, whereas autonomy will not. These effects should be consistent across both samples. 2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants 2.1.1.1. Sample 1. Participants were 417 undergraduate students who received partial course credit for participation (70% female, mean age = 21 years). Fifty one percent were involved in a romantic relationship, 6% were married, and the remaining 43% were single. Three hundred and thirty nine participants self-identified as New Zealand European/Pakeha (the majority ethnic group in New Zealand), 32 were of Maori or Pacific Nations ancestry, 32 were Asian or Indian, and 14 identified with another ethnic category. 2.1.1.2. Sample 2. The second sample consisted of a further 243 undergraduate students, who also received partial course credit for participation (68% female, mean age = 21 years). Forty seven percent were involved in a romantic relationship, 4% were married, and the remaining 49% were single. One hundred and eighty one participants self-identified as New Zealand European/Pakeha, 20 were of Maori or Pacific Nations ancestry, 17 were Asian or Indian, and 25 identified with another ethnic category. These demographics were comparable to the first sample in terms of age, F (1, 658) = .63, g2 < .001, gender, v2(1, n = 660) = .45, p = .50, and relationship status, v2(2, n = 660) = 3.31, p = .19. 2.1.2. Procedure and materials In both samples, participants first completed Robins et al.’s (1994) PSI measure of autonomy and sociotropy. This scale was introduced as a measure of general personal characteristics, and participants were informed that the statements referred to how they felt and acted in general. The PSI contains 24 items assessing autonomy and 24 assessing sociotropy (see Table 1). Five items were excluded from all analyses due to content overlap as they referred to a particular relationship domain (excluded items: 3, 11, 12, 21, and 28).3 The PSI was administered prior to the ECR/ECR-R to avoid the possibility that completion of more specific items may have biased subsequent general measures of the same or similar constructs (Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991). Attachment anxiety and avoidance in romantic relationships were then assessed using one of two measures. In the first sample, attachment was assessed using Brennan et al.’s (1998) ECR, whereas the second sample used Fraley et al.’s (2000) ECR-R. Consistent with previous research assessing domain-specific models of romantic relationships (e.g., Pierce & Lydon, 2001); the following instructions were given with both attachment measures: ‘‘Please

3

Analyses including these items yielded correlations of a slightly increased but comparable magnitude.

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

97

take a moment to think about your experiences in romantic relationships, including both your previous and current relationship experiences. Please answer the following questions with these experiences in mind.’’ In the second sample, these measures were included as the first section in a larger survey of measures collected as part of separate research project. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). To ensure anonymity, participants placed their survey in a locked cabinet upon completion. 2.1.3. Content overlap Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with direct oblimin rotation was used to explore the possibility of content overlap between avoidance and autonomy, and anxiety and sociotropy. These analyses followed the procedure employed by Lemery, Essex, and Smider (2002), who used EFA to examine content overlap in scales assessing temperament and behavior problem symptoms in children. In both samples, clear two factor solutions were observed in which anxiety and sociotropy loaded on separate factors. In Sample 1 all anxiety items loaded on the first factor (loadings >.30 on the first factor, <.30 on the second factor) and all sociotropy items loaded on the second factor (loadings >.30 on the second factor, <.30 on the first factor), with the exception of one sociotropy item which loaded on the anxiety factor. In Sample 2, all anxiety items loaded on the first factor and all sociotropy items loaded on the second factor, with the exception of one anxiety item which cross-loaded on both factors. Comparable analyses assessing avoidance and autonomy also yielded clear two factor solutions in both samples. In Sample 1 all avoidance items loaded on the first factor (loadings >.30 on the first factor, <.30 on the second factor) and all autonomy items loaded on the second factor (loadings >.30 on the second factor, <.30 on the first factor). A similar pattern of results was observed in the second sample with all avoidance items loading on the first factor and all autonomy items loading on the second factor, with the exception that two autonomy items loaded on the first factor, and a further two autonomy items did not load on either factor (loadings <.30). These results suggest that sociotropy and anxiety, and autonomy and avoidance, represent distinct constructs that are not confounded by overlap in item content.4 2.2. Results 2.2.1. Associations between the PSI and the ECR/ECR-R Table 3 presents zero-order correlations between autonomy, sociotropy, and domainspecific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance assessed using the ECR (bottom diagonal) and ECR-R (top diagonal). The magnitude of the associations between avoidance and autonomy (controlling for sociotropy) and anxiety and sociotropy (controlling for autonomy) were examined using partial correlations. Autonomy (controlling for sociotropy) was moderately positively correlated with avoidance in both samples, r (414) = .43, p < .05, r (240) = .46, p < .05. Once sociotropy was controlled for, autonomy was significantly more weakly related to anxiety,

4

All subsequent analyses remained comparable when items that cross-loaded or loaded on the wrong factor were excluded.

98

Scale

1.

2.

3.

4.

3a.

3b.

3c.

4a.

4b.

4c.

1. Domain-specific romantic avoidance 2. Domain-specific romantic anxiety 3. Autonomy 4. Sociotropy 3a. Defensive separation 3b. Need for control 3c. Perfectionism/self-criticism 4a. Concern for what others think 4b. Dependency 4c. Pleasing others

— .07 .42* .03 .49* .31* .09 .08 .18* .08

.40* — .25* .48* .14* .22* .28* .47* .40* .28*

.42* .25* — .23* .88* .79* .61* .27* .01 .21*

.10 .43* .22* — .06 .20* .41* .87* .61* .83*

.48* .13 .86* .01 — .51* .32* .12 .17* .11

.26* .23* .79* .19 .49* — .36* .21* .09 .14

.07 .29* .52* .54* .15 .31* — .42* .18* .33*

.05 .48* .26* .90* .03 .23* .53* — .46* .53*

.16 .27* .09 .69* .21* .28* .40* .57*  .21*

.08 .32* .18* .87* .07 .03 .41* .65* .36* —

Sample 1 M SD a

2.16 1.09 .90

2.77 1.07 .91

3.01 .71 .83

3.57 .76 .85

2.82 .70 .77

2.95 .84 .67

2.95 .84 .62

3.56 1.03 .81

3.50 .99 .61

3.75 1.07 .79

Sample 2 M SD a

1.90 .99 .95

2.26 1.04 .93

3.47 .75 .83

2.89 .64 .87

2.73 .81 .80

2.85 .77 .68

3.40 1.01 .70

3.46 .91 .80

3.51 1.05 .60

3.47 .83 .78

(Sample 1 ECR correlations are displayed on the bottom diagonal, Sample 2 ECR-R correlations are displayed on the top diagonal). * p < .05; Sample 1, n = 417, Sample 2, n = 243.

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations between domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance and personality-based interpersonal dispositions toward autonomy and sociotropy (measured using the PSI)

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

99

Table 4 Standardized regression coefficients (bs) of the associations between PSI measures of personality-based interpersonal dispositions toward autonomy and sociotropy and ECR (Sample 1) and ECR-R (Sample 2) measures of domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance Scale

Domain-specific attachment avoidance (controlling for anxiety)

Domain-specific attachment anxiety (controlling for avoidance)

Sample 1

Average

Sample 1

Sample 2

Average

.40* .09 .05

.10 .06 .04

.15 .08 .03

.01 .07 .02

.01 .13 .03

.28* .27* .04

.43* .02 .09

.34* .18 .06

.29*

.27*

.28*

Autonomy Defensive separation Need for control Perfectionism/Self-criticism

.39* .14 .11

Sociotropy Concern for what others think Dependency Pleasing others

.10 .17 .03

R2 *

.25*

Sample 2 .41* .01 .05 .21 .06 .13 .26*

. 25*

p < .05; Sample 1, n = 417, Sample 2, n = 243.

r (414) = .16, p < .05, r (240) = .17, p < .05, zs < 1.96. Sociotropy (controlling for autonomy) was moderately positively correlated with anxiety in both samples, r (414) = .45, p < .05, r(240) = .40, p < .05. Once autonomy was controlled for, sociotropy was significantly more weakly correlated with avoidance, r (414) = .08, p = .11, r (240) = .22, p < .05, zs < 1.96. Consistent with predictions, these results indicated that autonomy (controlling for sociotropy) correlated on average at .44 with avoidance and at .16 with anxiety, whereas sociotropy (controlling for autonomy) correlated on average at .43 with anxiety and at .13 with avoidance. A series of multiple regressions were also conducted to further examine the unique variance in ECR and ECR-R measures of domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance predicted by the different aspects of autonomy and sociotropy identified by Robins et al. (1994). As shown in Table 4, the ECR measure of avoidance was related to the defensive separation component of autonomous personality. The ECR measure of anxiety, in contrast, was associated with the concern for what others think and dependency components of sociotropic personality. The ECR-R yielded comparable results, in which attachment avoidance was related to defensive separation, and attachment anxiety was related to concern for what others think. Following Murphy and Bates’ (1997) analyses of the relationship between domain-specific romantic attachment prototypes and depressive personality, hierarchical multiple regression was used to examine the possible interactive (i.e., moderated) effects of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance on autonomy and sociotropy. Such tests provide a method for assessing the possible effects of the attachment prototypes theorized to underlie the intersection of attachment anxiety and avoidance (Aiken & West, 1991; see Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996; for further discussion of this issue in the attachment literature). In both samples, the multiplicative interaction of romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance failed to predict additional variance in either autonomy or sociotropy beyond that already explained by the linear combination of these two dimensions of attachment, DR2s < .005. Thus, it appears that the relationship between attachment and personality dispositions toward autonomy and sociotropy (in non-clinical populations at least) may be

100

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

more parsimoniously explained by simple main effects reflecting dimensions of anxiety and avoidance, rather than through the interactive effects of these two dimensions. 2.3. Discussion Meta-analysis of previous research using a range of different measures of attachment, along with analysis of two samples using the recently developed and validated ECR and ECR-R attachment scales provided preliminary support for the predicted associations between working models of attachment and depressive personality. Namely, autonomy and attachment avoidance were uniquely positively associated, as were sociotropy and attachment anxiety. Indeed, in both samples, these partial correlations (weighted rs = .44, and .43, respectively) were greater than the average correlations between ratings of attachment toward parents and romantic partners (r = .31) reported by Crowell, Fraley, and Shaver (1999). Furthermore, and also consistent with predictions, autonomy and attachment anxiety were weakly correlated in the range of r = .10–.15 (when controlling for sociotropy), as were sociotropy and attachment avoidance (when controlling for autonomy). 3. Study 2 The results reported in Study 1 and observed through meta-analysis of previous research lend support to an operational definition of autonomy and sociotropy as more global and highly abstracted versions of the same two dimensions identified in the literature on adult attachment. Study 2 sought to extend these preliminary findings by testing the premise that if autonomy and sociotropy do indeed represent ‘general representations about people and the self abstracted from a range of relationships,’ then they should relate to a range of person-specific relational models of particular others, such as a particular romantic partner, close platonic friend, or parent at comparable magnitudes (see Doherty and Feeney, 2004; for discussion of the importance of these relationship types in young adulthood). Conversely, traditional measures of romantic attachment such as the ECR and ECR-R, which assess domain-specific models of romantic relationships as a general category or relationship type should correlate more strongly with person-specific models of particular romantic partners that they do with person-specific models of close platonic friends. Mediational effects were also expected, with measures of attachment in the romantic relationship domain fully mediating the association between more abstracted and global relational models (assessed using measures of autonomy and sociotropy) and person-specific models of particular persons within that relationship domain (in this case a particular romantic partner). Such effects should, however, be domain-specific. Thus, domain-specific models of romantic relationships should not mediate the association between global relational models and more specific person-specific models of a close platonic friend. In the present context, these latter two models should instead be directly related. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants Participants were 101 undergraduate students (78% female, mean age = 21 years) involved in a romantic relationship (8 married, 93 romantically involved) who received

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

101

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and correlations between PSI measures of autonomy and sociotropy, ECR-R measures of domain-specific romantic attachment, and person-specific measures of attachment toward one’s current romantic partners and closest platonic friend Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Autonomy Sociotropy Domain-specific romantic avoidance Domain-specific romantic anxiety Person-specific avoidance (romantic partner) Person-specific anxiety (romantic partner) Person-specific avoidance (close friend) Person-specific anxiety (close friend)

M SD a *

1 .31* .41* .34* .34* .23 .29* .15 2.85 .65 .83

2

3

4

5

6

.07 .50* .01 .33* .10 .31*

.31* .69* .18 .13 .04

.38* .74* .10 .21

.36* .03 .11

.09 .28*

3.46 .77 .88

1.45 .79 .92

1.81 .90 .91

.80 .74 .82

1.14 1.18 .65

7

8

.26* 2.00 1.11 .60

1.59 1.29 .72

p < .05, n = 101.

partial course credit for participation (mean length of romantic relationship = 6.1 months). Sixty nine participants self-identified as New Zealand European/Pakeha, 9 were of Maori or Pacific Nations ancestry, 5 were Asian or Indian, and 18 people identified with another ethnic category. 3.1.2. Procedure Participants first completed the PSI measure of autonomy and sociotropy and ECR-R measures of domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety and avoidance following the procedure described in Study 1. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 5. Participants’ attachments toward their current romantic partner and closest platonic friend were then assessed using reworded items from the ECR-R. In both cases, person-specific attachment anxiety was assessed using the following three items: ‘I often worry that this person doesn’t care about me as much as I care about him/her,’ ‘I find that this person does not want to get as emotionally close to me as I would like,’ ‘I worry that I won’t measure up to this person.’ Person-specific attachment avoidance was assessed using the following items: ‘I prefer not to show this person how I feel deep down,’ ‘I find it relatively easy to get close to this person,’ ‘I feel comfortable depending on this person.’ These items were selected using two criteria (a) they could be easily reworded to refer to specific others without notably altering their wording, and (b) they reflected a range of the item discrimination values reported by Fraley et al. (2000). 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Associations between the PSI and the ECR-R Table 5 presents zero-order correlations between autonomy, sociotropy, domain-specific representations of romantic attachment, and person-specific measures of attachment.5 5

All analyses remained comparable when romantic relationship duration was entered as a covariate.

102

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

Consistent with Study 1, autonomy (controlling for sociotropy) was moderately positively correlated with domain-specific romantic avoidance, r (98) = .46, p < .05, and significantly more weakly related to anxiety, r (98) = .22, p = .03, z < 1.96. Sociotropy (controlling for autonomy) was moderately positively correlated with domain-specific romantic anxiety, r(98) = .45, p < .05, and significantly more weakly related to avoidance, r (98) = .22, p = .02, z < 1.96. As shown in Table 5, levels of avoidance in both one’s current romantic relationship and closest platonic friendship were both moderately positively correlated with autonomy, rs = approximately .30, whereas attachment anxiety in these two relationships correlated with sociotropy at comparable magnitudes, rs = approximately .30. Domain-specific romantic avoidance was strongly positively correlated with person-specific avoidance in one’s current romantic relationship, r = .69, and significantly more weakly related to person-specific avoidance in one’s closest platonic friendship, r = .13, z < 1.96. Similarly, domain-specific romantic anxiety was strongly positively correlated with person-specific anxiety in one’s current romantic relationship, r = .74, and significantly more weakly related to person-specific attachment anxiety in one’s closest platonic friendship, r = .21, z < 1.96. 3.2.2. Mediational effects The mediating effects of domain-specific models of romantic relationships on the association between more abstracted global (personality-level) relational models and personspecific models of particular close others were examined using Structural Equation Modeling. Hu and Bentler (1999) argued that it is important to consider both the standardized Root Mean square Residual (sRMR; a residual-based fit index) and one or more index of comparative fit, such as the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), or Comparative Fit Index (CFI) when considering the overall adequacy of a structural equation model. sRMR values below .08 and CFI, NNFI, and GFI indices above .95 are considered indicative of good-fitting models (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 3.2.2.1. Sociotropy and attachment anxiety. The hypothesized model (shown in Fig. 2), in which domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety mediated the association between sociotropy and person-specific attachment anxiety in one’s current romantic relationship but not one’s closest platonic friendship provided an acceptable fit to the observed data, v2(3, n = 101) = 5.86; GFI = .97; NNFI = .95; CFI = .97; sRMR = .06. Consistent with predictions, and as shown in Table 6, the association between sociotropy and person-specific anxiety in one’s current romantic relationship was fully mediated by domain-specific

Fig. 2. Structural equation model examining the mediating effects of domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety on the association between sociotropy and person-specific anxiety in one’s current romantic relationship and closest platonic friendship. (Standard errors displayed in parentheses, *p < .05.)

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

103

Table 6 Total and indirect (mediated) effects for the relationship between global relational models (autonomy and sociotropy) and person-specific models of a particular a romantic partner or close platonic friend Total effect

Sociotropy fi Person-specific anxiety in current romantic relationship (mediated by domain-specific romantic anxiety) Sociotropy fi Person-specific anxiety in closest platonic friendship (mediated by domain-specific romantic anxiety) Autonomy fi Person-specific avoidance in current romantic relationship (mediated by domain-specific romantic avoidance) Autonomy fi Person-specific avoidance in closest platonic friendship (mediated by domain-specific romantic avoidance) *

Indirect (mediated) effect

b

z

z

.37

5.12*

.37

5.12*

100

.31

3.22*

.03

.62

—

.28

4.06*

.28

4.06*

100

.29

3.06*

.12

2.46*

41

b

% of total effect

p < .05.

romantic attachment anxiety, b for indirect effect = .37. Further consistent with predictions, sociotropy was, in contrast, directly related to person-specific anxiety in one’s closest platonic friendship at a comparable magnitude, b for direct effect = .31. This effect was not mediated by domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety, which was unrelated to ratings of person-specific anxiety in this particular relationship. Post hoc model modification indices failed to reveal any other paths that significantly improved model fit. An alternative model in which sociotropy and domain-specific romantic attachment anxiety were switched so that sociotropy mediated the relationship between domain-specific romantic anxiety and person-specific anxiety in one’s current romantic relationship was also considered. This alternative model provided a markedly worse fit, v2(3, n = 101) = 55.48; GFI = .78; NNFI = .42; CFI = .29; sRMR = .21, which was due primarily to the unmodeled direct effect of domain-specific attachment romantic anxiety on person-specific romantic anxiety that was unaccounted for by sociotropy. 3.2.2.2. Autonomy and attachment avoidance. The hypothesized model examining autonomy and attachment avoidance was partially supported (refer to Fig. 3). Consistent with predictions, domain-specific romantic attachment avoidance fully mediated the relationship between autonomy and person-specific avoidance in one’s current romantic relationship, b for indirect effect = .28 (see Table 6). As also expected, autonomy was directly

Fig. 3. Structural equation model examining the mediating effects of domain-specific romantic attachment avoidance on the association between autonomy and person-specific avoidance in one’s current romantic relationship and closest platonic friendship. (Standard errors displayed in parentheses, the dashed line shows a non-predicted path, *p < .05.)

104

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

related to person-specific avoidance in one’s closest platonic friendship, b for direct effect = .41. However, post hoc model modification indices identified a significant path between participants’ domain-specific attachment avoidance in romantic relationships and person-specific avoidance in their relationship with their closest friend. The inclusion of this additional path significantly improved model fit, v2d:ff ð1Þ ¼ 8:02, p < .05, and suggested that domain-specific romantic attachment avoidance may have partially mediated the association between autonomy and person-specific avoidance in one’s closest platonic friendship, b for indirect effect = .12. This revised model provided an excellent fit to the observed data, v2(2, n = 101) = .91; GFI = 1.00; NNFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; sRMR = .02. The unexpected indirect negative effect of autonomy on person-specific avoidance in one’s closest friendship points to a potentially complex relationship in which high levels of autonomy directly predict high levels of person-specific attachment avoidance in that friendship on the one hand, whereas high levels of domain-specific attachment avoidance in romantic relationships may also lead to decreased levels of person-specific avoidance in platonic friendships. However, due to its unexpected nature, this indirect effect should be interpreted with caution until further research examining this issue has been conducted. An alternative model in which autonomy and domain-specific romantic avoidance were switched was also considered. This model provided a notably worse fit than the hypothesized model, v2 (2, n = 101) = 41.65; GFI = .83; NNFI = .94; CFI = .35; sRMR = .18, which was due primarily to the unmodeled direct effect of domain-specific romantic avoidance on person-specific romantic avoidance unaccounted for by autonomy. 3.3. Discussion The second study replicated and elaborated upon the results observed in Study 1. Consistent with predictions, autonomy correlated with person-specific measures of avoidance in both participants’ current romantic relationship and their closest platonic friendship at comparable magnitudes, rs of around .30. Sociotropy displayed similar associations with person-specific attachment anxiety across these same two relationships. Domain-specific models of romantic relationships were, in contrast, highly correlated with person-specific models of one’s current romantic relationship, rs of around .70, and significantly more weakly related to person-specific models of one’s closest platonic friendship, rs of around .10. Structural Equation Modeling provided further support for the proposed hierarchical framework, indicating that models of different relationship domains may act as the mechanism through which more global (personality-level) models (operationalized using measures of sociotropy and autonomy) relate to more specific models of particular persons within that domain. This was evidenced by findings that domain-specific models of romantic relationships fully mediated the association between global and person-specific models of one’s current romantic relationship, but not those referring to one’s closest platonic friendship. 4. General discussion The present research lends support to an operational definition of autonomy and attachment avoidance as respective global (personality-level) and domain-specific relational models indicative of variation in the degree to which people seek out or avoid closeness with others at varying levels of relational specificity. Similarly, these results suggest that

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

105

sociotropy and attachment anxiety may be operationalized as hierarchically organized components of the other half of this cognitive subsystem, which reflects variation in the degree to which people worry about or are content in their social relations. As various authors have alluded, a measure operationalizing this most abstracted level of cognitive representation within the framework of attachment theory has been lacking in the existing literature (e.g., Baldwin, 1992; Baldwin, Keelan, Fehr, Enns, & KohRangarajoo, 1996; Collins & Allard, 2001; Collins & Read, 1994). The present study identified one instrument, Robins et al.’s (1994) PSI, which it is argued may be used to operationalize such models. The measurement and operational definitions of these most global and abstracted relational models presented here is consistent with both previous theoretical reviews (e.g., Collins & Allard, 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) and research that has estimated similar higher-order latent constructs using hierarchical CFA to parsimoniously explain the covariance between both person- and relationshipspecific measures of attachment (Overall et al., 2003). Consistent with the conceptual framework proposed in Fig. 1, Overall et al. (2003, p. 1482), for example, argued that the higher-order latent variables modeled in their research were indicative of a ‘‘default, or automatic representation, which individuals are likely to use most frequently in times of stress, low availability of cognitive resources, or with unknown and ambiguous relationship partners.’’ The distinction between global and specific components of a cognitive hierarchy of relational models is also consistent with more general models of the hierarchical organization of personality (e.g., Paunonen, 1998). Within the context of personality research, one might argue for example, that autonomy and sociotropy represent broad-bandwidth indices of the same more narrow-bandwidth constructs commonly assessed using measures of romantic attachment avoidance and anxiety. In this sense, it is possible that the tendency to adopt hyperactivating and deactivating strategies thought to be indexed by measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance may reflect more specific aspects of the if. . .then. . . behavioral signatures of personality discussed by Mischel and Shoda (1995, 1999). 5. Conclusion and future research directions Research on attachment and personality diatheses of depression have both been the subject of considerable research over the years. Numerous self-report measures have been developed in both of these literatures over the years. The current research sought to provide a theoretical framework integrating widely used and well validated measures from each domain, Fraley et al.’s (2000) ECR-R measures of attachment anxiety and avoidance, and Robins et al.’s (1994) PSI measure of autonomy and sociotropy. As such, the framework presented here provides an avenue for the integration of these two disparate literatures using measures that are already widely used in their respective areas. At the same time however, future research integrating these two domains might benefit considerably from the development of scales that use the same item stems to assess different domains of interpersonal relationship (e.g., person-specific models, models of different relationship domains, and global personality-level models). Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) RQ might provide a useful starting point for the development of such scales, as the RQ has been used in this way with some success (e.g., Pierce & Lydon, 2001). The development of multi-item scales that improve upon the reliability of RQ would seem to remain necessary, however (Sibley et al., 2005).

106

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

The theoretical framework and preliminary results presented in this paper implicate the effects of both specific (person- and domain-specific) and global (personality-level) relational models in the subjective experience of social interactions and resulting interpersonal attributions (see also Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000; Pierce & Lydon, 2001). Future research could elaborate upon and further test predictions derived from the framework outlined in Fig. 1 by examining the degree to which the relationship- and personality-level elements of relational models display additive and interactive effects in the prediction of experiences in social interactions with close versus non-close others (see also Fleeson, 2001; Paunonen, 1998). It may be, for example, that domain-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance predict individual differences in the experience of social interactions involving romantic partners and close others, whereas sociotropy and autonomy predict subjective experiences of interactions with non-close and less familiar others (Sibley & Liu, 2006). Findings of this nature would elaborate upon Crowell et al.’s (1999, p. 458) suggestion that the ‘‘[attachment behavioral] system can be organized or calibrated differently for different relationships or for different kinds of relationships’’ and help to establish the boundaries of the attachment behavioral system in close (i.e., attachment) and less close (non-attachment) relationships. Future longitudinal research could also consider the possible causal relationships between global and more specific relational models over time. Although the models presented in Study 2 are consistent with a casual model in which more general personality traits predict attachment anxiety and avoidance, this data was correlational in nature. Theoretical models proposed in the literature on depression, for instance implicate bottom-up processes, with insecure attachments to primary caregivers (highly specific models) theorized to lead to sociotropic and autonomous personality vulnerabilities later in life (Blatt & Homann, 1992; Thompson & Zuroff, 1999). Conversely, Pierce and Lydon (2001) reported that person- and relationship-level models displayed reciprocal top-down and bottom-up effects with global models influencing more specific models over time and vice-versa in adulthood. Research is also needed to more full integrate theoretical models of personality and attachment system functioning. Mischel and Shoda’s (1995, 1999) cognitive-affective system theory of personality and Mikulincer and Shaver’s (2003) model of the attachment behavioral system both offer important insights into the functioning of personality and attachment style in interpersonal settings. It is hoped that the theoretical framework and (re-)conceptualization of autonomous and sociotropic interpersonal dispositions as personality-level relational models presented here may provide a productive avenue for research elaborating upon such issues, and may thus aid in the resolution of remaining ‘‘tension in [the] literature regarding whether attachment styles reflect general interpersonal dispositions or are specifically manifest in close relationships’’ commented upon by various authors in recent years (e.g., Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000, p. 158). References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications. Alden, L. E., & Bieling, P. J. (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality constructs in dynamic and cognitive models of depression. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 60–75. Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

107

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P., 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. Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: new perspectives. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barrett (Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265–290). New York: Raven Press. Besser, A., & Priel, B. (2003). A multisource approach to self-critical vulnerability to depression: the moderating role of attachment. Journal of Personality, 71, 515–555. Bieling, P. J., & Alden, L. E. (1998). Cognitive-interpersonal patterns in dysphoria: The impact of sociotropy and autonomy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22, 161–178. Bifulco, A., Moran, P. M., Ball, C., & Lillie, A. (2002). Adult attachment style. II: its relationship to psychosocial depressive-vulnerability. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37, 60–67. Blatt, S. J., D’Affliti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in young adults. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 383–389. Blatt, S. J., & Homann, E. (1992). Parent-child interaction in the etiology of dependent and self-critical depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 47–91. Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: aetiology and psychopathology in light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201–210. Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock. Brennan, K. A., & Carnelley, K. B. (1999). Using meaning to mend holes in the nomological net of excessive reassurance seeking and depression. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 282–285. 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. Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working models of others, and relationship functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 127–140. Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: the content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 60–85). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 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. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 53–90). London: Jessica Kingsley. Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1380–1397. Coyne, J. C., & Whiffen, V. E. (1995). Issues in personality as diathesis for depression: the case of sociotropydependency and autonomy-self-criticism. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 358–378. Cozzarelli, C., Hoekstra, S. J., & Bylsma, W. H. (2000). General versus specific mental models of attachment: are they associated with different outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 605–618. Crittenden, P. M. (1990). Internal representational models of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11, 259–277. Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 434–465). New York: Guilford Press. Davila, J. (2001). Refining the association between excessive reassurance seeking and depressive symptoms: the role of related interpersonal constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 538–559. Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011–1027. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. Hammen, C. L., Burge, D., Daley, S. E., Davila, J., Paley, B., & Rudolph, K. D. (1995). Interpersonal attachment cognitions and prediction of symptomatic responses to interpersonal stress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 436–443.

108

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations (6 Ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kurdek, L. A. (2000). The link between sociotropy/autonomy and dimensions of relationship commitment: evidence from gay and lesbian couples. Personal Relationships, 7, 153–164. Lemery, K. S., Essex, M. J., & Smider, N. A. (2002). Revealing the relation between temperament and behavior problem symptoms by eliminating measurement confounding: expert ratings and factor analysis. Child Development, 73, 867–882. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage. Lynch, T. R., Robins, C. J., & Morse, J. Q. (2001). Couple functioning in depression: The roles of autonomy and sociotropy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57, 93–103. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 53–152). New York: Academic Press. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics within a unified theory of personality: the cognitive-affective personality system. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press. Mongrain, M., Vettese, L. C., Shuster, B., & Kendal, N. (1998). Perceptual biases, affect, and behavior in the relationships of dependents and self-critics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 230–241. Murphy, B., & Bates, G. W. (1997). Adult attachment style and vulnerability to depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 835–844. Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1479–1493. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 538–556. Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631. Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to others. Review of general psychology, 4, 155–175. Robins, C. J., Ladd, J., Welkowitz, J., Blaney, P. H., Diaz, R., & Kutcher, G. (1994). The Personal Style Inventory: preliminary validation studies of new measures of sociotropy and autonomy. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 277–300. Santor, D. A., Pringle, J. D., & Israeli, A. L. (2000). Enhancing and disrupting cooperative behavior in couples: effects of dependency and self-criticism following favorable and unfavorable performance feedback. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 379–397. Shaver, P. R., Collins, N., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Attachment styles and internal working models of self and relationship partners. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 25–61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161. Shaver, P. R., Schachner, D. A., & Mikulincer, M. (2005). Attachment style, excessive reassurance seeking, relationship processes, and depression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 343–359. Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Revised Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure of adult romantic attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1524–1536. Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal stability and factor structure of the revised experiences in close relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 969–975. Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2006). Working models of romantic attachment and the subjective quality of social interactions across relational contexts. Personal Relationships, 13, 243–259. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., Tran, S., & Wilson, C. L. (2003b). Adult attachment, the transition to parenthood, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1172–1187.

C.G. Sibley / Journal of Research in Personality 41 (2007) 90–109

109

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Phillips, D. (1996). Conflict in close relationships: an attachment perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 899–914. Thompson, R., & Zuroff, D. C. (1999). Development of self-criticism in adolescent girls: roles of maternal dissatisfaction, maternal coldness, and insecure attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 197–210. Vettese, L. C., & Mongrain, M. (2000). Communication about the self and partner in the relationships of dependents and self-critics. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 609–626. Whiffen, V. E., Aube´, J. A., Thompson, J. M., & Campbell, T. L. (2000). Attachment beliefs and interpersonal contexts associated with dependency and self-criticism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 184–205. Zuroff, D. C., & de Lorimier, S. (1989). Ideal and actual romantic partners of women varying in dependency and self-criticism. Journal of Personality, 57, 825–846. Zuroff, D. C., & Duncan, N. (1999). Self-criticism and conflict resolution in romantic couples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 31, 137–149. Zuroff, D. C., & Fitzpatrick, D. K. (1995). Depressive personality styles: implications for adult attachment. Personality and Individual Differences, 18, 253–265. Zuroff, D. C., Mongrain, M., & Santor, D. A. (2004). Conceptualizing and measuring personality vulnerability to depression: comment on Coyne and Whiffen (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 130, 489–511.