Attachment Related Affective Arousal and
Adolescent Outcomes
Maryfrances R. Porter
Department of Psychology
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia
ABSTRACT
Attachment theory is based, in part, on infants internalizing the ability
to manage affect via their experience of consistent parental availability,
sensitivity, and responsiveness. Individuals who do not experience
consistent parental care likely develop maladaptive strategies for
managing affective arousal. If affective arousal goes unregulated
(hyperactivated arousal), adolescent and adult peer relationships may be
characterized by worry about the reliability of others and difficulties
managing intimacy and navigating close relationships. This study used a
multi-method, multi-reporter design to test hypotheses that
hyperactivated attachment-related arousal is associated with maladaptive
psychosocial functioning during adolescence. Findings indicated that that
teens with hyperactivated arousal may lack insight regarding their
interpersonal competence, may primarily use intimacy as an avenue for
communicating with close friends, and may need a great deal of emotional
support. The close friends of these teens are unable to fully understand
teens’ needs. Implications and limitations are discussed.
I would like to thank the National Institute of Mental Health for funding provided to Joseph
P. Allen, Principal Investigator, (Grant #R01 MH58066) to conduct this project. The analysis
and write-up for this study were additionally supported by a National Science Foundation
Graduate Fellowship awarded to Maryfrances R. Porter.
INTRODUCTION
Attachment theory is based, in part, on infants internalizing the
ability to manage affect via their experience of consistent parental
availability, sensitivity, and responsiveness (Bowlby, 1982). Children
developing dismissing attachment organizations may hyperregulate their
attachment needs, deactivate their affective arousal, and rarely send out
distress signals (Kobak & Cole, 1994). Resistant children may
underregulate their attachments needs, hyperactivate their affective
arousal, and repeatedly send out distress signals (Kobak & Cole, 1994).
Kobak and Sceery (1988) found that late adolescents who used
hyperactivating strategies described themselves as distressed, and peers
described them as anxious, ruminating, and worried about personal
inadequacy. Especially for individuals with preoccupied attachment
organizations, peer relationships may be characterized by worry about
the reliability of others, difficulty managing intimacy, and generally poor
interpersonal skills (reviewed by Bartholomew et. al., 1997 and Hazan &
Shaver, 1994). Insecure children are also less tolerant of frustration and
are unable to appropriately label and share affective/emotional
information (Greenberg et. al., 1988). Since an inability to manage affect
has been associated with poor interpersonal competence (Bartle-Haring &
Sabatelli, 1997), individuals with hyperactivating strategies/preoccupied
attachment organizations are conceptualized as being unable to manage
their own affective distress and, therefore, as having difficulty navigating
close relationships.
HYPOTHESES
Although attachment organization has been consistently related to
psychosocial functioning (reviewed by Erickson et al., 1985; Allen et al,
1998), we know strikingly little about the mechanisms of attachment
organization. This study considers hypotheses that anxious attachmentrelated-affective arousal (i.e., hyperactivated arousal) is associated with
maladaptive psychosocial functioning during adolescence.
Specifically, this study will consider the following hypotheses:
(1)
For adolescents with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal,
there will be a disconnect between adolescents’ and peers’
perceptions of adolescents’ interpersonal competence. Specifically,
teens will lack insight into the quality of their interpersonal skills.
(2)
Adolescents with hyperactivated attachment-related arousal will
demonstrate maladaptive behaviors when interacting with peers
including difficulty managing intimacy and communicating
emotionally-laden information.
PARTICIPANTS
Data were collected as part of a larger, longitudinal, multi-method,
multi-reporter, study of a socioeconomically diverse sample of adolescents
(N = 157). Measures reported in this study were administered when teens
were about 13 years old (mean = 13.35, SD = .63). Attachment-related
affective arousal was measured one year later when teens were about 14
years old (mean = 14.27, SD = .76).a
Gender
N
Males
77
Females
80
Race/Ethnicity (self-identified at Wave 1)
Caucasian
98
African American
41
Other Minority Group
18
Family Income (from the 1st year the study was conducted)
Mean
a
$30,000 - $39,000 (range ≤ $5,000 to > $60,000)
Note: Attachment-related affective arousal was measured at the time Adult Attachment
Interviews (AAIs) were administered. All AAIs were administered when teens were 14 years old.
Because of the longitudinal design of the larger study, half the teens were given the AAI the 2nd
year they participated in the study while the other half were given the AAI the 3rd year they
participated in the study. For the purpose of this study, these two groups were collapsed so that
all independent measures are from the year prior to when the AAI was administered.
MEASURES
 Attachment-Related Affective Arousal was assessed using a 5-item, selfreport measure administered directly before and after the Adult
Attachment Interview (Main & Goldwyn, 1991) when teens were 14
years old. Five negatively and 3 positively-valenced items were rated on
a 100mm visual analog scale from “None At All” to “Very!” Each
teen’s relative change in arousal is computed by subtracting preinterview ratings from post-interview ratings. Higher scores thus
reflect greater arousal after the interview. The first time the measure is
completed, teens are not told they are about to be given the interview.
Cronbach’s’s alphas for anxious arousal pre and post are both = .72.
 Observed Qualities of Interactions with Peers were assessed when teens
were 13 years old using the Supportive Behavior Coding System (Allen
et al., in preparation). The teen and a close friend discussed a problem
with which teen requested support. Two trained raters coded each
interaction.
 Reported Qualities of Peer Relationships were gathered from teens
and peers using the Inventory for Peer Attachment (Armsden &
Greenburg, 1989). Teens reported about the quality of their
interactions with friends, and close friends reported about the quality
of teens’ interactions. Cronbach’s alphas for communication scales
range: .88 - .92.
RESULTS
 Table 1 provides the simple correlations as well as means and
standard deviations for all variables in this study.
 Hypothesis 1: Teens who were more anxious after the AAI
reported that they were good communicators with their friends (
= .19, p  .05, Table 2). However, their close friends reported that
teens were poor communicators ( = -.25, p  .01, Table 3).
 Hypothesis 2: Teens who were more anxious after the AAI were
observed to self-disclose more personal information and ask for
more emotional support from their friends (respectively:  = .22, p
 .05, Table 4;  = .20, p  .05, Table 5). However, their close
friends were generally unable to understand the teens’ problem
very well ( = -.27, p  .01, Table 6).
DISCUSSION
 When teens reported more attachment-related anxiety, there was a
disconnect between teens’ and peers’ perceptions of teens’
communication skills. These findings support the hypothesis that teens
with hyperactivated arousal may lack insight regarding their
interpersonal competence. Alternatively, teens’ higher scores may
reflect a wish for better communication with peers or an attempt to
appear socially skilled when, in fact, they may be particularly worried
about their interpersonal competence.
 When teens reported more attachment-related anxiety, they were
observed to share more intimate and emotional information with
peers than teens reporting less anxiety. Additionally, peers of anxious
teens were generally unable to fully understand the teens’ problems.
These findings indicate that teens with hyperactivated attachmentrelated arousal predominantly use intimacy as an avenue for
communicating with friends and request more emotional support from
friends. However, consistent with above findings, the effectiveness of
teens’ communication was questionable given that peers appear to be
unable to fully understand teens’ needs. Sharing of intimate and
emotional information may not be an effective way for these teens to get
their needs met. Alternatively, hyperactivating teens may select friends
who are poor sources of support, perhaps completing a self-fulfilling
expectation that their needs will not get met.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings suggest that teens with hyperactivated attachmentrelated arousal (perhaps those teens with preoccupied attachment
organizations) have maladaptive interpersonal skills – especially when it
comes to communicating their needs. These teens may also be poor judges
of their interpersonal skills, believing (or wishing) themselves to be more
competent than they really are. Consistent with previous research,
hyperactivating teens appear to be unable to negotiate intimacy in their
relationships, sharing more personal information than other teens, and
looking to peers for emotional support. These behaviors may reflect a
greater need for emotional support, but also may reflect an inability to
effectively manage intimacy in close relationships. Eventually, friendships
of hyperactivating teens may become strained as the disconnect between
teens’ and peers’ perceptions of the teens’ behavior may be a source of
stress and teens fail to get their emotional needs adequately met.
This research is most clearly limited by the absence of ratings of
teens’ attachment organizations; thus, the conclusions presented here are
tentative and clearly speculative. As these data become available, the
analyses presented will be reviewed and the conclusions revised. At that
time, additional information regarding the relationships of
dismissing/deactivating and secure teens also may be explored. Future
research will also incorporate analyses of these relationships as they
change over time.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P., Hall, F., Marsh, P., Insebella, G., Schlatter, A., & Porter, M. R. (2001). Supportive behavior
coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial
functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406-1419.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1989). Inventory of parent and peer attachment: Revised manual.
Unpublished revised version. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Batholomew, K., Cobb, R. J., & Poole, J. A. (1997). Adult attachment patterns and social support processes.
In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, &B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and
personality. (pp. 359-378). Plenum Press: New York.
Bartle-Haring, S., & Sabatelli, R. M. (1997). Emotional reactivity toward parents and interpersonal
competence: Differences across gender and type of relationship. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26,
399-414.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol.1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Originally published
in 1969).
Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and
behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (Serial No.209, pp. 147-166).
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Speltz, M. (1988). Emotional regulation, self-control, and
psychopathology: The role of relationships in early childhood. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.),
Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology.Vol.2, Internalizing and externalizing
expressions of dysfunction. (pp.21-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close
relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1-22.
Kobak, R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and
representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.
Kobak, R., & Cole, H. (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for adolescent autonomy
and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental
psychopathology, Vol.5. Disorders and dysfunctions of the self. (pp. 267-297). New York: University of
Rochester.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1991). Adult Attachment Rating and Classification Systems, Version 5.0.
Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
Simple Correlations & Means and Standard Deviations
for Primary Variables
Table 1.
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
r
1. Hyperactivated AttachmentRelated Arousal
2. Teens’ Reported Communication
with Friends
3. Close Peers’ Report of Teens’
Communication
4. Teens’ Self Disclosure
-0.19
--
-0.22
0.12
-0.20
5. Teens’ Call for Emotional
Support
6. Close Peers’ Interpretation of
Teens’ Problem
Mean
(SD)
N
--
0.20
0.01
--
0.18
-0.26
0.15
-0.07
0.13
0.08
0.54
-0.25
-0.08
0.04
(1.58)
157
31.46
(5.71)
157
31.92
(5.90)
157
1.54
(1.01)
118
1.42
(1.27)
118
-3.28
(0.80)
118
Hierarchical Regressions for
Change in Attachment-Related
Anxious Arousal
Table 2. (N = 157)
Hierarchical
Regression Results
Step

1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
-.20
Gender (male=1, female=2)
.01
Minority Status (1=minority)
.01
2. Teen Reported Communication
with Friends
.19*
Δ R2
R2
.01
.01
.01
.00
.00
.04
.03
Table 3. (N = 157)
Step
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority)
2. Peer Reported Teen
Communication
Note. 's are from entry into the models.
***
p  .001, ** p  .01, * p  .05 *, + p = .06
Hierarchical
Regression Results
R2
Δ R2

-.20
.01
.01
.01
.00
.01
.01
.00
-.25**
.06*
.05
Table 4. (N = 119)
Step
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority)
2. Teen Self Disclosure
Hierarchical
Regression Results
R2
Δ R2

-.07
.00
.06
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.22*
.05
.05
Table 5. (N = 119)
Hierarchical
Regression Results
Step
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority)
2. Teen Call for Emotional
Support

-.07
.06
.00
R2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.20*
.04
.04
Δ R2
Table 6. (N = 119)
Hierarchical
Regression Results
Step
1. AAI was given (wave 1 or 2)
Gender (male=1, female=2)
Minority Status (1=minority)
2. Peers’ Interpretation of
Teens’ Problem
Note. 's are from entry into the models.
***
p  .001, ** p  .01, * p  .05 *, + p = .06

-.07
.06
.00
R2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
-.27**
.07+
.07
Δ R2