1
The Relationship between Accuracy of Self-Perception and Attachment Organization
in Adolescence
Lauren Berger
Distinguished Majors Project
University of Virginia, Spring 2001
First Reader: Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D.
Second Reader: Thomas F. Oltmanns, Ph.D.
2
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between attachment organization and accuracy of selfperception among 176 adolescents. Attachment organization was assessed with the Adult
Attachment Interview. Accuracy of self-perception was measured in terms of mutuality of
adolescent self- and parent/peer-report on measures of adolescent psychosocial functioning.
Preoccupied adolescents overreported internalizing/externalizing symptoms in comparison to
parent-reports. Dismissing adolescents were more likely to be discrepant from parent-reports of
internalizing/externalizing symptoms, and from peer-reports of behavior conduct. These
linkages remained after accounting for baseline levels of adolescent symptoms. The findings
suggest that attachment theory may account for individual differences in self-perception of
symptoms in adolescence.
3
The Relationship between Accuracy of Self-Perception and Attachment Organization
in Adolescence
Since the birth of psychology, researchers have been interested in ascertaining how well
people know themselves and what psychological processes promote accuracy versus distortion in
self-perception (Robins & John, 1997). Attachment theory, which has received considerable
attention in the field of developmental psychology over the past thirty years (Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998), offers a particularly interesting perspective on the development of self-views.
However, despite promising theoretical inference and a substantial body of research on linkages
between attachment and psychosocial functioning in childhood (e.g., Eliker, Englund, & Sroufe,
1990), adolescence (e.g., Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998), and early adulthood (e.g.,
Waters, Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000), there is limited empirical research on
how attachment may account for stable and enduring individual differences in self-perception
across the lifespan (Allen & Land, 1999). Allen and his colleagues (1998/1999) suggest that
exploring adolescence, which marks the critical period in development in which an individual
first acquires the capacity to logically and abstractly reflect on the self and attachment
experiences, is crucial to expanding our understanding of how attachment operates over time.
Taking a step in this direction, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the extent to
which attachment may account for individual differences in self-perception accuracy in
adolescence.
Self-Perception versus Other-Perception
The present study will consider three issues regarding self-perception: 1) what the
construct of self-perception means, 2) what it signifies for an individual to be accurate versus
distorted in their self-judgments, and 3) how individuals form self-perceptions.
4
Self-Perception
To begin with, what is self-perception? Classic theories in social psychology regard selfperception as an individual’s self-knowledge or views of the self (Bem, 1972). While there is a
vast body of theoretical literature on self-perception, means of empirically assessing the accuracy
of self-judgments are controversial since there is no absolute, objective standard for measuring a
person’s traits, capabilities, emotions, and so forth. In the absence of an objective measurement
of self-insight or self-perception, it is difficult to study the accuracy of a person’s self-views.
Researchers have only recently begun to recognize the need for objective assessments of selfperception accuracy and to formulate methods for empirically measuring self-judgment.
Robins and John (1997) suggest that a growing number of researchers in the fields of
personality and social psychology operationally define and measure accuracy of self-perception
in terms of a social consensus criteria. According to a social consensus criteria, accurate selfinsight is seeing oneself as others see one. Kruglanski (1989), for instance, posits that an
accurate self-judgment is a judgment that is congruent with judgments by others. Similarly,
Funder (1999) suggests that a realistic approach to objectively measuring accuracy of selfperception is to examine the mutuality of self- and other-judgments.
Conceptualizing self-perception accuracy in terms of the congruence between self- and
other-judgment does provide a convenient means of assessing accuracy of self-perception.
However, interpretations of this measurement must take into consideration 1) who is the other
judge and 2) what is the domain of judgment.
First, it is important to consider who is making the other-judgment. How reliable is the
other-judge? For instance, if a researcher is examining an adolescent’s accuracy of selfperception, is a parent or a close peer a more valid judge of the adolescent? Is a mother versus a
5
father a more accurate judge of the adolescent? A number of studies, for instance, indicate that
the validity of person perception increases with acquaintanceship (see Paulhus & Bruce, 1992).
In addition, the researcher cannot be the other-judge provides a more valid standard of accuracy
than the self-judge. Take, for example, a finding of disparity between adolescent- and motherreport of adolescent behavior problems. There are at least three possible explanations if the
adolescent reports that s/he does not have behavior problems and the mother reports that her
daughter/son does have behavior problems: 1) the adolescent has a distorted self-perception of
her/his problem behavior, or 2) the adolescent has an accurate self-perception, and the problem
is a distortion in communication between mother and adolescent; the mother may have a
distorted perception of the adolescent’s behavior, or 3) the two preceding explanations are not
mutually exclusive and the disparity in adolescent- and mother-report reflects adolescent
distorted self-perception and distorted communication in the adolescent-mother relationship. In
order to increase the probability that the other-report is in fact the more accurate judge, Kenny
(1994) suggests that the most valid measurement of accuracy is obtained by averaging the
judgments of all possible observers of all possible behaviors being targeted.
A second factor to consider in utilizing the congruence of self- and other-report to infer
accuracy of self-perception is the domain of judgment. Is there a significant difference between
investigating observable behaviors versus non-observable emotions? Some personality
researchers have hypothesized that overall, self-other agreement is higher for judgements of
traits that are more visible in an individual’s behavior (Funder & Dobroth, 1987; Marsh &
Craven, 1991; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Is there a significant difference between
investigating the mutuality of self- and other-report of personality traits versus internalizing or
externalizing symptoms? As Funder (1999) and van Aken and his colleagues (1996) posit, there
6
are multiple, complex components of a self-concept that should be considered. In particular,
there may be important differences between examining the mutuality of self- and otherdescription of affective versus social attributes of an individual.
Self-Perception Accuracy versus Distortion
Another critical facet of self-perception accuracy is what it signifies for an individual to
be accurate versus distorted in their self-judgments. Theories on self-perception suggest that
self-insight or understanding one’s own self is important for healthy adjustment. In general,
research has suggested that accuracy of self-perception is associated with positive psychological
adjustment whereas distorted self-perception may be associated with unhealthy adjustment. For
instance, van Aken, van Lieshout, and Haselager (1996) found that greater congruence between
self- and other-description was positively correlated with adolescent competence.
In addition, previous research has indicated that accuracy of self-perception may be
related to individual differences in personality (Osberg & Shrauger, 1986; van Aken, van
Lieshout, & Haselager, 1996). Colvin (1993), for example, found that adolescents who scored
high on the personality dimension of neuroticism were likely to have less mutuality of self- and
other-report. Conversely, adolescents who scored high on the personality dimension of openness
were significantly more likely to have interrater agreement.
These studies suggest that accuracy versus distortion in self-perception may be an
important indicator of psychological adjustment, but more research is needed to determine what
psychological processes promote the development of self-perception and the maintenance of
accuracy versus distortion in self-judgment.
Development of Self-Perception
7
Given that accurate self-perception may be a significant factor for healthy adjustment,
how individuals develop self-judgments is an important question for researchers. Kelly (1955)
draws the analogy that just as the scientist uses facts and observations to develop empiricallybased theories, the individual processes information or cues from the environment to acquire a
self-construct or a theory about the self and the world. While developmental theories emphasize
the effects of childhood experiences on individuals’ developing self-perceptions (see Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998), research indicates that adolescence marks a critical period in development in
which in an individual first acquires the cognitive capacities to reflect on the self.
Self-Perception in Adolescence
Some of the most interesting changes in the self-system take place in adolescence
(Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Steinberg, 1999). Most significantly, adolescence is
characterized by the advent of increased cognitive capacities for logical and abstract thinking
which allow an adolescent to perceive and reflect on the self as existing separate and apart from
others (Ricks, 1985; Allen & Land, 1999). Allen and his colleagues (1998) suggest that these
developments result in substantial, increased differentiation between self in an individual’s selfrepresentations.
A central developmental task of adolescence which builds on these gains in cognitive
capacity is the establishment of a self-concept (van Aken, van Lieshout, Haselager, 1996).
Harter and her colleagues (1996) have suggested that a normative part of this process involves
role experimentation. According to Harter, adolescents may engage in false-self behavior, acting
in ways that do not reflect one’s true self, as a means of exploring their self-identity. However,
research by Harter and Lee (1989) indicates substantial variability in adolescents’ usage of falseself behavior. Moreover, Harter (1996) found support for a linkage between motivations for
8
engaging in false-self behavior and adolescents’ perceptions of parent and peer support. Normal
role experimentation motivations for engaging in false-self behavior were associated with greater
quality and level of perceived parent and peer support, whereas clinically debilitating
motivations for engaging in false-self behavior were associated with perceptions of less parent
and peer support. Along the same lines, research conducted by Benson, Harris, and Rogers
(1992) suggests that security may be a prerequisite for the healthy establishment of a self-identity
in adolescence. These findings suggest that adolescents’ perceived familial and social support
may be related to individual differences in the development of a self-concept and in selfperception accuracy.
Clearly, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of how individual
differences in perceived support may affect adolescents’ development of self-perception, and
conversely, how accurate versus distorted self-perception may reflect individual differences in
perceived support. Attachment theory, which emphasizes the importance of interpersonal,
attachment relationships in shaping an individual’s views about the self and the world, provides a
very interesting framework for pursuing these questions.
Attachment Theory
Attachment theorists stress the critical role of interpersonal relationships in the
development of individuals’ perceptions of themselves and the world around them. Bowlby
(1973) posited that an individual’s developing view of the self originates in infancy and is
inextricably linked to early attachment experiences. Beginning in infancy, human attachment
relationships are driven by a behavioral-motivational system that regulates the physical
proximity and psychological availability of a primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1979). As a result of
repeated interactions with a primary caregiver, an infant’s internal representation of self and
9
others evolves from his or her expectations of the caregiver’s availability and sensitivity
(Bowlby, 1969/1982). Research conducted by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) with
infants in the Strange Situation indicated that variability in a caregiver’s availability and
sensitivity to an infant resulted in secure (healthy) or insecure (maladaptive) attachment
relationships. Ainsworth et al. found that secure attachments are fostered when children
experience consistent caregiver warmth and availability. On the other hand, avoidant/dismissing
attachments are cultivated through caregiving that is characterized by unavailability or
insensitivity, and ambivalent/preoccupied attachments develop through inconsistent or intrusive
caregiving.
What is the importance of secure versus insecure infant attachment? A substantial and
growing body of research has demonstrated that there are impressive linkages between infant
attachment and later psychosocial functioning in childhood (e.g., Eliker, Englund, & Sroufe,
1990), adolescence (e.g., Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998), and young adulthood (e.g.,
Waters, Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000).
According to attachment theorists, the affective infant-caregiver attachment bond impacts
psychosocial adjustment beyond infancy through an internal working model of self, others, and
attachment relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Theoretically,
internal working models are individual organizations of attitudes, expectations, and feelings
about attachment experiences, which serve as a framework for future emotions, thoughts, and
behaviors (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Kobak & Cole, 1994; Weinfield, Ogawa, & Sroufe,
1997). Belsky & Cassidy (1994) have likened internal working models to social psychologists’
notions of expectancy confirmation. Similar to expectancy confirmation, internal working
10
models describe a partly conscious and partly unconscious affective-cognitive template that
influences what an individual attends to, encodes, and recalls.
While attachment in infancy and childhood can be assessed through observable behaviors
(Strange Situation, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), examining attachment
representations in adolescence and adulthood involves the evaluation of internal or mental
working models of attachment. The Adult Attachment Interview, developed by George, Kaplan,
and Main (1985), permits researchers to assess individuals’ reflection and communication about
parent-child attachment experiences and their ability to integrate specific memories into a
coherent understanding of attachment relationships. Theoretically, the Adult Attachment
Interview assesses an individual’s state of mind with regard to attachment. Attachment research
suggests that individuals with an insecure-dismissing state of mind with regard to attachment
devalue the importance of close relationships and emphasize autonomy and separateness at the
expense of intimacy and connectedness. An insecure-preoccupied attachment organization is
associated with exaggeration of attachment issues and discomfort or fear of separateness and
autonomy. Finally, individuals with secure-autonomous attachment models have a healthy
balance of recognizing, appreciating, and desiring both intimacy and autonomy, and both
separateness and connectedness (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Main, 1990, Main & Goldwyn, in
press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
Research has demonstrated strong concordance between classification of maternal
attachment organization on the Adult Attachment Interview and infant attachment security, as
assessed in the Strange Situation (Main et al., 1985; Posada, Waters, Crowell, & Lay, 1995; van
Ijzendoorn, 1992; Waters, Hamilton, & Weinfield, 2000). In addition, studies have demonstrated
significant predictive, concurrent, and retrospective agreement between parents’ state of mind
11
with regard to attachment as assessed on the Adult Attachment Interview and their infants’
attachment security, as assessed in the Strange Situation (Fonagy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Main
et al., 1985, van Ijzendorn, 1992; Waters, Hamilton, & Weinfield, 2000). While these findings
are impressive, critics have pointed out that little data exists on whether individual differences in
attachment remain consistent over time. Several recent studies that have examined the stability
of attachment in infancy to attachment representation in young adulthood indicate mixed results
(Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, &
Egeland, 2000). Waters et al. found that among Caucasian, middle-class individuals, 72% of
infants received the same secure versus insecure attachment classification in early adulthood.
Weinfield et al. found no evidence for significant continuity between infant and adult attachment
among individuals at high risk for poor developmental outcomes. However, continuous and
discontinuous groups could be differentiated on the basis of significant, negative life events such
as child maltreatment, maternal depression, and family functioning in early adolescence. As
Waters, Hamilton, and Weinfield (2000) have pointed out, malleability of attachment
classification is, in fact, consistent with Bowlby’s (1953) original hypotheses that significant,
attachment-related life experiences do influence the stability or flexibility of individual
attachment over time.
Do internal working models of attachment significantly account for individual differences
in self-perception? Bowlby (1981) argued that attachment organization is critical to
understanding an individual’s model of self. Findings from a few recent studies suggest that
there may be a relationship between individual differences in self-perception accuracy and
attachment.
12
Prior research has suggested that attachment organization may be related to the
development of self-perception in terms of a self-concept. Cassidy (1988), for instance, looked
at the relationship between self-concept and attachment in childhood and found a moderate
association between attachment classification and views about the self. Along the same lines,
Cooper, Collins, and Shaver (1998) examined individual differences in attachment style and selfconcept among adolescents and found that secure adolescents were the most well-adjusted,
whereas preoccupied and dismissing adolescents had poorer self-concepts.
Research conducted by Kobak and Sceery (1988) on the affective and representational
correlates of attachment organization in late adolescence also suggests a relationship between
self-perception accuracy and attachment. Kobak et al. found a lack of congruence between
dismissing adolescents’ self-reports and peer-reports of adolescents’ social competence and
distress. Although peers perceived dismissing adolescents as less socially competent and more
distressed, dismissing adolescents’ self-reports did not differ from secure adolescents’ selfreports of perceived social competence and distress. Interestingly, dismissing adolescents also
significantly reported more loneliness and lack of support in their relationships. Congruent with
other research on features of dismissing attachment, these findings suggest that a dismissing
attachment organization may be related to distorted self-perception, characterized by less
acknowledgment or even denial of distress.
Dozier and Lee (1995) conducted one of the only studies (to the author’s knowledge) that
specifically focused on the relationship between attachment and discrepancy of self- and otherreport. Dozier et al. looked at incongruities between self- and other-report of psychiatric
symptoms among adults with serious psychopathological disorders. Congruent with Kobak and
Sceery’s (1988) findings, they found that adults employing dismissing/deactivating attachment
13
strategies self-reported significantly less symptoms in comparison with expert-ratings of
symptoms. In addition, although experts rated adults with preoccupied/hyperactivating strategies
as having fewer symptoms in comparison with dismissing/deactivating adults, adults with
preoccupied/hyperactivating strategies self-reported significantly more symptoms. These
findings support the idea that individuals with dismissing attachment organization may
distortedly deny self-perceptions of distress. Also, this study suggests that individuals with
preoccupied attachment organization may distortedly amplify self-perceptions of distress.
These findings preliminarily suggest that there is a relationship between attachment
organization and self-perception accuracy. It is possible that internal working models of self,
others, and attachment experiences provide a useful framework for examining the causes and
correlates of individual differences in the development of accuracy versus distortion in selfperception. Pursuing this direction of research may also enhance our understanding of the
stability of internal working models of self, others, and attachment experiences across the
lifespan. Since adolescence is a critical developmental period for transformations in the selfsystem (Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Steinberg, 1999), Allen and his colleagues
(1999) have suggested that adolescence may be a likely point in the lifespan when the internal
working model becomes truly internal and stable.
The Current Study
The present investigation built on theory and contemporary research on self- versus
other-perception and attachment organization. This study sought to extend theoretical inference
and the work of previous research by focusing on the relationship between attachment
organization and mutuality of adolescent self- and other-judgment. The purpose of the current
14
study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment theory may explain individual
differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence.
The present study addressed the following questions:
1) Is attachment organization related to accuracy of self-perception in adolescence?
2) Is insecure attachment associated with disparity between adolescent self- and otherreport?
3) Are preoccupied attachment and dismissing attachment related to accuracy or
distortion of self-perception in different ways?
4) Will discrepancies between self- and other-reports be meaningful for adolescent versus
mother report? Adolescent versus father report? Adolescent versus close friend report?
5) In what domains will discrepancies between self- and other-reports be meaningful?
Report of internal distress? Report of externalizing behavior? Report of scholastic and social
competence?
15
Method
Participants
The current study collected data from 95 male and 81 female adolescents, their mothers,
their fathers, and their peers, as part of the Virginia Study of Teens and Families, a longitudinal
study which investigated a wide variety of adolescent psychosocial functioning in the family and
with peers. In the present investigation, data from the first wave of data collection was explored.
Adolescents were approximately 16 years (M = 15.93, SD = .81), with a range from 14 to 17
years. The self-identified racial/ethnic background of the sample was 59.7% European
American, 38.6% African American, and 1.7% other. 30% of adolescents were living with both
biological parents. The median family income was $25,000 (range was from less than $5,000 to
greater than $60,000), and parents’ median education level was a high school diploma with some
training post-high school (range was from less than an eighth grade education to completion of
an advanced degree).
Adolescents were recruited from primarily the 9th and 10th grades (9th N = 66, 10th N =
107, and 11th N = 3) of two public school systems that represented rural, suburban, and urban
populations. Participants were selected for inclusion in the study based on the presence of at
least one of four possible academic risk factors: 1) failing a single course for a single marking
period, 2) any lifetime history of grade retention, 3) 10 or more absences in one marking period,
and 4) any history of school suspension. These broad selection criteria were established to
sample a sizable range of adolescents who could be identified from academic records as having
the potential for future academic and social difficulties, including adolescents already
experiencing serious difficulties and those who were performing adequately with only
16
occasional, minor problems. As intended, these criteria identified approximately one-half of all
ninth- and tenth-grade students as eligible for the study.
Each teen was also asked to name several friends who knew him or her well; two peers
were recruited for each adolescent participant in the study. Close friends filled out measures
concerning 136 of the target adolescents. Peer participants were approximately 16 years (M =
16.32, SD = 1.37) and had known participating teens for an average of five years (M = 5.21, SD
= 3.73).
Procedure
After adolescents who met study criteria were identified, letters were sent to each family
of a potential participant explaining the investigation as an ongoing study of the lives of teens
and families. These initial explanatory letters were then followed by phone calls to families who
indicated a willingness to be further contacted. If both the teen and the parent(s) agreed to
participate in the study, the family was scheduled to come to our offices for two 3 hr sessions.
Approximately 50% of approached families agreed to participate. Families were paid a total of
$105 for their participation. At each session, active, informed consent was obtained from parents
and teens. In the initial introduction and throughout both sessions, confidentiality was assured to
all family members, and adolescents were told that their parents would not be informed about
any of the answers that they provided. Participants’ data were protected by a Confidentiality
Certificate issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which protected
information from subpoena by federal, state, and local courts. Transportation and child care
were provided if necessary.
Active consent was also obtained from both peers and parents of peers participating in the
study. Peers were paid $10 to come in separately for a 1 hr session, during which they
17
completed written questionnaires and used Q-sort techniques to rate the target adolescents in the
study. As with study participants, peers were assured that all information would be kept
confidential and in particular, were told that study participants would not learn of their
questionnaire responses.
Measures
Adult Attachment Interview and Q-set (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996). This structured
interview probes individuals’ descriptions of their childhood relationships with parents in both
abstract terms and with requests for specific supporting memories. For example, participants
were asked to list five words describing their early childhood relationships with each parent and
then to describe specific episodes that reflected those words. Other questions focused on specific
instances of upset, separation, loss, trauma, and rejection. Finally, the interviewer asked
participants to provide more integrative descriptions of changes in relationships with parents
from childhood to adolescence, as well as descriptions of the current state of those relationships.
The interview consisted of 18 questions and lasted 1 hr on average. Slight adaptations to the
adult version were made in order to make the questions more natural and easily understandable
for an adolescent population (Ward & Carlson, 1995). Interviews were audiotaped and
transcribed for coding.
The AAI Q-Set (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993). This Q-set was
designed to closely parallel the Adult Attachment Interview Classification System (Main &
Goldwyn, in press) but to yield continuous measures of qualities of attachment organization.
The data produced by the system nevertheless can be reduced via an algorithm to classifications
that largely agree with three-category ratings from the AAI Classification System (BormanSpurrell, Allen, Hauser, Carter, & Cole-Detke, 1995; Kobak et al., 1993). Each rater reads a
18
transcript and provides a Q-sort description by assigning 100 items into nine categories ranging
from most to least characteristic of the interview, using a forced distribution. All interviews
were blindly rated by at least two coders with extensive training in both the Q-sort and the Main
Adult Attachment Interview Classification System.
These Q-sorts were then compared with dimensional prototype sorts for: secure versus
anxious interview strategies, reflecting the overall degree of coherence of discourse, the
integration of episodic and semantic attachment memories, and a clear objective valuing of
attachment; preoccupied strategies, reflecting either rambling, extensive but ultimately
unfocused discourse about attachment experiences or angry preoccupation with attachment
figures; dismissing strategies, reflecting inability or unwillingness to recount attachment
experiences, idealization of attachment figures that is discordant with reported experiences, and
lack of evidence of valuing attachment; and deactivating versus hyperactivating strategies,
which simply represents the overall balance of dismissing and preoccupied styles. These
dimensions had been previously validated (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble,
1993), and using them, Kobak and colleagues report being able to capture classifications form
the AAI classification system with good accuracy. The correlation of the 100 items of an
individual’s Q-sort with each dimension (ranging from –1.00 to 1.00) were then taken as the
participant’s scale score for that dimension. The Spearman-Brown reliabilities for the final scale
scores were .84, .89, .82, and .91 for the secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and hyperactivating
versus deactivating scales, respectively. Although this system was designed to yield continuous
measures of qualities of attachment organization rather than replicate classifications from the
Main and Goldwyn (in press) system, when scale scores were reduced to classifications by
simply using the largest Q-scale score above .20 as the primary classification (Kobak et al.,
19
1993) and compared to a subsample (N = 76) of AAI’s classified by an independent coder with
well-established reliability in classifying AAI’s (U. Wartner), 74% of adolescents in this sample
received identical codes (kappa = .56, p < .001), and 84% matched in terms of security versus
insecurity (kappa = .68).
Mutuality of adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems.
Adolescents completed the Youth Self-Report, a well-validated and normed measure of
problematic adolescent behaviors (Achenbach, 1991). Adolescents were asked to rate how well
a variety of descriptions of symptomatic behaviors applied to them during the previous 6 months,
on a scale of 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very or often true. The
internalizing scale and externalizing scale, which have both been well validated, were used to
assess adolescents’ self-perceptions of symptomatic behavior.
Mothers and fathers reported their adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing problem
behaviors using the 120-item Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). This
measure has been widely used in research and clinical applications with samples of normal and
clinically referred youths and shows good evidence of reliability and validity (Achenbach &
Edelbrock, 1979, 1981). The internalizing and externalizing scales were used to measure
parents’ judgments of adolescent symptoms. Although the Youth Self-Report and Child
Behavior Checklist are slightly different, these measures are essentially measuring the same
construct since each measure compares the respondents’ reports to normative data. Comparisons
of adolescent-report of symptoms on the Youth Self-Report and parent-report of adolescent
symptoms on the Child Behavior Checklist were used to assess whether parents’ perceived their
20
adolescents as more or less symptomatic (relative to national norms) than adolescents’ perceived
themselves.
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report
of adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems were measured in two ways.
First, the Simple Difference of Adolescent Report minus Parent Report was calculated. This
measurement was intended to determine if the adolescent overrated self internalizing or
externalizing behavior problems in comparison to mother- and father-reports of their adolescent.
Second, the Absolute Difference of Adolescent Report minus Parent Report was calculated to
assess the overall disparity in both directions of adolescent- versus parent-report.
Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct, social
acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality.
Adolescents also completed the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988). For
each item, two sentence stems were presented side by side. For example, “Some teenagers find
it hard to make friends,” but “For other teenagers it’s pretty easy.” Adolescents were asked to
decide which stem best described them and whether the statement was “sort of true” or “really
true” for them. This format was designed to reduce the effects of a pull for social desirability.
Five scales were examined in this study: behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic
competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality.
Peers completed a modified version of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter,
1988) described above, which was modified so that peers completed it as they thought it best
described the target adolescent in the study, using the same rating scales and summing
procedures to produce the final scales.
21
Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct, social
acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was measured in the
same two ways as adolescent- versus parent-reports. First, the Simple Difference of Adolescent
Report minus Peer Report of adolescent behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic
competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was calculated. This measurement was
intended to determine if the adolescent overrated him/herself on each scale in comparison to
peer-report of the target adolescent. Second, the Absolute Difference of Adolescent Report minus
Peer Report was calculated to assess the overall disparity in both directions of adolescent- versus
peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic
appeal, and friendship quality.
22
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Sample means. The means and standard deviations of all measures used are presented in
Table 1.
Table 1
Means, frequencies, and standard deviations of adolescent attachment organization, adolescent-,
mother-, and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and
adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence,
romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance
Measure
Adult Attachment Interview
Security
Dismissing
Preoccupation
Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms
Adolescent-Report
Mother-Report
Father-Report
Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms
Adolescent-Report
Mother-Report
Father-Report
Harter Self-Perception
Adolescent-Report
Behavior Conduct
Scholastic Competence
Romantic Appeal
Close Friendship
Social Acceptance
Harter Self-Perception
Peer-Report of Adolescent
Behavior Conduct
Scholastic Competence
Romantic Appeal
Close Friendship
Social Acceptance
M
SD
n
.22
.15
.05
.39
.40
.21
155
155
155
13.20
11.16
10.08
8.96
8.21
7.92
175
169
70
16.30
15.21
13.31
8.19
10.07
8.68
175
170
70
2.64
2.88
2.82
3.27
3.24
.61
.65
.61
.73
.64
174
175
175
175
175
2.73
2.91
2.90
3.16
3.05
.60
.58
.63
.58
.64
136
136
136
136
136
23
Demographic effects. Demographic effects of adolescent gender, racial/ethnic minority
status, and family income were examined for each measure used. Gender was represented by
dummy variables (1 = male, 2 = female), racial/ethnic minority status was represented by
dummy variables (1 = racial/ethnic minority, 2 = Caucasian), and income was measured on a
scale of 1 to 5 (less than $5,000 to more than $60,000). As presented in Table 2, secure
attachment organization was slightly positively correlated with being female and highly
correlated to being Caucasian and to having a higher family income. Being male was moderately
related to having a dismissing attachment organization, and minority status and a lower family
income were highly associated with a dismissing attachment organization. A preoccupied
attachment organization was slightly related to being female. Female adolescents overall were
more likely than male adolescents to report internalizing symptoms. Adolescent minority status
was slightly negatively correlated with mothers’ reports of adolescent internalizing symptoms.
Female adolescents and female close friends of adolescents were more likely than male
participants to report closer friendships. Being a male adolescent was slightly associated with
self-report of greater scholastic competence, while being a female close friend was slightly
associated with report of greater adolescent romantic appeal.
Since adolescent gender, race, and family income factors did have an effect on several of
the measures used, these demographic variables were accounted for in further analyses.
24
Table 2
Correlations of adolescent attachment organization, adolescent-, mother-, and father-report of
adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and adolescent- and close friend-report of
adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and
social acceptance with adolescent gender, racial/ethnic minority status, and family income
Measure
Gender
(1 = male,
2 = female)
r
n
Adult Attachment Interview
Security
.17*
155
Dismissing
-.25**
155
Preoccupation
.16*
155
Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms
Adolescent-Report
.33***
175
Mother-Report
.07
169
Father-Report
-.04
70
Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms
Adolescent-Report
.03
175
Mother-Report
-.00
170
Father-Report
-.22+
70
Harter Self-Perception
Adolescent-Report
Behavior Conduct
.10
174
Scholastic Competence
-.15*
175
Romantic Appeal
-.04
175
Close Friendship
.16*
175
Social Acceptance
.04
175
Harter Self-Perception
Peer-Report of Adolescent
Behavior Conduct
.14+
136
Scholastic Competence
.11
136
Romantic Appeal
.17*
136
Close Friendship
.26**
136
Social Acceptance
.11
136
+
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. p < .10.
Minority Status
(1 = minority,
2 = Caucasian)
r
n
Family Income
-.35***
.38***
-.04
155
155
155
.28***
-.28***
-.08
153
153
153
-.12
-.15*
-.02
175
169
70
.05
.13
.07
172
166
70
-.12
-.05
-.04
175
170
70
.05
-.04
.13
172
167
70
.06
-.12
-.06
-.08
.10
174
175
175
175
175
-.10
.05
.05
.02
-.07
171
172
172
172
172
.15+
.00
.05
-.07
.13
136
136
136
136
136
-.10
-.08
-.10
.01
-.12
134
134
134
134
134
r
n
Mutuality of adolescent- and other-report. The simple and absolute differences between
adolescent- and other-report of adolescent affective and social adjustment are reported in Tables
3, 4, and 5. In Tables 3 and 4, the means and standard deviations are presented for simple and
25
absolute differences of adolescent self- and mother-/father-report of adolescent internalizing and
externalizing symptoms. In Table 5, the means and standard deviations are reported for simple
and absolute differences of adolescent self- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior
conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance.
Correlational analyses indicated that overall adolescent- and other-report were significantly
correlated on each domain of perceived adolescent adjustment (see Tables 6, 7, and 8).
Table 3
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing
symptoms
Mutuality of Adolescent- and Mother-Report
Internalizing Symptoms
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|)
Externalizing Symptoms
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|)
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.
M
SD
n
2.16
7.60
9.42
5.94
168
168
1.15
8.39
10.23
5.93
169
169
Table 4
Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing
symptoms
Mutuality of Adolescent- and Father-Report
Internalizing Symptoms
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|)
Externalizing Symptoms
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|)
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.
M
SD
n
3.14
8.27
10.37
6.94
69
69
2.64
8.22
9.63
5.58
69
69
26
Table 5
Mutuality of adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic
competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance
Mutuality of Adolescent- and Close Friend-Report
Behavior Conduct
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|)
Scholastic Competence
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|)
Romantic Appeal
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|)
Close Friendship
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|)
Social Acceptance
Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report)
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|)
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.
M
SD
n
-.01
.47
.60
.38
136
136
-.01
.51
.66
.42
136
136
-.06
.55
.71
.45
136
136
.14
.65
.82
.52
136
136
.20
.54
.68
.46
Table 6
Correlations of adolescent self-report to mother-report of adolescent internalizing and
externalizing symptoms
Mother-Report of Adolescent
Adolescent Self-Report
Internalizing
.41***
Externalizing
.39***
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.
n
168
169
Table 7
Correlations of adolescent self-report to father-report of adolescent internalizing and
externalizing symptoms
Father-Report of Adolescent
Adolescent Self-Report
Internalizing
.31**
Externalizing
.30**
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=69
136
136
27
Table 8
Correlations of adolescent self-report to close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct,
scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance
Close Friend-Report of Adolescent
Adolescent Self-Report
Behavior Conduct
.50***
Scholastic Competence
.37***
Romantic Appeal
.33***
Close Friendship
.21*
Social Acceptance
.42***
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=136
Primary Analyses
Primary analyses examined the relationship between adolescent attachment organization
and mutuality of adolescent- and other-report of adolescent psychosocial functioning.
Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and motherreport. First, simple correlations of adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of
adolescent- and mother-report were examined. As indicated in Table 9, preoccupied attachment
was associated with greater discrepancy between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent
internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Specifically, as expected, preoccupied adolescents
reported significantly more internalizing and externalizing symptoms than mothers reported
about adolescent symptoms. In addition, a dismissing attachment organization was related to
greater disparity between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms.
Dismissing adolescents’ reports of externalizing symptoms were overall significantly likely to be
disparate (either above or below) from mothers’ reports of adolescent externalizing symptoms.
28
Table 9
Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent and mother reports of
internalizing and externalizing symptoms
Measure of Mutuality
Attachment
Preoccupied Dismissing
Simple Difference (Adolescent Report – Mother Report)
Internalizing
Externalizing
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report – Mother Report|)
Externalizing
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=149
.29***
.24**
.16*
.19*
Next, preoccupation and dismissing attachment were examined as predictors of mutuality
of adolescent- and mother-report, after accounting for gender, race, and family income.
Analyses of results of hierarchical regressions presented in Tables 10 and 11 indicated that
preoccupied attachment organization remained a predictor of the simple difference between
adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms even after
accounting for these other factors. Preoccupation did not remain a significant predictor of the
absolute difference of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms.
After partialling out demographic effects, dismissing attachment organization was not a
significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report.
29
Table 10
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related
covariates
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of
adolescent internalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Mother
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

.22**
.03
.00
...
...
...
...
.044**
...
...
...
.044**
.24**
.099***
(-).055***
II:
Preoccupation
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 145.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
Table 11
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent
externalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related
covariates
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of
adolescent externalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Mother
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

-.03
.04
.07
...
...
...
...
.006
...
...
...
.006
.24**
.061*
.055*
II:
Preoccupation
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 146.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
30
Finally, the effects of adolescent baseline symptomatology were examined in order to
explore whether the findings merely reflected individual differences in baseline levels of
symptoms. Adolescent internalizing symptoms and adolescent externalizing symptoms,
measured in terms of mother-report, were added into the models in which adolescent attachment
remained a significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report after accounting
for demographic effects. As reported in Tables 12, analyses of hierarchical regressions indicated
that adolescent preoccupation did remain a very significant predictor of mutuality of adolescentand mother-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms even after controlling for adolescent
internalizing symptoms. In addition, after controlling for adolescent externalizing symptoms,
preoccupied attachment remained a very significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and
mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms.
31
Table 12
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline
report of symptoms
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of
adolescent internalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Mother
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

.25***
.07
.04
...
...
...
...
.064**
...
...
...
.064***
-.49***
...
...
...
.295***
.231***
.348***
.053***
II:
Adolescent Internalizing
(Mother-Report)
III:
Preoccupation
.24***
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 145.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
32
Table 13
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent
externalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline
report of symptoms
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of
adolescent externalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Mother
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

-.03
.08
.03
...
...
...
...
.007
...
...
...
.007
...
...
II:
Adolescent Externalizing
(Mother-Report)
-.67***
...
.458***
.451***
.28***
.530***
.072***
III:
Preoccupation
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 146.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and fatherreport. Next, the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of
adolescent- and father-report was examined. As presented in Table 14, simple correlations of
adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report indicated that adolescent
preoccupation was related to greater discrepancy between adolescent- and father-report of
adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. As expected, preoccupied adolescents
reported more internalizing and externalizing symptoms in comparison to father reports of
adolescent symptoms.
33
Table 14
Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of
internalizing and externalizing symptoms
Measure of Mutuality
Simple Difference (Adolescent Report – Father Report)
Internalizing
Externalizing
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report – Father Report|)
Internalizing
Externalizing
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=58
Preoccupied
Attachment
.52***
.36**
.43***
.29*
Analyses of hierarchical regressions presented in Tables 15 and 16 revealed that
preoccupation remained a predictor of both the simple and absolute difference of adolescent- and
father-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms, after accounting for gender, race, and family
income. Controlling for demographic effects, a preoccupied attachment organization predicted
the simple (but not the absolute) difference of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
externalizing symptoms.
34
Table 15
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related
covariates
Predictors
Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms
Simple Difference
Absolute Difference
(Adolescent Report – Father
(|Adolescent Report – Father
Report)
Report|)
Total
2
2
R
R2
R
R 2


I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
.16
-.08
-.02
...
...
...
...
.029
...
...
...
.029
.17
.15
-.22
...
...
...
...
.097+
...
...
...
.097+
Preoccupation
.49***
.240**
.211**
.32*
.187**
.090**
II:
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 52.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
35
Table 16
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
externalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related
covariates
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of
adolescent externalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Father
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

II:
Preoccupation
-.16
-.25+
.08
...
...
...
...
.48***
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
.089
.286**
+
...
...
...
.089
.197**
p < .10.  weights are those taken from
entry of variables into models. N = 52.
Again, the effects of adolescent symptomatology were examined in order to explore
whether the findings reflected differences in baseline levels of adolescent symptoms.
Accounting for adolescent internalizing symptoms, assessed in terms of father-report, a
preoccupied attachment organization remained a significant predictor of both the simple and
absolute mutuality of adolescent- and father-report (see Table 17). In addition, preoccupation
also remained a very significant predictor of the simple mutuality of adolescent- and fatherreport of adolescent externalizing symptoms (see Table 18).
36
Table 17
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline
report of symptoms
Predictors
Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
internalizing symptoms
Simple Difference
Absolute Difference
(Adolescent Report – Father
(|Adolescent Report – Father
Report)
Report|)
Total
2
2
R
R2
R
R 2


I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
.21+
-.02
-.01
...
Adolescent Internalizing
(Father-Report)
...
...
...
.042
...
...
...
.042+
.17
.15
-.22+
...
...
...
...
.096+
...
...
...
.096+
-.34**
...
...
.00
...
...
...
.152**
.110**
...
.096
.000
.48***
.355***
.203***
.32*
.185**
.089*
II:
III:
Preoccupation
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 52.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
37
Table 18
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent
externalizing symptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline
report of symptoms
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of
adolescent externalizing symptoms
(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report – Father
Report)
Total
R2
R 2

-.16
-.12
.13
...
...
...
...
.054
...
...
...
.054
...
...
II:
Adolescent Externalizing
(Father-Report)
-.54***
...
.324***
.270***
.477***
.153***
III:
Preoccupation
.421***
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 52.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and close
friend-report. Finally, the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and
mutuality of adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic
competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance was examined. As
reported in Table 19, simple correlations between adolescent attachment and mutuality of
adolescent- and peer-report indicated that only dismissing attachment was related to greater
discrepancy between adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct. Dismissing
adolescents were significantly more likely to over- or under-report in comparison to peer reports
of adolescent behavior conduct.
38
Table 19
Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of behavior
conduct
Measure of Mutuality
Attachment
Dismissing
Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report – Peer
Report|)
Behavior Conduct
.27**
Note. *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=127
Analyses of hierarchical regressions, presented in Table 20, revealed that dismissing
attachment remained a predictor of the absolute difference of adolescent- and peer-report of
adolescent behavior conduct, even after partialling out demographic effects. In addition, when
adolescent baseline levels of behavior conduct (measured in terms of close friend-report) were
accounted for, a dismissing adolescent attachment organization remained a predictor of mutuality
of adolescent- and peer-report (see Table 21).
39
Table 20
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent
behavior conduct from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of
adolescent behavior conduct
(Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report – Peer
Report|)
Total
R2
R 2

-.11
-.02
-.12
...
...
...
...
.023*
...
...
...
.023*
.21*
.054*
.031*
II:
Dismissing
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 120.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
40
Table 21
Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent
behavior conduct from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of
symptoms
Predictors
I:
Gender
Race
Family Income
Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of
adolescent behavior conduct
(Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report – Peer
Report|)
Total
R2
R 2

-.13
.02
-.12
...
...
...
...
.026*
...
...
...
.026
.17+
...
...
...
.054*
.028+
.22*
.091**
.037*
II:
Adolescent Behavior Conduct
(Peer-Report)
III:
Dismissing
Note: *** p < .001. ** p  .01. * p < .05.
variables into models. N = 120.
+
p < .10.  weights are those taken from entry of
Exploratory Analyses
The current study explored whether combinations of difference scores (adolescent- versus
mother-report, adolescent- versus father-report, and adolescent- versus close friend-report)
predicted adolescent attachment organization. Analyses indicated that when difference scores
from several sources were entered together to predict attachment organization, no improvement
was obtained over predictions made from entering just a single variable as a predictor. This
suggests that the relations reported between difference scores and attachment for different
reporters each tapped the same aspect of adolescent attachment organization. For this reason, the
results of these analyses are not included in this paper.
41
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment
theory may account for individual differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence. In the
present study, adolescent attachment organization was related to adolescents’ accuracy of selfperception, assessed in terms of mutuality of adolescent self- and other-judgment. Adolescents
with insecure attachment organization were more likely to have greater discrepancies between
self- and other-reports of psychosocial symptoms. Adolescents who were preoccupied with
attachment were more likely to overrate their internalizing and externalizing symptoms in
comparison to parent reports of adolescent symptomatology. A dismissing attachment
organization was linked to greater absolute disparity between adolescent self- and parent-report
of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. In addition, dismissing adolescents’ reports of
behavior conduct were more likely to be incongruent with close friend-reports of adolescent
behavior conduct.
Insecure Attachment and Distorted Self-Judgment
The findings of the current investigation suggest that adolescent attachment organization
does account for individual differences in self-perception. Specifically, insecure attachment was
related to distorted self-judgment of psychosocial symptoms. This relationship fits with
attachment theorists’ views on the critical role of interpersonal relationships in the development
of an individual’s perception of self. According to Bowlby (1969), beginning in infancy, the
availability and sensitivity of a primary caregiver shapes an individual’s internal representation
of self and others. Beyond infancy, an internal working model of self, others, and attachment
experiences serves as a framework for future emotions, thoughts, and behaviors (Main, Kaplan,
& Cassidy, 1985; Kobak & Cole, 1994). Since internal working models of attachment
42
theoretically reflect experienced interaction patterns between the individual and his or her
caregiver, it follows that developing models of self and attachment figure(s) are complementary
(Bretherton and Munholland, 1999). As research by Benson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) has
suggested, adolescents who are securely attached, that is, adolescents who perceive important
others as being available and sensitive, may be more likely to establish a healthy, valued and
competent self-identity in adolescence. Conversely, adolescents who perceive important others
as providing either unavailable (dismissing attachment) or inconsistent (preoccupied attachment)
support may develop maladaptive and/or distorted views of the self as devalued and incompetent
(Bretherton et al.). Prior research has found that secure adolescents are more well-adjusted and
have healthier self-concepts in comparison to adolescents with a preoccupied or dismissing
attachment organization (e.g., Cooper, Collins, & Shaver, 1998).
The findings of the current study also suggest that preoccupation with attachment and
dismissal of attachment are differentially related to inaccuracy of self-perception.
A preoccupied attachment organization was associated with adolescent overreporting of
symptoms in comparison with parent reports. As expected, this result replicates the pattern of
previous findings by Dozier and Lee (1995) who found that among adults with serious
psychopathological disorders, individuals with preoccupied attachment strategies self-reported
significantly more symptoms in comparison with expert ratings. This finding also fits with prior
research that describes a preoccupied attachment organization as being characterized by
heightened or hyperactivated expressions of distress (Kobak, 1986). In particular, adolescents
employing preoccupied attachment strategies may chronically deal with distress by exaggerating
internalizing symptoms and/or behavior conduct in an attempt to elicit a response from
caregivers (Allen & Land, 1999).
43
The finding that preoccupation was associated with adolescent overreporting of
symptoms has significant clinical implications. Preoccupied attachment may be one factor that
explains why there is a discrepancy between some adolescents’ self-reports of symptoms and
their parents’ reports about adolescent adjustment. In addition, the discrepancy between
adolescent self- and parent-report may indicate that adolescents with preoccupied attachment
strategies provide less accurate self-report of distress and problem behavior. Alternatively,
relying on parent-report of preoccupied adolescent symptoms may not provide an accurate
picture of adolescents’ self-perceptions of distress.
Adolescents with a dismissing attachment organization were more likely to have absolute
greater disparity between self- and other-report of psychosocial symptoms. In other words,
dismissing adolescents’ self-reports were incongruent overall, either above or below, from
parent- and peer-reports of adolescents’ adjustment. This pattern fits with findings by Kobak
and Sceery (1988) and Dozier and Lee (1995) who also found a lack of congruence between
dismissing individuals’ self-reports and other-reports of dismissing individuals’ distress. While
the studies conducted by Kobak et al. and Dozier et al. both found that dismissing individuals
were likely to underreport symptoms in comparison to peer- and expert-report, the current study
did not find a directional disparity between dismissing adolescent self- and parent/peer-report of
symptoms. In the present study, a dismissing attachment organization was linked to greater
absolute discrepancy between adolescent- and other-report of psychosocial symptoms.
There are a number of possible explanations for this difference. First, in comparison to
the Dozier et al. study, the current study employed both a very different sample and standard of
other-report. Dozier et al. looked at discrepancies between self- and expert-report of psychiatric
symptoms among adults with serious psychopathological disorders, whereas the present study
44
investigated disparities between self- and parent/peer-report in a community sample of
adolescents. One possibility is that only experts can accurately detect dismissing individuals’
distress and problem behavior. Since dismissing attachment organization is characterized by a
tendency be emotionally distant in significant interpersonal relationships (Cassidy & Berlin,
1994; Main, 1990; Main & Goldwyn, in press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), parents and
close friends may not be aware of dismissing individuals’ symptoms. In comparison to the study
by Kobak, the current study looked at the mutuality of adolescent- and parent/peer-report on
equivalent measures of psychosocial symptoms, whereas Kobak et al. examined adolescent- and
peer-report on different measures. Specifically, Kobak et al. found that although dismissing
adolescents’ self-reports did not differ from secure adolescents’ self-reports of perceived social
competence and distress, dismissing adolescents were rated by peers as having lower egoresilience, higher anxiety, and higher hostility,. In addition, the study by Kobak et al. examined
a sample of college students, whereas the current study looked at high school students. This
distinction in participant pools also may have partly accounted for the slightly different findings.
As with the association between preoccupied attachment and disparity of self- and otherreport, the finding that dismissing adolescents are more likely to have greater incongruence
between self- and other-report of symptoms and behavior conduct also has implications for
relying on self-report assessment of symptoms. Researchers and clinicians should be wary that
adolescents with dismissing attachment strategies may be more likely to provide less accurate
self-reports of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In addition, relying on their parents’
reports of dismissing adolescent symptoms or close friends’ reports of dismissing adolescent
behavior conduct may not provide an accurate depiction of dismissing adolescents’ adjustment.
Parents versus Close Friends as Other-Reporters
45
As discussed previously, the current study found that insecure attachment was related to
greater disparity between adolescent self- and other-report of adolescent psychosocial symptoms.
However, preoccupied adolescents were only more likely to overrate symptoms in comparison to
parent reports, and there was no significant incongruence between preoccupied adolescent selfand peer-report. One explanation is that adolescents with a preoccupied attachment organization
may have distorted self-perceptions of inflated internal distress and behavior problems. Allen
and his colleagues (1998), for instance, have suggested that preoccupation with attachment
experiences in adolescence may be linked to strong expression of internal symptoms, which
serves as a call for help from attachment figures. Although preoccupation is generally associated
with greater psychosocial difficulties in adolescence (Allen et al., 1998; Allen & Land, 1999;
Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble, 1991), in this study, preoccupation predicted adolescent overreporting
of symptoms after accounting for adolescent baseline levels of symptoms. This suggests that the
association between preoccupation and adolescent overreporting of symptoms was not only a
reflection of greater baseline symptomatology. In addition, while studies have found a
significant linkage between preoccupied attachment organization and internalizing symptoms
(Allen et al., 1998; Kobak, et al.), preoccupied adolescents may also engage in delinquent
behavior as another form of communication intended to elicit attention from parents (Allen et al.,
1999). Findings from the present study that preoccupied adolescents overreported both
internalizing and externalizing problems suggests that preoccupation may in fact be associated
with both types of symptoms.
Another explanation is that since there was no significant discrepancy between
adolescent- and close friend-report, the disparity between preoccupied adolescent- and parentreport of adolescent symptoms reflects inaccurate judgment on the part of parents of preoccupied
46
adolescents about the distress or behavior problems that their son or daughter is actually
experiencing. A number of studies suggest that parents of preoccupied adolescents are likely to
have an insecure attachment organization (e.g., Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; Levine, Tuber,
Slade, & Ward, 1991; Main & Goldwyn, in press; van Ijzendoorn, 1995). Allen (in press) found
that the accuracy of mothers’ estimates of their adolescents’ reported self-perceptions was a
strong predictor of attachment security.
Finally, it is possible that the preceding explanations are not mutually exclusive. While
the current study cannot draw definitive conclusions about whether preoccupied adolescents or
their parents are the more inaccurate reporter, the findings do suggest that there is maladaptive
communication problem between parent and preoccupied adolescent. As Allen (in press) has
emphasized, despite the increased importance of peer relationships in adolescence, adolescent
attachment security is still integrally linked to the adolescent-mother relationship.
A dismissing attachment organization was related to greater absolute disparity between
adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, as well as
adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct. One explanation is that the
discrepancy between dismissing adolescent self- and other-report reflects on overall tendency for
dismissing adolescents to have inaccurate perceptions of themselves. As Kobak and Sceery
(1988) and Dozier and Lee (1995) have suggested, individuals employing dismissing attachment
strategies may have a tendency to not express or consciously acknowledge negative affect.
Again, the findings indicated that the linkage between dismissing attachment and disparity of
self- and other-report did not merely reflect differences in baseline levels of symptoms since
dismissing attachment predicted disparity of adolescent- and other-report after accounting for
adolescent baseline symptomatology.
47
Alternatively, since individuals with a dismissing attachment organization are likely to
devalue the importance of close relationships and emphasize autonomy and separateness at the
expense of connectedness and intimacy (Cassidy & Berlin, 1992; Main, 1990; Main & Goldwyn,
in press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), it may be difficult for persons close to dismissing
individuals to judge how that person is feeling or behaving. In other words, because dismissing
adolescents tend to be emotionally cut-off from parents and close friends, parents and peers may
be poor judges of dismissing adolescent’s distress and behavior problems.
Again, it is possible that the current findings reflect a combination of these two
explanations. Dismissing adolescents may concurrently have distorted self-perceptions and be
more difficult to judge by other people.
Overall, the differences between insecure adolescents’ self-, parent-, and close friendreport of adolescent psychosocial functioning highlight the importance of taking into
consideration not only the accuracy of self-reports, but the potential accuracy or inaccuracy of
the other-reporter. Interestingly, a considerable number of studies in personality research have
suggested that the validity of other person-judgment increases with acquaintanceship (e.g.,
Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). However, the current findings suggest that both the characteristics of
the individual being judged, as well as the characteristics of the relationship between the
individual being judged and the reporter, may be significant factors to consider in assessing
mutuality of self- and other-report.
Reports of Symptomatology versus Personality
In the current study, adolescent attachment organization was only related to the accuracy
of self-judgment of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms and behavior conduct,
but was not related to judgments of adolescent social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic
48
achievement, or friendship quality. This pattern is consistent with previous research that has
emphasized attachment theory as a theory of affective regulation. As Cooper, Collins, and
Shaver (1998) have pointed out, Bowlby (1969) argued that internal working models are both
conscious and unconscious cognitive schemas for guiding perceptions, regulating emotion, and
for processing or failing to process attachment-related information. Kobak and Sceery (1988)
have also maintained that attachment theory can be understood in terms of individual differences
in affective regulation. Whereas internal working models of secure attachment permit the
acknowledgement of distress and turning to others for support, insecure attachments foster ways
of regulating distress that are maladaptive. Specifically, a dismissing attachment organization is
governed by rules that restrict acknowledgement of distress as well as attempts to seek support,
and a preoccupied attachment organization is organized by rules that focus attention on distress
and attachment figures in a hypervigilant manner that restricts the development of autonomy and
self-confidence (Kobak et al.).
The current study found no evidence that attachment organization accounts for individual
differences in self-perceptions of personality characteristics of social competence, romantic
appeal, scholastic achievement, or friendship quality. Although Bowlby (1981) originally
conceived of attachment theory as a theory of personality development, the present findings
suggest that attachment may be more related to affective regulation than other personality
characteristics per se. Interestingly, Eder and Mangelsdorf (1997) have proposed that internal
working models of attachment may only explain the development of a global, typical versus
atypical self-concept, and may not account for individual differences in normative personality.
In their view, the development of self-perception is derived from a combination of attachment
49
relationships, individual temperament, and the reactions of parental figures to a child’s
temperamental characteristics.
Mutuality of Self- and Other-Report as a Predictor of Attachment Organization
The current study found that incongruities between adolescent self- and other-report were
predictive of insecure attachment organization. However, combining the mutuality of
adolescent- versus mother-report and adolescent- versus father- or peer-report did not
significantly augment the power of difference scores to predict adolescent attachment
organization. This suggests that the disparities between adolescent- and mother-report,
adolescent- and father-report, and adolescent- and close friend-report reflected similar meanings,
and unfortunately, do not serve as strong prediction of adolescent attachment organization.
Limitations and Future Directions
One major limitation to the current study was that only speculative conclusions could be
drawn about the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and adolescent
accuracy of self-perception, because adolescent accuracy of self-perception was assessed in
terms of the mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report. There was no way of concluding
whether the disparity between adolescent- and other-report actually reflected inaccurate
adolescent self-perception or inaccuracy on the part of the other-reporter. Future studies could
begin to resolve this shortcoming by having an expert assess adolescent internalizing and
externalizing symptoms, and comparing expert-reports to adolescent self-, parent-, and close
friend-reports. Another possibility would be to follow Kenny’s (1994) proposal that the most
valid measurement of person perception should be obtained by averaging the judgements of all
possible observers.
50
In addition, assessment of adolescent accuracy of self-perception could be expounded by
administering measures of adolescent self-concept or self-identity. While a number of prior
studies have suggested that attachment organization may be related to the development of selfconcept (e.g., Benson, Harris, & Rogers, 1992; Cassidy, 1988; Cooper, Collins, & Shaver, 1998),
it would be interesting to examine whether adolescent self-concept is related to the mutuality of
adolescent self- and other-report.
Another limitation to the present investigation was that comparisons of adolescent-,
parent-, and close friend-report were only explored using a few questionnaires. First, although
the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and Adolescent Self-Perception
Profile (Harter, 1988) are well-validated and respected measures in the literature, it is possible
nonetheless that the current findings were related to aspects of the measures themselves. Future
work should examine the mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report using a variety of
different questionnaires. On a similar note, in the current study, adolescent-report and parentreport were compared on dimensions of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, whereas
adolescent- and peer-report were compared on the different dimensions of behavior conduct,
scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance. It would
interesting to examine both the mutuality of adolescent- and parent-report and adolescent- and
peer-report on the same scales.
In addition, since the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile employed in this study only
examined scales of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, and friendship
quality, it would be very interesting to investigate the mutuality of self- and other-report on other
dimensions of more traditional personality characteristics. For instance, researchers in
personality psychology often examine personality in terms of the Big Five trait dimensions of
51
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (or
Culture). Although the current study did not find that adolescent attachment was related to the
disparity between self- and other-report of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic
achievement, and friendship quality, it is possible that attachment may account for individual
differences in adolescent self-perception of other personality characteristics.
Finally, it is important to note that the current study can in no way draw causal
conclusions. While the findings indicated that adolescent attachment organization was
associated with individual differences in adolescent self- and other-judgments of psychosocial
symptoms, it is not clear whether attachment organization causes these disparities.
This study built on prior research by examining the relationship between adolescent
attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report in a community
sample of adolescents. Overall, the findings suggest that insecure attachment organization in
adolescence is related to greater disparity between self- and other-judgment of adolescent
psychosocial adjustment. In comparison to parent-reports, preoccupied adolescents were more
likely to overreport internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Dismissing adolescents were
more likely to have greater absolute disparity between self- and parent-report of internalizing and
externalizing symptoms, and between self- and peer-report of behavior conduct. The current
study found no significant linkages between adolescent attachment organization and the
mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic
achievement, or friendship quality.
Taken together, these findings indicate that attachment theory may explain individual
differences in the development of adolescents’ self-perceptions and in particular, their
characteristic patterns for regulating negative affect. Furthermore, the present findings highlight
52
the critical importance of cautiously interpreting the accuracy of adolescent self- and
parent/peer-report of adolescent adjustment. Both the accuracy of adolescent self-perception and
the accuracy of other-judgment of adolescent symptoms may be related to adolescent attachment
organization and the relationship or communication between adolescent and parent or close
friend. These findings provide the impetus for further investigations of how attachment
organization may account for individual differences in the development of self-perception and
the establishment of a healthy self-concept or self-identity in adolescence.
53
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior profile: II. Boys aged
12-16 and girls aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 223233.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the child behavior checklist.
Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies
reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(1, Serial No. 188).
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the strange situation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ainworth, M. S., & Eichberg, C. G. (1991). Effects on infant-mother attachment of
mother’s unresolved loss of an attachment figure or other traumatic experience. In P. Marris, J.
Stevenson-Hinde, & C. Parkes (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 160-183). New
York: Routledge.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver,
et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. New York:
The Guilford Press, 319-335.
Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent
psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419.
54
Bem, D. J. (1972). Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior: Some
thoughts on Alker's critique of Mischel. Journal of Personality, 40(1), 17-26.
Benson, M. J., Harris, P. B., & Rogers, C. S. (1992). Identity consequences of
attachment to mothers and fathers among late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence,
2(3), 187-204.
Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment and close relationships: An individualdifference perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 27-30.
Borman-Spurrell, E., Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. C. (1995).
Assessing adult attachment: A comparison of interview-based and self-report methods.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bowlby, J. (1953). Child care and the growth of love. London: Pelican Books.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1981). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New
York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: The Guildford Press, 89111.
Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment and the self in six-year-olds. Child
Development, 59(1), 121-134.
Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment:
Theory and research. Child Development, 65(4), 971-981.
55
Colvin, C. R. (1993). Childhood antecedents of young-adult judgability. J. Personal, 61,
612-635.
Cooper, M. L., Collins, N. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion
regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5),
1380-1397.
Dozier, M., & Lee, S. W. (1995). Discrepancies between self- and other-report of
psychiatric symptomatology: Effects of dismissing attachment strategies. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 217-226.
Eder, R. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1997). The emotional basis of early personality
development: Implications for the emergent self-concept. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.).
Handbook of Personality Ppsychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 209-240.
Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment
during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child
Development, 62(5), 891-905.
Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception.
San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties
associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409418.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished
manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley (3d ed.).
Hamilton, C. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through
adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694.
56
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile. Denver: Author.
Harter, S., & Lee, L. (1989). Manifestations of true and not true selves in adolescents.
Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development,
Kansas City, MO.
Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects
of perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development, 67,
360-374.
Kelly, G. (1955). Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kobak, R. R., & Cole, C. (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for
adolescent autonomy and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Rochester symposium on
developent and psychopathology: Vol. 5. Disorders of the self (pp.267-297). Rochester:
Rochester University Press.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993).
Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem-solving: A control theory
analysis. Child Development, 64, 231-245.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models,
affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146.
Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms
during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development & Psychopathology,
3(4), 461-474.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being "right": The problem of accuracy in
social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395-409.
57
Levine, L. V., Tuber, S. B., Slade, A., & Ward, M. J. (1991). Mothers’ mental
representations and their relationship to mother-infant attachment. Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 55, 454-469.
Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies,
changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33(1),
48-61.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment rating and classification systems.
In M. Main (Ed.), A typology of human attachment organization assessed in discourse, drawing
and interviews (working title). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 50(1-2), 66-104.
Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (1991). Self-other agreement on multiple dimensions of
preadolescent self-concept: Inferences by teachers, mothers, and fathers. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 393-404.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1988). The development of competence in favorable
and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American
Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220.
Osberg, T. M., & Shrauger, J. S. (1986). Self-prediction: Exploring the parameters of
accuracy. Journal of Pesronality and Social Psychology, 51, 1044-1057.
Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of
personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63(5), 816-824.
58
Posada, G., Waters, E., Crowell, J. A., & Lay, K. (1995). Is it easier to use a secure
mother as a secure base?: Attachment Q-sort correlates of the adult attachment interview.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2-3), 133-145.
Ricks, M. H. (1985). Social transmission of parental behavior: Attachment across
generations. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Chid Development, 50(1-2 Serial No. 9),
211-227.
Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on
accuracy and bias in self-perception. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of
Personality Psychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 649-679.
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of
construct interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res., 46, 407-441.
Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (Ed. 5). New York: McGraw-Hill.
van Aken, M. A. G., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1996). Adolescents’
competence and the mutuality of their self-descriptions and descriptions of them provided by
others. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(3), 285-306.
van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness,
and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the adult attachment
interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387-403.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Duyvesteyn, M. G. C. (1995). Breaking the
intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: A review of the effects of attachment-based
interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 36, 225-248.
59
Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment
representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent
mothers. Child Development, 66, 69-79.
Waters, E., Hamilton, C. E., & Weinfield, N. S. (2000). The stability of attachment
security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child
Development, 71(3), 678-683.
Waters, E., Merrick. S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment
security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development,
71(3), 684-689.
Weinfield, N. S., Ogawa, J. R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Early attachment as a pathway to
adolescent peer competence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(3), 241-265.
Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early
adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child
Development, 71(3), 695-702.
60
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to my thesis advisor, Professor Joe Allen, who has been a tremendous help
throughout this project. Thanks also to Brian Carreon for helping me with my statistical
analyses. I would also like to acknowledge everyone in the KLIFF lab who has been extremely
helpful and supportive throughout this year-long project. In particular, many thanks to Penny
Marsh. Finally, thanks to my friends and family whose encouragement I have greatly
appreciated!