Adult Attachment Security and Automatic Relationship Attitudes: A Social
Cognitive Measure of Working Models of Attachment
Introduction
Working models or mental representations of
attachment experiences are often proposed to be the mechanism
explaining how parent-child attachment continues to influence
development beyond infancy and influences functioning in
other close relationships including peer relationships (see
Belsky & Cassidy, 1994, for discussion) and adult relationships
(Baldwin et al., 1993; Collins, 1996; Feeney & Noller, 1996).
However, most investigations of working models in infants and
adults have inferred the content and organization of attachment
relationship representations from the coherence of responses to
open-ended projective measures (Bretherton et al., 1990; Mian
et al., 1985) and in some cases from self reports on various
scales (Feeney & Noller, 1996). Though it is important to
identify differences in the coherence, openness, and valence of
working models, it is also important to identify individual
differences in the processing of attachment relevant information
(e.g. influences on encoding, accessibility, interpretation,
storage, and retrieval processes).
Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwarts (1998) have
developed a cognitive measure of attitudes regarding social
categories, the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Using a
PDP/Exemplar model of mental representations, the results of
the IAT have been described by Greenwald et al. (1998) as the
result of associations formed between categories of information
(e.g. mom, dad, book, board) and attribute dimensions (i.e.
pleasant vs. unpleasant) that are automatically activated when
the target category is encountered. The automatic nature of
category activation makes this procedure useful for identifying
attitudes toward a target category that an individual may not be
willing to self-report due to self-presentation demands. In the
last few years IAT tests have been developed by at least 40
separate research groups world wide to test implicit attitudes
toward such categories as race/ethnicity, sex/gender, political
affiliation, self, and others (e.g. romantic partner and mother).
The present study tests the hypothesis that information
congruent with an individual’s working models of attachment
relationships will be automatically accessed and responded to
faster than incongruent information. More specifically, having
a secure adult attachment style and therefore having working
models of attachment that contain generally positive
information about relationship experiences should facilitate the
processing of positive relationship information. Having an
insecure adult attachment style and therefore working models
containing generally negative information about relationship
experiences should facilitate the processing of negative
relationship information.
Method
To test this hypothesis, 40 undergraduate (36 female and
4 male) introductory psychology students completed two
laboratory sessions two weeks apart. As a measure of
attachment security, once during each session participants
completed the 4 item Relationship Questionnaire (RQ;
Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) which provides self-report
categories of attachment style (secure, dismissing, preoccupied,
and fearful). Secure participants were identified as individuals
who reported a secure attachment style at time 1 and time 2.
Insecure participants were identifies as individuals who
reported an insecure attachment style at either time 1 or time 2.
Jeffery E. Aspelmeier
Radford University
As a measure of automatic accessibility of working
model congruent relationship information, participants
completed a modified version of the Implicit Association Test
(IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). This procedure
asks participants to complete a series of tasks (see Figure 1)
where they categorize words, presented one at a time on a
computer screen, from two word lists (a relationship figures vs.
Inanimate objects list and a pleasant vs. unpleasant list) by
pressing one of two response keys (Left or Right). In the two
critical trials (tasks 3 and 5) words from these two lists are
alternately presented one at a time and each response key
represents two categories (e.g. Left = relationship fig. and
pleasant, Right = inanimate object and unpleasant). Task 5
represents a reversal of the combination a participant had in
task 4, such that one hand will represent relationship figure and
pleasant (RP) once and relationship figure and unpleasant (RU)
once. The order and hand presentation was randomized across
subjects.
Facilitation is seen in that response latencies to
combinations for one task are shorter than those seen in the
alternate task (See Figure 2 for an example). A difference
scores was constructed by subtracting the average log
transformed response latencies for the RP task from the average
log transformed response latencies for the RU task (RU-RP),
such that a greater score indicates that the RP combination was
responded to faster than the RU combination. It was expected
that secure participants would have larger difference scores
compared to insecure participants.
Task
1
2
3
Task
Description
Target
Associated
Concept
Attribute
Discrimination Discrimination
Results & Discussion
Department of Psychology
Abstract
The present study investigates the association between attachment security and
assessing working models of close relationships using a cognitive measure of
implicit attitudes. In an ongoing study, 40 participants, completed
Bartholomew’s (1990) Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) and an adapted
version of Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwarts’ (1998) Implicit Association Test
(IAT). The IAT asks participants to categorize words from separate word lists
(list 1 : relationship figures vs. inanimate objects; list 2 : pleasant vs.
unpleasant words). The results show that secure participants had faster
reactions times when relationship figures and pleasant words were responded
to using the same hand in comparison to trials where relationship figures and
unpleasant words were responded to with the same hand. Implications for
using the IAT as a measure of attachment security are discussed.
To ensure that differences in response times were not
the result of the order that combinations were presented in,
associations between combination order (RP first or RU first)
and IAT difference scores were calculated. Results of an
independent sample t-test were not significant, t(38) = .21, ns.
Showing that, whether participants received the
relationship/pleasant combination first or the
relationship/unpleasant combination first the IAT response
latencies were not significantly affected.
A fixed factor ANCOVA with sex included as a
blocking variable was calculated to test the hypothesis that
secure participants would have higher difference scores than
insecure participants. A significant difference was found
between the IAT difference scores of secure and insecure
participants, F (1, 37) = 4.15, p < .05. Table 1 displays the
untransformed mean response latencies for the IAT difference
scores for secure and insecure participants. Overall secure
participants responded significantly faster to the RP
combination and significantly slower on the RU combination
(as indicated by the larger difference score) than did insecure
participants. These results suggest that mental representations
of close relationships in adulthood influence the encoding and
subsequent processing of relevant stimuli where information
congruent with ones representations has an advantage over
incongruent information.
Figure 2
Example of predicted results for the IAT.
Separate for self-reported security and insecurity. “A” and “5" represent response keys on a standard keyboard.
4
5
Initial
Combined
Task
Reverse
Target
Concept
Discrim.
Reverse
Combined
Task
Task
Instructions
* RF
vs.
Inanimate *
Object
* Pleasant
vs.
Unpleasant *
*RF
* Pleasant
Object *
Unpleasant *
RF *
vs.
*Inanimate
Object
RF*
* Pleasant
* Object
Unpleasant *
Sample
Stimuli
* Lover
Battery *
* Fiancé
* Partner
Shelter *
* Family
* Mother
Dough *
Brick *
* Soulmate
-
* Lucky
* Honor
Poison *
Grief *
* Gift
Disaster *
* Happy
Hatred *
Assault *
* Miracle
-
* Friend
* Pleasure
Square *
Evil *
Boards *
* Laughter
* Sweetheart
Mess *
* Kinfolk
Cotton *
-
Lover *
* Cabinet
Fiancé *
Partner *
* Label
Family *
Mother *
* Shower
* Creamer
Soulmate*
-
* Peace
Parent *
Filth *
* Number
* Rainbow
Darling *
Accident *
* Folder
Vomit *
Beloved *
-
Figure 1. Schematic description of the implicit attitudes test (IAT). Numbered columns
correspond to each of the five tasks participants are asked to complete. Task 1 and 2
introduce a pair of target concepts (RF = relationship figure) and a pair of attribute
dimensions. Stimulus words presented one at a time are categorized with a left or right
hand response as indicated by the asterisks in rows four and five. The target concept and
category lists are intermixed in task 3 and task 5 (after training on the reversal of target
concept responses in task 4).
Relationship Unpleasant (RU)
Secure = Slow Response Latencies
Insecure = Fast Response Latencies
Relationship Pleasant (RP)
Secure = Fast Response Latencies
Insecure = Slow Response Latencies
Table 1
Mean Untransformed IAT Difference Scores for Secure and Insecure Participants
_
_
Attachment Classification
Secure
Insecure
F
R2
_
IAT Difference Score
_
448.17
(196.51)
309.70
(276.38)
4.15*
.10
_
_
Note: * = p < .05. Standard Deviations appear in parentheses below mean values.
Conclusions
That this procedure is resistant to self-presentation
strategies has significant implications for assessing working models
of attachment relationships and possibly attachment styles. For
example, dismissing (avoidant) attachment is associated with
minimizing the importance of relationships and giving
unrealistically positive reports of relationship in general and yet
giving examples of very negative specific relationship experiences
when probed during the Adult Attachment Interview (e.g. Main et
al., 1985). Such presentation strategies threaten the validity of self
report measures of Adult Attachment styles which do not probe for
defensiveness. The IAT would be useful for identifying such
defensive strategies. More generally, The IAT has the potential to
serve as an effective assessment of attachment security and with
more refinement may be useful as a classification tool.
References
Baldwin, M. W., Fehr, B., Keedian, E., Seidel, M., and
Thomson, D. W. (1993). An exploration of the relational
schemata underlying attachment styles: Self-report and lexical
decision approaches. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 19(6), 746-754.
Bartholomew, K. and Horowitz, L. M. (1991),
Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(2), 226-244.
Belsky, J., and Cassidy, J., (1994). Attachment: Theory
and evidence, In M. Rutter, D. Hay, and S. Baron-Cohen
(Eds.), Developmental principles and clinical issues in
psychology and psychiatry. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., and Cassidy, J. (1990).
Assessing internal working models of the attachment
relationship: An attachment story completion task for 3-yearolds. In M. T. Greenburg, D. Cichetti, and E. M. Cummings
(Eds.), Attachment in the Preschool Years.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment:
Implications for explanation, emotion and behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810-832.
Feeny, J., and Noller, P. (1996) Adult Attachment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwarz (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit
association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(6), 1464-1480.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security
in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of
representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research, Monographs for the
Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial
No. 209), 66-106.