This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]On: 16 December 2014, At: 10:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Attachment & Human DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rahd20

A validation of the Experiences in CloseRelationships-Relationship Structuresscale (ECR-RS) in adolescentsDagmar Feddern Donbaeka & Ask Elklitb

a Department of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Centre forAlcohol and Drug Research, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmarkb Danish Research Unit of Psychological Trauma, Institute ofPsychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, DenmarkPublished online: 12 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Dagmar Feddern Donbaek & Ask Elklit (2014) A validation of the Experiencesin Close Relationships-Relationship Structures scale (ECR-RS) in adolescents, Attachment & HumanDevelopment, 16:1, 58-76, DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2013.850103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.850103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

A validation of the Experiences in Close Relationships-RelationshipStructures scale (ECR-RS) in adolescents

Dagmar Feddern Donbaeka* and Ask Elklitb

aDepartment of Psychology and Behavioural Sciences, Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research,Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; bDanish Research Unit of Psychological Trauma, Institute of

Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

(Received 8 April 2013; accepted 7 June 2013)

Emerging evidence points toward a two-dimensional attachment construct: avoidanceand anxiety. The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures scale(ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011) is a questionnaire assessingtwo-dimensional relationship-specific attachment structures in adults and, hence,moves beyond the traditional focus on romantic relationships. The present articleexplored the psychometric abilities of the ECR-RS across parental and best frienddomains in a sample of 15 to 18-year-olds (n = 1999). Two oblique factors wererevealed across domains, exhibiting satisfactory construct validity, including factor-specific links to the model of adult attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), andindependent factor discrimination between subgroups. A robust validation supports theapplication of the ECR-RS to assessing relationship-specific adolescent attachmentstructures.

Keywords: Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures questionnaire;self-report; attachment dimensions; test validity; adolescents

Introduction

During adolescence, the attachment system undergoes a profound transformation.Emotional, cognitive, and behavioral development interact with one another to influenceboth the expression and meaning of attachment relationships as the adolescent prepares tofunction more independently of parents. Despite that the nature of adolescent attachmentstructures remains unclear; researchers within developmental psychology conceptualizethe adolescent attachment system as expanding and evolving into multiple forms (Allen,2008). Since the publication of the Strange Situation Classifications in 1978 (Ainsworth,Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), there has been a wide interest in applying the study ofindividual differences in attachment patterns to populations beyond childhood. Withinpersonality and social psychology over the last few decades, researchers have achievedincreasing psychometric advances, utilizing multi-item scales based on a two-dimensionalmodel of attachment for adult romantic relationships (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 2008).The most recent attachment measurement within this line of scale development is theExperiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures (ECR-RS; Fraley, Heffernan,Vicary, & Brumbaugh, 2011), which is designed to assess attachment structures in multi-ple relationships using the same set of items. Validation of the ECR-RS is the focus of thisarticle.

*Corresponding author. Email: df@crf.au.dk

Attachment & Human Development, 2014Vol. 16, No. 1, 58–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.850103

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

In recent years, psychometric improvements in multi-item scales have enabled thesescales to account for increased individual variability in adult attachment patterns; as a result,researchers have become interested in applying these adult attachment scales to adolescentsamples. For instance, the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)was validated in a clinical sample of adolescents (Scharfe, 2002), and the Experiences inClose Relationships-Revised (ECR-R; Fraley,Waller, & Brennan, 2000) was validated for usewith 8 to 14-year-olds (Brenning, Soenens, Braet, & Bosmans, 2011). To our knowledge,there is currently no self-report measure relying on a two-dimensional model of attachmentthat has been validated with a non-clinical sample of adolescents between 15 and 18 years ofage. Similarly, there currently exists no scale based on a two-dimensional model of attachmentwith the psychometric ability to assess multiple adolescent relationships, which has beenaccentuated specifically for adolescents both theoretically (Allen, 2008) and in attachmentscale development (Crowell et al., 2008). This article addresses these two gaps by exploringthe psychometric properties of the ECR-RS in a sample of Danish adolescents, with theobjective of adapting the latest psychometric advances in adult attachment scale developmentto the study of adolescent attachment organization.

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) is one of the most dominant frameworksfor understanding early socio-emotional development. Bowlby proposed that, in learning tounderstand and interpret the external world, infants internalize their first social experiences,resulting in the development of InternalWorkingModels (IWM) of self and significant others.These socio-cognitive structures represent one of the core tenants of Attachment Theory andare believed to underlie whether proximity is sought or avoided in close relationshipsthroughout the life-span (Bowlby, 1988). The development of more advanced cognitive skillsin adolescence enables the conceptualization of attachment experiences and relationships,making adolescence the first period during which internal states of attachment organizationbecome assessable (Allen, 2008). This level of formal operational thinking therefore allowsself-report assessments of “systematic patterns of expectations, needs, emotions, emotion-regulation strategies, and social behavior that result from the interaction of an innate attach-ment behavioral system” (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002).

While adult and adolescent attachment self-report measures have developed simulta-neously, they appear to be grounded in conceptually distinct frameworks. Researchers inboth domains have shown interest in relationship-specific attachment structures fordecades. With roots in child clinical research, self-report measures of adolescent attach-ment have focused on the quality of parental and peer relationships (Armsden &Greenberg, 1987; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1983; West, Rose, Spreng, & Adam,2000; West, Rose, Spreng, Sheldon-Keller, & Adam, 1998) by assessing the specificinsecure attachment constructs described in the first two volumes of Attachment Theory(Bowlby, 1969, 1973). Researchers within personality and social psychology, in contrast,have applied the Strange Situation Classifications to explore individual differences inadult romantic relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Collins, 1996; Collins &Read, 1990; Fraley et al., 2000; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990) or generalrelationship orientations (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998) scale emergedfrom a 1996 study that explored 14 adult attachment self-report measures, togethercomprising 323 items all reworded to encompass a romantic relationship orientation.The results indicated that each measure, regardless of its initial conceptual framework,was best explained by two global dimensions: anxiety and avoidance. Hence, findingssuggested that anxiety and avoidance dimensions corresponded to IWM of self and others(Crowell et al., 2008), underlying both Bowlby’s clinically derived insecure constructs

Attachment & Human Development 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(e.g., Armsden & Greenberg, 1987) and Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Classifications ofindividual differences (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Based on the large item pool, theECR was designed as a 36 multi-item two-dimensional scale representing the 18 highestfactor-loadings on each dimension. To overcome classical test theory limitations believedto generate misleading inferences of individual differences, a 36-item revised version(ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000) was developed, for which Item Response Theory was used toexplore items from the four most commonly used attachment measures of romanticrelationships (Brennan et al., 1998; Collins & Read, 1990; Griffin & Bartholomew,1994; Simpson, 1990). The ECR and ECR-R possess superior psychometric properties(Fraley et al., 2000) and are currently the most valid and most commonly used self-reportmeasures of adult attachment (Crowell et al., 2008; Ravitz, Maunder, Hunter, Sthankiya,& Lancee, 2010). There has been great interest in exploring the psychometric properties ofthe ECR and ECR-R even further, which has led to adaptations and several validationsacross populations and cultures (Alonso-Arbiol, Balluerka, & Shaver, 2007; Conradi,Gerlsma, van Duijn, & de Jonge, 2006; Fairchild & Finney, 2006; Kooiman, Klaassens,van Heloma Lugt, & Kamperman, 2012; Olssøn, Sørebø, & Dahl, 2010; Sibley, Fischer,& Liu, 2005; Sibley & Liu, 2004; Tonggui & Kazuo, 2006; Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, &Vogel, 2007; Wongpakaran, Wongpakaran, & Wannarit, 2011).

To compare adult attachment structures within and across four different relationships, thusmoving beyond the focus of romantic relationships, Fraley and colleagues (2011) recentlydeveloped the ECR-RS scale, which was based on the ECR-R item pool. The latest psycho-metric advances within adult attachment scale development, with the ability to explore relation-ship-specific orientations within a two-dimensional framework, are extended further in thisstudy by exploring the validity of the ECR-RS for use in adolescent attachment research.

Validating the ECR-RS with adolescents

The present article explores the structure and underlying constructs of the ECR-RS inadolescents. Analysis of construct validity comprised examination of the independentpsychometric abilities of underlying attachment dimensions to show convergent anddiscriminant correspondence with the model of adult attachment (Figure 1) and theirability to discriminate between subgroups. Fraley and colleagues (2011) recommendedpredefining hypotheses for dimension-specific discriminations to explore possible

Low High

Secure Preoccupied

Fearful

Model of self

Model of other

Anxiety

Avoidance

Dismissing

High

Figure 1. Model of adult attachment.© [Kim Bartholomew]. Reproduced with permission. Permission to reuse must be obtained from therightsholder.

60 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

independent contributions of ECR-RS anxiety and avoidance attachment dimensions.Because the current study was exploratory, the following hypotheses were intended aspreliminary indications to enhance the understanding of attachment as a dimensionalconstruct, where current adolescent–parent contact and illegal substance use werehypothesized to influence the level of attachment security in adolescents.

The first hypothesis was that a lack of current adolescent–parent contact or absence ofparental figures would inhibit the maintenance of attachment security in adolescence.Attachment organization is believed to influence the formation of future relationshipsthroughout the life-span (Bowlby, 1977). Fundamental Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969,1973, 1980) states that attachment behavior toward parental figures profoundly transformsduring adolescence, with the focus of attachment redirected to non-parental figures (Allen,2008; Bowlby, 1988; Hazan, Hutt, Sturgeon, & Bricker, 1991; Weiss, 1982). Attempts toregulate the attachment and exploratory systems are manifested in increased negotiation withparents, facilitating autonomy while striving to preserve adolescent–parent relationships(Allen, 2008). Because transitional periods resulting in increased conflict are most frequentlyexperienced in adolescence, the adolescents are vulnerable to feeling more insecure, making awell-organized adolescent–parental relationship especially crucial during these periods.

The second hypothesis was that illegal substance use would be an additional riskfactor for the development of insecure adolescent attachment. Although substance use iscommon in adolescence (Hibell et al., 2012) and may even be characterized as anormative adolescent-limited risk behavior (Moffitt, 1993), studies have shown that illegalsubstance use in adolescence increases the likelihood of insecure attachment structures.Illegal substance use has been specifically associated with insecure structures in adoles-cence in the form of negative expectations (Allen, Leadbeater, & Aber, 1994) and lack ofemotional strategies in close relationships (Schindler et al., 2005) while also mediating thelong-term relationship between a range of psychopathological disorders and the develop-ment of insecure attachment organization (Allen, Hauser, & Borman-Spurrell, 1996).

Statistically based on the ECR-R item pool and specifically designed to assessrelationship-specific structures, the ECR-RS has good psychometric potential and ishighly applicable to adolescent attachment research. The present study explored relation-ship-specific attachment structures in adolescents across parental and best-friend domains.Because being in a current romantic relationship was a requirement for taking part in thefirst validation study in adults (Fraley et al., 2011), the present validation study inadolescents set out to explore the possible influence of romantic relationship experienceon attachment organization. Previous research has indicated a relationship in adolescencebetween secure attachment and comfort with intimate emotional interaction (Allen, Porter,McFarland, McElhaney, & Marsh, 2007; Zimmermann, 2004). In light of the issuesdiscussed above, the first aim of this article was to explore the structural validity of theECR-RS in adolescents, but this article also aimed to examine convergent, discriminant,and discriminative validity, looking at possible factor-specific correspondence to themodel of adult attachment (Figure 1) and differences between subgroups within currentadolescent–parent contact, illegal substance use, and romantic relationship experience.

Method

Study design and sample

The current study was part of a larger cross-sectional study on substance use with 13,000participants 15–65 years of age carried out by the Centre for Alcohol and Drug Research

Attachment & Human Development 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

at Aarhus University in Denmark. Participants were randomly selected by the DanishCivil Registration System from four municipalities representing combinations of rich,poor, rural, and urban living areas. The 15 to 18-year-old age groups were stratified(n = 4269) and recruited for two independent online surveys. The current validation studywas part of the second survey, which included a sample of 1999 15 to 18-year-olds(47.5% response rate) who completed the ECR-RS (Fraley et al., 2011) and RQ(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) attachment scales (see Measures for details). Thesample was 52% female and had an average age of 16.44 years (SD 1.11). The majorityof respondents were Danish natives (87.5%) living with both parents (69%). Nearly thefull sample reported to be currently attending school or serving an apprenticeship (95.5%).

Measures

Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures

The ECR-RS1 (Fraley et al., 2011) is a 9-item self-report questionnaire designed to assesstwo underlying attachment dimensions: avoidance (items 1–6) and anxiety (items 7–9)across mother, father, romantic partner, and best friend domains. A Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used to obtain a total score for theavoidance (range: 6–42) and anxiety (range: 3–21) dimensions separately. The first fouritems were reverse scored. Higher scores reflect greater levels of insecure attachmentwithin each relationship domain. Fraley and colleagues (2011) have recommended usingof any one or more relationship domains depending on the individual research purpose.An online adaptation of the ECR-RS was utilized, incorporating the parental figure andbest friend domains (Appendix 1). Before answering items in the parental figure domain,respondents were asked to select a parental figure reference worded as follows: “select theparental figure you feel most closely attached to. If you feel equally attached to more thanone of the alternatives, e.g., both of your parents, please select one at random.”Participants had the following options: mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, or other.Following data collection the parental figure domain comprised the entire sample,whereas mother, father, and other (including stepmother, stepfather, and other parentalfigure) domains were generated as independent groups.

Relationship questionnaire

The RQ1 (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) was designed to assess individual differenceswithin a two-dimensional model of adult attachment, consisting of four paragraphs eachdescribing prototypical attachment patterns: secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful(Figure 1). Inspired by Bowlby’s (1969) conceptualization of IWM, high and low degreesof anxiety (model of self) and avoiding closeness (model of others) in relationships withsignificant others characterize the four prototypical attachment patterns within the two-dimensional model. The RQ contains two parts. The first is a forced-choice paragraph inwhich respondents identified the single best-fitting attachment pattern. In the second part,participants used a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 4 (somewhat like me)to 7 (very much like me) to rate each of the four paragraphs. The questionnaire wasoriginally designed to measure general adult attachment orientations toward “others.”However, Bartholomew (n.d.) recommends rewording the RQ to adapt it to the individualrelationship-specific orientations being studied. In the present study, we adapted the RQ toparental figure and best friend attachment orientations by applying the wording used in the

62 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ECR-RS, “this person.” While the RQ remains one of the most frequently used adultattachment measures (Ravitz et al., 2010), in recent years researchers have found thatcategorical models cannot account for much variation in adult attachment structures. TheRQ is currently recommended in combination with multi-item measures (Fraley & Waller,1998) and was therefore selected for construct validation purposes in this study.

Illegal substance use

A single-item dichotomous question was used to measure current use of illegal sub-stances: “have you used illegal drugs including cannabis in the last two months.”Participants indicated either yes or no.

Current adolescent–parent contact

Two single-item questions measured current contact with mother and father separately,asking: “have you had contact with your mother/father in the past six months.” For bothitems, participants indicted either yes, no, or no mother/father.

Relationship experience

Lifetime romantic relationship experience was assessed by a single-item question, “haveyou ever had a boy-/girlfriend,” which requires a yes/no response. An additional single-item yes/no question was used to assess current romantic relationship involvement: “haveyou currently got a boy-/girlfriend.”

Procedure

In cooperation with Statistics Denmark, participants were given written information onsample selection, the study’s purpose, contact information for the researchers, and a linkto the online survey with a personalized password. On the first page of the survey,participants gave informed consent to participate. The survey included a large battery ofself-report questionnaires comprising 288 items, including demographic details. A selec-tion of questionnaires was used for the current study, described elsewhere. Implementedfiltrations ensured that the individual participant was only confronted with relevantquestions. Participants were given a gift voucher for participation. All items were forcedchoice; therefore, no missing data were present.

Ethics

Prior to data collection, the Danish Data Protection Agency granted permission to conductthe study. Danish research ethics committees only cover biomedical research and do notapply to research within social sciences or questionnaire surveys (Hartlev, 1996).

Methods of analysis

Data were collected using the online survey program SurveyXact. Statistical analyseswere performed with IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 20. Structuralvalidity of the ECR-RS was examined with exploratory factor analysis, which is recom-mended when applying a scale to a new population or using it in a new language (Terwee

Attachment & Human Development 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

et al., 2007). Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated to examinethe relationship among ECR-RS subscales within and between domains. Standard multi-ple regression analyses were used for convergent and discriminant validity, measuring thecontribution of RQ attachment patterns when accounting for ECR-RS subscale scores inseparate models. Multiple regression analyses were also used for testing the discriminativeinfluence of demographic details (gender and age), illegal substance use, current adoles-cent–parent contact, relationship experience, and parental figure reference on ECR-RSavoidance and anxiety levels.

Results

ECR-RS dimensionality and internal consistency across domains

Factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis with the extraction method of principal axis factoring wasused to examine the dimensionality of the ECR-RS in a Danish sample of adolescents(n = 1999). The vast majority of the current sample selected their mother (70.2%) as theparental figure reference for the parental figure domain, followed by their father (25.2%),other parental figure (3.8%), stepfather (.5%), and stepmother (.3%). The factor structureunderlying the nine items was examined separately within each of the following domains:best friend, mother, father, and combined parental figure. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin mea-sure of sampling adequacy (>.79) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .05) indicated goodfactor analyses across domains. The initial three eigenvalues were 4.09, 1.87, 1.00 for bestfriend, 3.88, 1.95, .89 for mother, 3.51, 2.11, .99 for father, and 3.80, 2.00, .93 forparental figure domains. The first two factors accounted for 66.29%, 64.79%, 62.43%,and 64.43% of the total cumulative variance in the best friend, mother, father, andparental figure domains, respectively. Based on the Kaiser Criterion and Cattell’s screetests, a two-factor structure solution was favored.

Direct Oblimin rotation was used for further interpretation of factor loadings on thetwo extracted factors. The nine items showed similar discrimination between the twofactors across domains (Table 1), with items 1–6 showing moderate to high loadings onthe first factor (avoidance) and items 7–9 showing high loadings on the second factor(anxiety). A few exceptions for this pattern were found within the best friend domain, inwhich items 5 and 6 showed low to moderate cross-loadings. This will be discussed later.Because these two items were not cross-loaded within other relationship domains, all nineitems were retained. Factor loadings for the mother, father, and parental figure domainswere highly similar. The structural validity of the ECR-RS corresponded well to its firstvalidation study in adults (Fraley et al., 2011), reflecting specific attachment avoidanceand anxiety items.

Internal consistency

The two attachment factors, avoidance and anxiety, were tested for internal reliabilityseparately within each relationship domain. High Cronbach’s alpha coefficients werefound for both the avoidance (>.81) and anxiety (>.86) subscales. Pearson correlationcoefficients were conducted to test the relationship between the two attachment subscaleswithin and across parental figure and best friend domains (Table 2). Moderate correlationswere found between the two subscales within each domain (e.g., parental figure avoid-ance and anxiety) as well as between the same attachment subscale across domains

64 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Table

1.Pattern

matrix*

forECR-RSfactorsacross

bestfriend

,mother,father,andpa

rental

figuredo

mains.

Bestfriend

(n=19

99)

Mother(n

=14

03)

Father(n

=50

4)Parentalfigu

re(n

=19

99)

Avo

idance

Anx

iety

Avo

idance

Anx

iety

Avo

idance

Anx

iety

Avo

idance

Anx

iety

1.Ithelpsto

turn

tothisperson

intim

esof

need.

.90

−.04

.80

−.02

.81

−.07

.81

−.03

2.Iusually

discussmyprob

lemsandconcerns

with

this

person

..92

−.12

.89

−.18

.83

−.16

.89

−.19

3.Italk

things

over

with

thisperson

..95

−.07

.93

−.14

.91

−.16

.93

−.15

4.Ifind

iteasy

todepend

onthisperson

..52

.23

.52

.22

.49

.19

.50

.24

5.Ido

n’tfeel

comfortable

openingup

tothisperson

..22

.23

.43

.10

.33

.18

.39

.14

6.Iprefer

notto

show

thisperson

how

Ifeeldeep

down.

.34

.32

.51

.15

.46

.17

.49

.17

7.Ioftenworry

that

thisperson

doesn’treally

care

for

me.

−.01

.87

.03

.80

.03

.83

.03

.80

8.I’m

afraid

that

thisperson

may

abando

nme.

.00

.82

.06

.75

.02

.73

.04

.76

9.Iworry

that

thisperson

won

’tcare

abou

tmeas

much

asIcare

abou

thim/her.

−.09

.86

−.05

.90

−.06

.91

−.05

.90

Notes:*B

ased

onExp

loratory

factor

analysisusingprincipalaxisfactoringwith

DirectOblim

inrotatio

n.Factorloadings

greaterthan

.32arein

boldto

indicatepossiblecross-loading

(Costello

&Osborne,2005).

Attachment & Human Development 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(e.g., best friend and parental figure avoidance subscales). Small correlations wereobtained between subscales across domains (e.g., parental figure avoidance and bestfriend anxiety). The attachment anxiety and avoidance subscales seemed to exhibit clearindependence; the evidence does show them to be interrelated constructs, but with littlewithin-person variability across best friend and parental figure domains. Significantpositive skewness for both subscales across domains indicated a general lack of normaldistribution of scores, suggesting that the majority of participants had secure attachmentstructures. This observed pattern corresponds theoretically and empirically well to earlierstudies in non-clinical adult samples (Brennan et al., 1998; Fraley et al., 2000, 2011).

Convergent and discriminant validity of the ECR-RS

The remaining construct validation was based on the avoidance and anxiety dimensions fromthe parental figure domain. The ECR-RS dimensions were expected to demonstrate bothconvergent and discriminant relationships with RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) proto-type ratings. Because ECR-RS dimensions were moderately correlated, standard multipleregressions were used to assess the contribution of the four RQ pattern ratings, which wereentered in the model as independent variables (secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful) toaccount for ECR-RS avoidance (Table 3) and anxiety (Table 4) in separate analyses, whilecontrolling for the other ECR-RS dimension. The regression models for avoidance

Table 2. ECR-RS dimensions within and across best friend and parental figure domains.

Best friend Parental figure

Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance Anxiety

Best friendAvoidance .83*Anxiety .40** .88*

Parental figureAvoidance .34** .21** .83*Anxiety .22** .40** .31** .86*

DescriptivesMin/max 6/42 3/21 6/42 3/21Mean 13.98 6.12 15.85 4.26Standard deviation 7.36 4.31 7.59 3.19Skewness (SE) .95 (.06) 1.50 (.06) .76 (.06) 3.18 (.06)

Notes: *Cronbachs alpha; **Pearson’s correlation coefficient r is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).

Table 3. Multiple regression model: RQ patterns predictors of ECR-RS avoidance.*

B SE t p

Secure −1.91 .09 −22.47 <.001Preoccupied −.21 .11 −1.96 NS**Dismissing .41 .07 5.56 <.001Fearful .72 .11 6.61 <.001Anxiety .33 .05 7.09 <.001Constant 21.98 .68 32.16 <.001

Notes: *Based on the parental figure domain; **Not significant.

66 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

(F(5, 1993) = 261.78; p < .001) and anxiety (F(5, 1993) = 105.71; p < .001) were bothsignificant, explaining 40% (R2 = .40) and 21% (R2 = .21) of the variances, respectively.Tolerances exceeded .67 (avoidance) and .56 (anxiety) indicating no evidence for collinearitybetween RQ patterns. Less than 1% (avoidance) and 3% (anxiety) cases had standardizedresiduals exceeding three. Cook’s distance for the anxiety model revealed a maximum valueof .08, which supported that outliers did not have a major influence on the results. Avoidancescores were significantly accounted for by all RQ prototypes, except preoccupied that justmissed the statistical significance threshold (p = .05). Fearful and dismissing showed sig-nificant increases in avoidance scores, while secure and preoccupied showed significantdecreases in avoidance scores (Table 3). Anxiety scores were significantly explained by allfour prototypes, with fearful and preoccupied ratings contributing positively, while secure anddismissing ratings predicted anxiety scores negatively (Table 4). The results are highlyconsistent with the theoretical framework underlying the RQ (Bowlby, 1969), suggestingthat increased attachment anxiety reflects a negative IWM of self characterizing fearful andpreoccupied attachment prototypes, whereas increased attachment avoidance relates to anegative IWM of significant others characterizing fearful and dismissing attachment proto-types (see Figure 1). Hence, our findings showed discriminant and convergent associationsbetween ECR-RS subscales and RQ prototype ratings, demonstrating good compatibilitybetween the underlying two-dimensional theoretical frameworks assessed by taxonomic andmulti-items measures of attachment and further supporting previous findings (Brennan et al.,1998; Crowell et al., 2008).

Discriminative validity of the ECR-RS

Discriminative validity was assessed by two separate multiple regression models ofattachment avoidance (Table 5) and anxiety (Table 6) scores on the independent variablesage, gender, illegal substance use, current adolescent–parent contact (mother and father),relationship experience (life-time and current), and parental figure reference, whilecontrolling for the other attachment dimension. The independent variables were inseparate regression models expected to reveal unique contributions to the ECR-RSattachment subscales. Because the ECR-RS has not been validated with an adolescentsample and research within a two-dimensional framework of adolescent attachment islacking, there was no theoretical grounds for expecting age- or gender-specific attachmentorganization. Avoidance scores were predicted negatively by the female gender (indicat-ing higher scores for males), while 18-year-olds, illegal substance users, and thoseselecting their father as parental figure reference all predicted increases in avoidancescores (Table 5). Decreases in anxiety scores were related to 17 and 18-year-olds, whereas

Table 4. Multiple regression model: RQ patterns predictors of ECR-RS anxiety.*

B SE t p

Secure –.15 .05 −3.25 <.01Preoccupied .50 .05 10.06 <.001Dismissing –.10 .04 −2.70 <.01Fearful .34 .05 6.53 <.001Avoidance .08 .01 7.09 <.001Constant 2.50 .40 6.22 <.001

Note: *Based on the parental figure domain.

Attachment & Human Development 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

those selecting another parental figure than their mother and father predicted increases inanxiety scores (Table 6). Current adolescent–parent contact and Relationship experiencedid not contribute significantly in regressions on either ECR-RS subscale. The models forattachment avoidance (R2 = .12; F(14, 1984) = 19.72; p < .001) and anxiety (R2 = .12;F(14, 1984) = 19.34; p < .001) were significant and each accounted for 12% of the totalvariance. Only 1% in the regression on avoidance had standardized residuals exceedingthree, however again 3% cases exceeded this threshold in the regression on anxiety scores.The maximum value for Cook’s distance on .07 supported that outliers did not influencethe results for the model as a whole. The ECR-RS showed good psychometric character-istics for discriminating between subgroups, demonstrating independent contributions ofthe attachment avoidance and anxiety dimensions.

Discussion

The current study set out to explore the structural and construct validity of the two-dimensional relationship-specific adult attachment scale ECR-RS in a large sample of

Table 5. Multiple regression: discriminative validity for ECR-RS avoidance.*

n B SE t p

GenderMale (Reference) 871 – – – –Female 1128 –1.49 .33 –4.46 <.001

Age15 (Reference) 521 – – – –16 536 .22 .44 .51 NS**17 474 .46 .46 .99 NS**18 468 1.04 .47 2.24 <.05

Current contact to motherYes (Reference) 1928 – – – –No 50 −.79 1.10 −.72 NS**No mother 21 .03 1.59 .02 NS**

Current contact to fatherYes (Reference) 1839 – – – –No 115 −.14 .74 −.19 NS**No father 45 −1.38 1.09 −1.27 NS**

Romantic relationship lifetimeNo (Reference) 639 – – – –Yes 1360 −.09 .38 −.24 NS**

Romantic relationship currentNo (Reference) 1472 – – – –Yes 527 .26 .41 .64 NS**

Illegal drug useNo (Reference) 1827 – – – –Yes 172 1.81 .58 3.12 <.01

Parental figure referenceMother (Reference) 1403 – – – –Father 504 1.18 .38 3.08 <.01Other 92 −.22 .78 −.28 NS**

ECR-RS Anxiety .73 .05 14.40 <.001Constant 14.27 .71 20.02 <.001

Notes: *Based on the parental figure domain; **Not significant.

68 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Danish 15 to 18-year-olds (n = 1999). Exploratory factor analysis yielded a two-factorsolution across best friend, mother, father, and parental figure domains, which is con-cordant with the first validation study of the ECR-RS in adults (Fraley et al., 2011). Theresults indicate that avoidance and anxiety dimensions underlie self-reported adolescentattachment structures and support the emerging consensus for adult attachment measureswithin personality and social psychology (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennanet al., 1998; Fraley et al., 2000). Both subscales showed high internal reliability(Terwee et al., 2007), suggesting cohesion among the individual items within eachattachment subscale across best friend, mother, father, and parental figure domains.Moreover, the subscales were moderately intercorrelated within each relationship domainand weakly intercorrelated across different domains, indicating that although avoidanceand anxiety dimensions are interrelated attachment constructs, their increased diversityacross different relationships reveals their independent contributions, which is highlyconsistent with previous validation studies in adults (Fraley et al., 2011). Current andpast validation studies of the ECR-RS, therefore, cumulatively highlight the importance of

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis: discriminative validity for ECR-RS anxiety.*

n B SE t p

GenderMale (Reference) 871 – – – –Female 1128 .04 .14 .27 NS**

Age15 (Reference) 521 – – – –16 536 −.18 .19 −.96 NS**17 474 –.45 .19 –2.32 <.0518 468 −.63 .20 −3.24 <.01

Current contact to motherYes (Reference) 1928 – – – –No 50 .22 .46 .46 NS**No mother 21 .86 .67 1.28 NS**

Current contact to fatherYes (Reference) 1839 – – – –No 115 .50 .31 1.59 NS**No father 45 −.79 .46 −1.73 NS**

Romantic relationship lifetimeNo (Reference) 639 – – – –Yes 1360 .14 .16 .89 NS**

Romantic relationship currentNo (Reference) 1472 – – – –Yes 527 −.15 .17 −.89 NS**

Illegal drug useNo (Reference) 1827 – – – –Yes 172 .04 .25 .16 NS**

Parental figure referenceMother (Reference) 1403 – – – –Father 504 –.17 .16 –1.07 NS**Other 92 1.72 .33 5.26 <.001

ECR-RS Avoidance .13 .01 14.40 <.001Constant 2.33 .33 7.18 <.001

Notes: *Based on the parental figure domain; **Not significant.

Attachment & Human Development 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

assessing a two-dimensional attachment structure in context-specific relationships in bothadolescent and adult samples.

As expected, the ECR-RS parental figure avoidance and anxiety subscales corre-sponded conceptually well to the two-dimensional model of adult attachment(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), demonstrating both convergent and discriminantrelationships. Increases in avoidance subscale scores were predicted by RQ attachmentpatterns indicative of a negative model of others (dismissing and fearful), while increasesin anxiety subscale scores were predicted by patterns representing a negative model of self(preoccupied and fearful). Discriminant associations were observed via negative predic-tors representing those RQ patterns with least conceptual similarity to the independentattachment dimension, reflecting differing attachment dimensions, i.e., between preoccu-pied/avoidance and between dismissing/anxiety. Moreover, both subscales were nega-tively related to the secure attachment pattern. Differences between categorical and multi-item measures of attachment are to be expected, especially given that categorical measuresonly account for limited individual variability and, hence, only represent regions in a two-dimensional space (Fraley & Waller, 1998). Therefore, when taking into consideration theextent to which a taxonomic model is able to account for underlying attachment patterns,the convergent and discriminant associations obtained between the ECR-RS and RQattachment measures are considered highly sufficient.

Results revealed both gender and age differences in ECR-RS subscale scores. Forexample, males reported significantly higher avoidance levels than females, supportingprevious research with the ECR-RS (Fraley et al., 2011) and the RQ (Bartholomew,1990), and is also consistent with findings showing a relatively persistent pattern ofincreased dismissing attachment patterns for males across 62 cultures (Schmitt et al.,2003). Regarding age differences, the oldest age group (18 years) was related to higheravoidance levels, while the youngest age group (15 years) reported higher attachmentanxiety. This suggests that younger adolescents may have increased needs for others’reassurance to maintain self-confidence in social relationships, relative to the oldestadolescents, whereas older adolescents instead have lower need for proximity seekingthan their younger peers. This finding corresponds well with recent postulations of theadolescent attachment system arguing that normative adolescent developmental chal-lenges seem to continuously influence the expression and meaning of attachment relation-ships (Allen, 2008), which may be specifically expressed in terms of anxiety-relatedattachment behavior in early adolescence and avoidance-related attachment behavior inlate adolescence.

The ECR-RS subscales were also found to independently discriminate between one oftwo predefined subgroups. As predicted illegal substance use was significantly related toincreased attachment insecurity, which was evident for the avoidance dimension only.Decreased stability of adolescent–parent contact was similarly hypothesized to be impor-tant in terms of increasing the risk of developing insecure attachment patterns (Bowlby,1977), however current findings showed no indication of this relationship. Instead theparental figure reference was found to play a significant role when accounting foradolescent attachment insecurity. Those selecting another attachment figure than theirmother and father reported increased anxiety, while those selecting their father reportedincreased avoidance. Current results point toward that especially the male gender is acrucial component in the development of avoidant attachment structures in adolescence,both directly (male gender) and indirectly (fathers as parental figure reference). In thisstudy, mothers were by far the most common parental figure reference, which is bothconsistent with Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) and more recent findings showing that

70 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

fathers were identified as the least frequently nominated attachment figure, after bestfriend, romantic partner, and mother (Freeman & Almond, 2010). Current findings,therefore, may contribute important knowledge about the father figure as the primaryattachment figure. However, also a unique contribution to anxiety levels was revealed bythose selecting another parental figure than mother and father. That is, while motherproximity may serve important attachment functions for maintaining secure attachmentstructures, adolescents who feel more closely attached to another adult figure than theirmother may be in a more vulnerable position to develop insecure attachment structures.This tendency should be investigated further in future research.

Current findings reveal dimension-specific contributions, suggesting that underlyingavoidance and anxiety are important sub-constructs associated with different develop-mental risk-factors for developing insecure attachment organization in adolescence. Therewere no concurrent significant differences in avoidance and anxiety scores for anysubgroup, which strongly supports the two-dimensional model of attachment; proposingthat in spite of ECR-RS avoidance and anxiety dimensions being moderately correlated,they appear to represent distinct components of the attachment construct. A majoradvantage of the current study is its use of randomized sampling, which is an improve-ment over some methodological limitations observed in the first validation study of theECR-RS in adults. Consequently, male representation increased from 18.5% in the adultstudy (Fraley et al., 2011) to 48% in the current study. Nonetheless, despite thesemethodological improvements and different sample characteristics in terms of age, gender,relationship status, and cultural differences between the previous and current ECR-RSvalidation study, the underlying factor structure appeared similar across relationshipdomains. Together, these findings strongly support a two-dimensional framework ofattachment across both adolescent and adult samples.

Limitations and conclusions

There is a potential caveat concerning the interpretation of the exploratory factor analysis.Although a two-dimensional model was favored across domains, the middle three itemsdid not provide as strong factor loadings on a single factor as did the remaining six items.Item 4 (“find it easy to depend on this person”), item 5 (“I don’t feel comfortable openingup to this person”), and item 6 (“I prefer not to show this person how I feel deep down”)were interpreted as representing the avoidance factor, however, showed less clear dis-crimination between the avoidance and anxiety factors consistently across domains (bestfriend, mother, father, parental figure). On the first factor (avoidance) these loadingsreached moderate to high levels, with only a few exceeding the threshold of a highloading (.50). The second factor (anxiety) consistently exceeded low but positive factorloadings (.10) contrary to the first three avoidance items that showed low negativeloadings on the second factor (anxiety). One exception to this pattern of the middlethree items was found in the best friend domain where item 5 and item 6 not only showedlower loadings on both factors than the remaining items, but additionally showed low tomoderate cross-loadings. This indicates a lack of factor discrimination between avoidanceand anxiety for those two items in the best friend domain. Lack of discrimination betweenthe avoidance and anxiety factors on item 5 and item 6 may be specifically related to anadolescent-specific developmental period reflecting a lack of consistency in distinguishingbetween IWMs of self and significant other when confronted with affectionately loadeditems for best friend orientation, here worded as: “comfortable opening up …” (item 5)and “how I feel deep down …” (item 6). Those two items were more clearly interpreted as

Attachment & Human Development 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

avoidance items when related to a parental figure. The lower factor loadings for themiddle three items did not seem to influence the construct validity for the parental figuredomain. Because construct validity was performed on the parental figure domain only, theimpact of cross-loadings in the best friend domain therefore remains unclear. The nineitems of the ECR-RS are therefore encouraged to be further explored to gain knowledgeon especially those middle three items with regards to better understand whether this lackof factor discrimination may be specifically related to the Danish adolescent samplestudied or whether this appears to be a general pattern related to the best friend orientationwhen assessing attachment structures in adolescents. The lower loadings on the threeitems may however not influence the overall validity of the ECR-RS best friend domain aswas the case for the parental figure domain presented in this article. Further research isencouraged to clarify this matter.

Lastly, a possible limitation of this study concerns the use of the combined parentalfigure domain, which was implemented even though the ECR-RS originally was designedfor mother and father domains separately. Within-person variability analyses were there-fore not possible in the present study. Prior to inclusion of the parental figure domain, theself-selected parental figure reference was included both to limit the length of the surveyand at the same time to avoid referential ambiguity in survey responses. Current findingsrevealed, however, a significant contribution of the father figure and other parental figuresas reference, indicating that seeking proximity with parental figures other than motherappears to be a particularly important factor for understanding insecure attachmentbehavior in adolescence. As such, the preferred parental figure reference is recommendedas supplementary information in future adolescent research.

The current study documents good structural and construct validity of the ECR-RS in15 to 18-year-olds and suggests that the ECR-RS is a highly useful and robust self-reportattachment measure of relationship-specific attachment structures in adolescents. As wasthe original intention for the ECR-RS with adults, the present validation study encouragesmethodological continuity within the study of adolescent attachment. We therefore sup-port the use of the ECR-RS to explore further outcomes of research interests, from whichcumulative knowledge within a two-dimensional framework may be built, moving towarda coherent understanding of adolescent attachment organization.

AcknowledgementsA poster illustrating portions of the present study was presented at the Division of ClinicalPsychology Annual Conference in Oxford, UK, on 6 December 2012. The authors thank theCentre for Alcohol and Drug Research for funding the survey. We would also like to thank thefollowing for contributing to the translation process of the ECR-RS and RQ: Dr. Ken Watson,Professor Kim Bloomfield, Andreas Lambert, Sebastian Kotze, Mie Haller, Kirsten Frederiksen,Kristina Schroemmel, and Lars Evald.

Note1. The ECR-RS and RQ were translated into Danish following the guidelines of Beaton,

Bombardier, Guillemin and Ferraz (2000) and subsequently piloted in an age-appropriatesample. Contact corresponding author for translation report.

72 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

ReferencesAinsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Allen, J. P. (2008). The attachment system in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),

Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 419–435, 2nd ed.).New York: Guilford.

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., & Borman-Spurrell, E. (1996). Attachment theory as a framework forunderstanding sequelae of severe adolescent psychopathology: An 11-year follow-up study.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(2), 254–263.

Allen, J. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Aber, J. L. (1994). The development of problem behaviorsyndromes in at-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 6(2), 323–342.

Allen, J. P., Porter, M., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., & Marsh, P. (2007). The relation ofattachment security to adolescents’ paternal and peer relationships, depression, and externalizingbehavior. Child Development, 78(4), 1222–1239.

Alonso-Arbiol, I., Balluerka, N., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). A Spanish version of the experiences inclose relationships (ECR) adult attachment questionnaire. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 45–63.

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16(5), 427–454.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178.

Bartholomew, K. (n.d.). Dr. Kim Bartholomew’s Research Lab. Retrieved from http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/selfreports.htm

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of afour-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244.

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process ofcross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, 25(24), 3186–3191.

Bowlby, J. (Ed.). (1969). Attachment and loss, volume I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (Ed.). (1973). Attachment and loss, volume II: Separation. New York: Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. II. Some principles of psy-

chotherapy. The fiftieth Maudsley lecture. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 421–431.Bowlby, J. (Ed.). (1980). Attachment and loss, volume III: Loss, sadness and depression. New York:

Basic Books.Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment:

An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and closerelationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.

Brenning, K., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2011). An adaptation of the experiences inclose relationships scale-revised for use with children and adolescents. Journal of Social andPersonal Relationships, 28(8), 1048–1072.

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, andbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality indating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644–663.

Conradi, H. J., Gerlsma, C., van Duijn, M., & de Jonge, P. (2006). Internal and external validity ofthe experiences in close relationships questionnaire in an American and two Dutch samples. TheEuropean Journal of Psychiatry, 20(4), 258–269.

Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommenda-tions for getting the most from your analysis (1531–7714). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf

Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Measurement of individual differences inadolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment:Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 599–634). New York: Guilford Press.

Fairchild, A. J., & Finney, S. J. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the experiences in closerelationships-revised questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(1), 116–135.

Attachment & Human Development 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2011). The experiences inclose relationships – Relationship structures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachmentorientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 615–625.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. InJ. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114).New York: Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365.

Freeman, H., & Almond, T. M. (2010). Mapping young adults’ use of fathers for attachmentsupport: Implications on romantic relationship experiences. Early Child Development andCare, 180(1–2), 227–248.

Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and importance of attachmentrelationships to parents and peers during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(5),373–386.

Griffin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other: Fundamental dimensionsunderlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3),430–445.

Hartlev, M. (Ed.). (1996). Den gode samfundsforsker: Om etik i samfundsforskningen. København:Akademisk Forlag.

Hazan, C., Hutt, M. J., Sturgeon, J., & Bricker, T. (1991, April). The process of relinquishingparents as attachment figures. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society forResearch in Child Development, Seattle, WA.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., & Kraus, L.(2012). The 2011 ESPAD report. Substance use among students in 36 European countries. InT. S. C. f. I. o. A. a. O. D. (CAN) (Ed.). Stockholm, Sweden.

Kooiman, C. G., Klaassens, E. R., van Heloma Lugt, J. Q., & Kamperman, A. M. (2012).Psychometrics and validity of the Dutch experiences in close relationships–revised (ECR–r)in an outpatient mental health sample. Journal of Personality Assessment. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.740540

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A devel-opmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.

Olssøn, I., Sørebø, Ø., & Dahl, A. A. (2010). The Norwegian version of the experiences in closerelationships measure of adult attachment: Psychometric properties and normative data. NordicJournal of Psychiatry, 64(5), 340–349.

Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010). Adult attachment measures:A 25-year review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 69(4), 419–432.

Scharfe, E. (2002). Reliability and validity of an interview assessment of attachment representationsin a clinical sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(5), 532–551.

Schindler, A., Thomasius, R., Sack, P.-M., Gemeinhardt, B., Küstner, U., & Eckert, J. (2005).Attachment and substance use disorders: A review of the literature and a study in drugdependent adolescents. Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 207–228.

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., … Zupaneie, A. (2003).Are men universally more dismissing than women? Gender differences in romantic attachmentacross 62 cultural regions. Personal Relationships, 10(3), 307–331.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment & HumanDevelopment, 4(2), 133–161.

Sibley, C. G., Fischer, R., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Reliability and validity of the revised experiences inclose relationships (ECR-R) self-report measure of adult romantic attachment. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 31(11), 1524–1536.

Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Short-term temporal stability and factor structure of the revisedexperiences in close relationships (ECR-R) measure of adult attachment. Personality andIndividual Differences, 36(4), 969–975.

Simpson, J. A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971–980.

74 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J.,… de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of healthstatus questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

Tonggui, L., & Kazuo, K. (2006). Measuring adult attachment: Chinese adaptation of the ECR scale.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(3), 399–406.

Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in closerelationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 88(2), 187–204.

Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Theplace of attachment in human behavior. New York: Basic Books.

West, M., Rose, M. S., Spreng, S., Sheldon-Keller, A., & Adam, K. (1998). Adolescent attachmentquestionnaire: A brief assessment of attachment in adolescence. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 27(5), 661–673.

West, M., Rose, S., Spreng, S., & Adam, K. (2000). The adolescent unresolved attachmentquestionnaire: The assessment of perceptions of parental abdication of caregiving behavior.The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 161(4),493–503.

Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., & Wannarit, K. (2011). Validity and reliability of the Thaiversion of the experiences of close relationships-revised questionnaire. Singapore MedicalJournal, 52(2), 100–106.

Zimmermann, P. (2004). Attachment representations and characteristics of friendship relationsduring adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(1), 83–101.

Appendix 1. The Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures(ECR-RS)The original ECR-RS in English language may be found here: http://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/measures/relstructures.htm

The Danish ECR-RS used for the present validation study:

Part 1

Vælg den forældrefigur du føler dig mest knyttet til. Hvis du føler, at du er lige godtknyttet til mere end én af valgmulighederne, f.eks. begge dine forældre, skal du vælge énaf dem tilfældigt:

Part 2

Dette spørgeskema har til formål at belyse måden, hvorpå du opfatter betydningsfuldepersoner i dit liv. Du vil blive bedt om at besvare spørgsmål om den valgte forældrefigurog din bedste ven. Angiv venligst i hvilken grad du er enig eller uenig med hvert udsagnved at vælge et tal for hvert spørgsmål.

A. Besvar venligst følgende spørgsmål om den valgte forældrefigur:B. Besvar venligst følgende spørgsmål om din bedste ven:

MorFarStedmorStedfarAnden

Attachment & Human Development 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Exp

eriencesin

Close

Relationships-Relationship

Structures(ECR-R

S)–Dan

skversion

Meget

uenig

12

34

56

7Meget

enig

1.Det

hjælper

atgå

tildenn

eperson

,nårjeghardetsvært

2.Jegdiskuterer

som

regelmineprob

lemer

ogbeky

mring

ermed

denn

eperson

3.Jegsnakkertin

gene

igennem

med

denn

eperson

4.Jegfind

erdetnemtat

regn

emed

denn

eperson

5.Jegfølermig

ikke

tilpasvedat

åbne

opov

erfordenn

eperson

6.Jegforetrækk

erikke

atvise

denn

eperson

,hv

ordanjeghardetinderstinde

7.Jeger

ofte

beky

mretfor,at

denn

eperson

ikke

rigtigtho

lder

afmig

8.Jeger

bang

eforat

denn

eperson

kunn

efind

epå

atvend

emig

rygg

en9.

Jeger

beky

mretfor,at

denn

eperson

ikke

holder

ligeså

meget

afmig,som

jegho

lder

afham/hende

76 D.F. Donbaek and A. Elklit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

aryl

and]

at 1

0:38

16

Dec

embe

r 20

14