Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:29:59.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The latent structure of the adult attachment interview: Large sample evidence from the collaboration on attachment transmission synthesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2020

K. Lee Raby Open the ORCID record for K. Lee Raby [Opens in a new window] ,
Marije L. Verhage ,
R. M. Pasco Fearon ,
R. Chris Fraley ,
Glenn I. Roisman ,
Marinus H. van IJzendoorn ,
Carlo Schuengel Open the ORCID record for Carlo Schuengel [Opens in a new window] ,
Sheri Madigan ,
Mirjam Oosterman  and
Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg
...Show all authors
K. Lee Raby*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Marije L. Verhage
Affiliation:
Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
R. M. Pasco Fearon
Affiliation:
Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
R. Chris Fraley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
Glenn I. Roisman
Affiliation:
Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Marinus H. van IJzendoorn
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Carlo Schuengel
Affiliation:
Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
Sheri Madigan
Affiliation:
University of Calgary and the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Canada
Mirjam Oosterman
Affiliation:
Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
Marian J. Bakermans-Kranenburg
Affiliation:
Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, The Netherlands
Annie Bernier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Karin Ensink
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Airi Hautamäki
Affiliation:
Social Psychology and Psychology, Swedish School of Social Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland
Sarah Mangelsdorf
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Lynn E. Priddis
Affiliation:
School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia
Maria S. Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Stevenson University, Stevenson, MD, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: K. Lee Raby, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S 1530 E, Salt Lake City, UT84112, USA, E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) is a widely used measure in developmental science that assesses adults’ current states of mind regarding early attachment-related experiences with their primary caregivers. The standard system for coding the AAI recommends classifying individuals categorically as having an autonomous, dismissing, preoccupied, or unresolved attachment state of mind. However, previous factor and taxometric analyses suggest that: (a) adults’ attachment states of mind are captured by two weakly correlated factors reflecting adults’ dismissing and preoccupied states of mind and (b) individual differences on these factors are continuously rather than categorically distributed. The current study revisited these suggestions about the latent structure of AAI scales by leveraging individual participant data from 40 studies (N = 3,218), with a particular focus on the controversial observation from prior factor analytic work that indicators of preoccupied states of mind and indicators of unresolved states of mind about loss and trauma loaded on a common factor. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that: (a) a 2-factor model with weakly correlated dismissing and preoccupied factors and (b) a 3-factor model that further distinguished unresolved from preoccupied states of mind were both compatible with the data. The preoccupied and unresolved factors in the 3-factor model were highly correlated. Taxometric analyses suggested that individual differences in dismissing, preoccupied, and unresolved states of mind were more consistent with a continuous than a categorical model. The importance of additional tests of predictive validity of the various models is emphasized.

Keywords

Adult Attachment Interviewfactor analysislatent structuretaxometrics
Type
Regular Article
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2022 , pp. 307 - 319
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009). The first 10,000 Adult Attachment Interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and non-clinical groups. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 223–263. doi:10.1080/14616730902814762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In Cicchetti, D. & Carlson, V. (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the cause and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 432–463). New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511665707.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraley, R. C., Hudson, N. W., Heffernan, M. E., & Segal, N. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 354–368. doi:10.1037/pspp0000027CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2014). Categories or dimensions? A taxometric analysis of the Adult Attachment Interview. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 36–50. doi:10.1111/mono.12112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387–404. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In Simpson, J. A. & Rholes, W. S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Grove, W. M. (2004). The MAXSLOPE taxometric procedure: Mathematical derivation, parameter estimation, consistency tests. Psychological Reports, 95, 517–550. doi:10.2466/pr0.95.2.517-550CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haltigan, J. D., Leerkes, E. M., Wong, M. S., Fortuna, K., Roisman, G. I., Supple, A. J., … Plamondon, A. (2014a). Adult attachment states of mind: Measurement invariance across ethnicity and associations with maternal sensitivity. Child Development, 85, 1019–1035. doi:10.1111/cdev.12180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haltigan, J. D., Roisman, G. I., Groh, A. M., Holland, A. S., Booth-LaForce, C., Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2019). Antecedents of attachment states of mind in normative-risk and high-risk caregiving: Cross-race and cross-sex generalizability in two longitudinal studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60, 1309–1322. doi:10.1111/jcpp.13086CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haltigan, J. D., Roisman, G. I., & Haydon, K. C. (2014b). The latent structure of the Adult Attachment Interview: Exploratory and confirmatory evidence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 15–35. doi:10.1111/mono.12111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haydon, K. C., Roisman, G. I., & Burt, K. B. (2012). In search of security: The latent structure of the Adult Attachment Interview revisited. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 589–606. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haydon, K. C., Roisman, G. I., Owen, M. T., Booth-LaForce, C., & Cox, M. J. (2014). Shared and distinctive antecedents of Adult Attachment Interview state-of-mind and inferred-experience dimensions. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 108–125. doi:10.1111/mono.12116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hesse, E. (2016). The Adult Attachment Interview: Protocol, method of analysis, and empirical studies: 1985–2015. In Cassidy, J., Shaver, P. R., Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (3rd ed., pp. 553–597). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, E. A., Ghaderi, A., Harmer, C. J., Ramchandani, P. G., Cuijpers, P., Morrison, A. P., … Craske, M. G. (2018). The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on psychological treatments research in tomorrow's science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5, 237–286. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30513-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobak, R. R. (1993). The Adult Attachment Interview Q-set. Unpublished manuscript. Newark: University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Larose, S., & Bernier, A. (2001). Social support processes: Mediators of attachment state of mind and adjustment in late adolescence. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 96–120. doi:10.1080/14616730010024762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Trauma, mental representation, and the organization of memory for mother-referent material. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 739–759. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001849CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7, 19–40. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.19CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2003–2008). Adult Attachment Scoring and Classification System. Unpublished manuscript. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
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, 66–104. doi:10.2307/3333827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J., Raby, K. L., Labella, M. H., & Roisman, G. I. (2017). Childhood abuse and neglect, adult attachment states of mind, and non-suicidal self-injury. Attachment & Human Development, 19, 425–446. doi:10.1080/14616734.2017.1330832CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.Google Scholar
Meehl, P. E., & Yonce, L. J. (1996). Taxometric analysis: II. Detecting taxonicity using covariance of two quantitative indicators in successive intervals of a third indicator (MAXCOV procedure). Psychological Reports, 78, 1091–1227. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raby, K. L., Labella, M. H., Martin, J., Carlson, E. A., & Roisman, G. I. (2017a). Childhood abuse and neglect and insecure attachment states of mind in adulthood: Prospective, longitudinal evidence from a high-risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 347–363. doi:10.1017/S0954579417000037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raby, K. L., Yarger, H. A., Lind, T., Fraley, R. C., Leerkes, E., & Dozier, M. (2017b). Attachment states of mind among internationally adoptive and foster parents. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 365–378. doi:10.1017/S0954579417000049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., & Abo-Zaid, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of individual participant data: Rationale, conduct, and reporting. British Medical Journal, 340, c221. doi:10.1136/bmj.c221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). A taxometric study of the Adult Attachment Interview. Developmental Psychology, 43, 675–686. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.675CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2014). Pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps: A rejoinder to Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2014). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 168–173. doi:10.1111/mono.12121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruscio, J., Carney, L., Dever, L., Pliskin, M., & Wang, S. B. (2018). Using the Comparison Curve Fit Index (CCFI) in taxometric analyses: Averaging curves, standard errors, and CCFI profiles. Psychological Assessment, 30, 744–754. doi:10.1037/pas0000522CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruscio, J., Haslam, N., & Ruscio, A. M. (2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Keane, T. M. (2004). Using taxometric analysis to distinguish a small latent taxon from a latent dimension with positively skewed indicators: The case of involuntary defeat syndrome. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 145–154. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.145CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruscio, J., Ruscio, A. M., & Meron, M. (2007). Applying the bootstrap to taxometric analysis: Generating empirical sampling distributions to help interpret results. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 349–386. doi:10.1080/00273170701360795CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruscio, J., & Walters, G. D. (2011). Differentiating categorical and dimensional data with taxometric analysis: Are two variables better than none? Psychological Assessment, 23, 287–299. doi:10.1037/a0022054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruscio, J., Walters, G. D., Marcus, D. K., & Kaczetow, W. (2010). Comparing the relative fit of categorical and dimensional latent variable models using consistency tests. Psychological Assessment, 22, 5–21. doi:10.1037/a0018259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2014). Confined question for continuity: The categorical versus continuous nature of attachment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 157–167. doi:10.1111/mono.12120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhage, M. L., Fearon, P. R. M., Schuengel, C., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Madigan, S., … The Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis (2018). Examining ecological constraints on the intergenerational transmission of attachment via individual participant data meta-analysis. Child Development, 89, 2023–2037. doi:10.1111/cdev.13085CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhage, M. L., Schuengel, C., Madigan, S., Fearon, P. R. M., Oosterman, M., Cassibba, R., … Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Narrowing the transmission gap: A synthesis of three decades of research on intergenerational transmission of attachment. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 337–366. doi:10.1037/bul0000038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types from continua. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wang, S. B., & Ruscio, J. (2017). RTaxometrics: An R package for taxometric analysis.Google Scholar
Waters, E., & Beauchaine, T. P. (2003). Are there really patterns of attachment? Comment on Fraley and Spieker (2003). Developmental Psychology, 39, 417–422. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71, 164–172. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whipple, N., Bernier, A., & Mageau, G. A. (2011). A dimensional approach to maternal attachment state of mind: Relations to maternal sensitivity and maternal autonomy support. Developmental Psychology, 47, 396–403. doi:10.1037/a0021310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Raby et al. supplementary material

Raby et al. supplementary material

Download Raby et al. supplementary material(File)
File 47.8 KB