attachment and autonomy in adolescence 1people.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/alex...

Attachment and Autonomy in Adolescence 1

Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Models of Attachment as Predictors of Developing

Autonomy and Relatedness in Observed Family Interactions

Alexandra H. Gitter

Distinguished Majors Thesis

University of Virginia

May, 1999

Advisor: Joseph P. Allen Second Reader: Robert S. Marvin

Running Head: ATTACHMENT AND AUTONOMY IN ADOLESCENCE


Abstract

This study examined links between adolescent and maternal attachment models and the

adolescent developmental task of attaining autonomy while maintaining relatedness with parents as

observed in family interactions of 88 adolescents who were seen at ages 16 and 18. Both adolescents’

and mothers’ attachment models combined to predict interactive behaviors around autonomy and

relatedness both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Attachment security predicted higher levels of

autonomy and relatedness-promoting behaviors, whereas attachment preoccupation predicted

theoretically meaningful combinations of both positive and negative family behaviors. Mothers’ secure

attachment models predicted both adolescent and maternal relatedness-promoting behaviors over time.

Increases in adolescents’ hostile and critical behaviors (one marker of undermining relatedness) were

predicted by mothers’ preoccupied attachment models. The implications of connections between

attachment models, the development of family interactions over time, and broader theories of adolescent

and family development are discussed.


Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Models of Attachment as Predictors of Developing

Autonomy and Relatedness in Observed Family Interactions

Adolescence has traditionally been defined as the transition from childhood to adulthood.

While proceeding through this period, adolescents are faced with numerous tasks that they must master

before becoming adults. The developmental task of attaining autonomy, becoming independent in one’s

thoughts and opinions as well as actions, has long been thought of as one of the central processes of

adolescence (Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). Contrary to traditional beliefs, growing evidence indicates that

this process is most easily navigated in the context of a close relationship with parents rather than at the

expense of this relationship (Allen, Aber, & Leadbeater, 1990; Allen & Hauser, 1996; Allen, Hauser,

Bell, & O’Connor, 1994a; Allen, Hauser, Eickholt, Bell, & O’Connor, 1994b; Best, Hauser, & Allen,

1997; Connell, Halpern-Felher, Clifford, Crichlow, & Usinger, 1995; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985;

Taub, 1997).

In order to assess how well adolescents are able to strive for autonomy while maintaining a

positive relationship, much of the relevant research has investigated parent-child interactions and the

behaviors exhibited by each family member during these interactions (e.g. Alexander, 1973; Allen et al.,

1994a; Allen & Hauser, 1996; Becker-Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik, 1997; Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies,

Fleming, & Gamble, 1993; Kobak, Ferenz-Gillies, Everhart, & Seabrook, 1994; Kobak, Sudler, &

Gamble, 1991; Steinberg, 1981; Steinberg & Hill, 1978). The degree to which adolescents attain

autonomy during a family discussion is often measured through the quality of their reasoning and their

level of confidence. The level of closeness or relatedness within the relationship is similarly identified


from individual behaviors during a family disagreement, such as questioning intended to further

discussion and express empathy, validation of others’ ideas and opinions, and engagement in the

conversation.

Adolescents’ abilities to establish autonomy and relatedness as previously defined have been

linked to numerous positive outcomes. For instance, research has shown that expressing autonomy and

relatedness is related to positive self-esteem, ego development, ego resiliency, friendship competence

and educational attainment (Allen et al., 1994a; Best et al., 1997; Connell et al., 1995; Freitag, Belsky,

Grossmann, Grossmann, & Scheuerer-Englisch, 1996). Conversely, when adolescents’ autonomy is

undermined within the parent-child dyad during a disagreement, it has been found that teenagers are

more likely to experience internalizing behaviors such as depressed affect and anxiety. They are also

more likely to become enmeshed in and confused by attachment relationships later in life (Allen et al.,

1990; Allen et al., 1994b; Allen & Hauser, 1996; Fauber, Forehand, Thomas, & Wierson, 1990;

Gjerde & Block, 1991; Kobak et al., 1991). In addition, a lack of relatedness between adolescents

and their parents during disagreements has been linked to externalizing behaviors such as delinquency

and dropping out of high school (Allen et al., 1990; Allen et al., 1994b; Allen & Hauser, 1992; Connell

et al., 1995).

Although much research has shown that the struggle for autonomy is a key task of adolescence

and, more specifically, that maintaining relatedness with parents during this process is important and

necessary, surprisingly little research has investigated the development of individual differences in this

achievement. The few studies that have attempted to present possible models for this process have


focused on attachment theory as one possible source of influence (Allen & Land, in press; Collins &

Repinski, 1994; Freitag et al., 1996; Kenny, 1994; Schultheiss & Blustein, 1994). Attachment theory

focuses on the attachment relationship between children and their caregivers, and the experiences

associated with those relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Initially used to describe infants’ connections

to their mothers and found to predict functioning five to ten years into the future (Ainsworth, Blehar,

Waters, & Wall, 1978), attachment theory was later applied to adults’ strategies for processing affect

and memories relating to attachment experiences described in the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)

(Main & Goldwyn, in press). Research has also shown that attachment theory can similarly be applied

to describe adolescents’ memories and representations of attachment experiences (Allen & Hauser,

1996; Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Allen & Land, in press). Secure attachment

representations in both adolescence and adulthood are characterized by accurate recollections of affect

and memories regarding attachment experiences. Insecure attachment representations can be either

preoccupied or dismissing in nature and are characterized by memories of attachment experiences that

are inconsistent with associated affect. Individuals with preoccupied states of mind regarding

attachment tend to be overly caught up in particular attachment relationships, are often confused about

their attachment experiences and relationships, and seem to be unable to move beyond these

experiences. Individuals who are dismissing of attachment appear to cut off and/or completely devalue

attachment relationships and experiences (Main & Goldwyn, in press).

The little research that currently exists on the adolescent task of attaining autonomy and

relatedness looked solely at either the influences of adolescents’ states of mind regarding the attachment


relationship or parents’ attachment organizations. In addition, the majority of this research observed

adolescents and their parents at only one point in time, thus making the research, thus far, incomplete.

Because relationships involve more than one person, it can be inferred that the task of maintaining

closeness within a relationship is influenced by aspects of the family as a system rather than by any one

individual (Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). Previous research has, thereby, ignored the possibilities that a)

adolescent and parental states of mind with regards to attachment may differ b) each individual’s state of

mind regarding attachment may influence the relationship separately, as well as jointly, and c) children

and their parents have reciprocal effects on each other (Bell, 1979). In addition, the nature of the

parent-child relationship changes through adolescence, with adolescents turning to their parents for

different types of support as they age (Allen & Land, in press; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Taub,

1997). Most previous studies on the development of individual differences in attaining autonomy and

relatedness, however, observed adolescents and their parents at only one point in time, ignoring the fact

that adolescence is inherently a time of change and transition, with the parent-child relationship changing

as well.

Based on attachment theory, much research has explored the link between parental attachment

strategies and behaviors exhibited during parent-child interactions during infancy. Such research has

shown that parents holding secure attachment representations allowed their infant children more

autonomy while maintaining a sense of connectedness with their infants, whereas parents adhering to

more insecure mental models of attachment had more trouble promoting a balance of autonomy and

relatedness. For example, Glachan and Murray (1997) found that mothers’ attachment representations


were directly related to their current relationship with their infant. More specifically, parents with more

insecure attachment models had infants who displayed less warmth in an interaction than children whose

parents with more secure attachment organizations (Cohn, Cowan, Cowan, & Pearson, 1992).

Similarly, research has shown that mothers who held insecure attachment models behaved less

supportively toward their two- to four-year-old children than those with secure attachment

representations during an interaction task (Rhodes, Simpson, & Blakely, 1995). Crandell, Fitzgerald,

and Whipple (1997) observed that during interactions, mothers with secure attachment representations

encouraged child autonomy more than mothers with more insecure attachment representations. Parent-

child dyads in which the mothers held more secure attachment organizations also related to each other

more warmly than those with mothers who had more insecure attachment representations. However,

studies have been inconsistent in demonstrating that behaviors exhibited in the strange situation at infancy

parallel behaviors of adolescence (Weinfield, 1996; Zimmermann, Fremmer-Bombik, Spangler, &

Grossmann, 1995), so conclusions drawn from these studies are not necessarily applicable to

adolescence.

Similar findings were observed in interactions between mothers and ten-year-old children

(Freitag et al., 1996). In their study, the authors combined both the mothers’ and children’s attachment

representations (assessed during infancy) into a composite attachment security score. The researchers

observed that the level of security was related to children’s portrayal of “connectedness” and

“individuality” assessed in a family interaction task, constructs similar to relatedness and autonomy.

Freitag et al. expanded the previous research on the development of autonomy and relatedness by


investigating the attachment as a possible predictor of children’s behaviors within the parent-child dyad.

However, attachment models have been shown to change between infancy and adolescence (Becker-

Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik, 1997), so these findings can not necessarily be applied to explain similar

processes in adolescence.

In adolescence, research on attachment models and family interactions is much more limited.

Kobak et al. (1991) studied the process of attaining autonomy while maintaining relatedness in

adolescence by investigating relations between adolescents’ own attachment representations and

behaviors exhibited during family interactions. Results indicated that adolescents’ insecure/preoccupied

attachment models were associated with “maternal dominance” and adolescents’ “dysfunctional anger”

during mother-adolescent problem-solving tasks. In this study, “maternal dominance” referred to the

exhibition of a mother’s autonomy and the inhibition of an adolescent’s autonomy; and “dysfunctional

anger” refers to the expression of negative relatedness, specifically hostile or critical behaviors.

Therefore, the researchers concluded that adolescents’ attachment models were linked to both the

mother’s and adolescent’s behaviors in the context of family disagreements.

Kobak et al. (1993) further investigated the influence of adolescent attachment on adolescents’

current relationships with their mothers, demonstrating that gender played a role in these influences.

They found that male adolescents with secure attachment representations interacted with their mothers in

a manner that involved less “dysfunctional anger” and less “avoidance” (two examples of relatedness-

inhibiting behaviors), than males with insecure models of attachment, whereas female adolescents who

held secure attachment representations exhibited only less “dysfunctional anger” than their insecurely


attached counterparts. Males with insecure/dismissing attachment models exhibited more “dysfunctional

anger” in their interactions while interactions involving females who held insecure/dismissing attachment

representations were characterized by “maternal dominance,” behavior inhibiting the adolescent’s

autonomy. Results also showed that males tended to be more insecure/dismissing than girls. These

findings further support the notion that attachment representations are related to family behaviors. Once

again, the authors neglected to address the possibility that family members’ attachment models may

contribute independently and in conjunction to influence the parent-child relationship.

Kobak et al. (1994) investigated the relation between maternal attachment representations, as

opposed to those of adolescents, and family behaviors. The authors observed that mothers’

preoccupation with attachment was related to adolescents’ inability to exhibit autonomy in the course of

a discussion, but only with older adolescents (approximately 17 years old). No significant results

indicated any relationship between mothers’ secure attachment models with behaviors exhibited by their

adolescent children nor between any attachment representations and adolescents’ relatedness. These

finding further support the idea that attachment models predict behaviors around autonomy and

relatedness within the parent-child dyad, adding the notion that mothers’ attachment models (especially

preoccupied attachment models) have predictive value, as well.

Adolescents’ attachment representations were again examined by Allen and Hauser (1996).

Unlike previous research, Allen and Hauser looked at interactions between adolescents and their fathers

as well as with their mothers. Disagreements were observed when the adolescents were fourteen years

old. Their attachment representations were assessed eleven years later using the Adult Attachment


Interview. Results showed that mothers’ promotions of autonomy during a disagreement were related

to adolescents’ secure attachment representations eleven years later. The authors also found that

adolescents who were highly autonomous while maintaining relatedness with their fathers were later

more likely to be securely than insecurely attached. Also, adolescents who inhibited their fathers’

autonomy through overpersonalizing statements were most often preoccupied with attachment (unable

to move beyond early attachment relationships and experiences) eleven years later. Although this study

did examine some development through time, the variables of attachment and autonomy and relatedness

were not measured at both times, so true change over time was undetectable. In addition and unlike

previous research (Freitag et al.), this study investigated levels of autonomy and relatedness as seen in

family behaviors as predictors of attachment models. Therefore, conclusions regarding the

development of the adolescent task of attaining autonomy while maintaining relatedness can not

necessarily be drawn from these findings.

Becker-Stoll and Fremmer-Bombik (1997) once again examined cross-sectional relations

between adolescent attachment models and family members’ behaviors in the course of disagreements

with their parents. Like Allen and Hauser (1996) before them, the authors found that adolescents with

secure attachment representations were most likely to exhibit and promote autonomy and relatedness

when interacting with their mothers. Results also showed that insecure/dismissing adolescents exhibited

and promoted autonomy less than their more secure counterparts and promoted relatedness less than

both secure and insecure/preoccupied adolescents. Unlike previous studies on attachment and

adolescent behaviors, Becker-Stoll and Fremmer-Bombik studied a sample with a wide variety of


socioeconomic backgrounds, demonstrating that the link between adolescent attachment representations

and family behaviors appear to be consistent for various types of families.

The relatively little research that exists on adolescence, and specifically that which has

investigated behaviors indicative of the struggles for autonomy and relatedness, has identified attachment

representation as an important possible predictor of adolescent behavior within the parent-child dyad.

Studies have suggested that individual secure attachment representations predict more autonomy- and

relatedness-promoting behaviors, while individual preoccupied attachment models predict more

autonomy- and relatedness-undermining behaviors. However, no study to date has examined the

independent and combined influences of both parental and adolescent attachment representations on the

parent-child relationship. Further research is needed to investigate whether each person’s model of

attachment contributes independently to the family interaction or interaction behaviors are primarily

determined by one or the other’s model of attachment. Another question that remains unanswered is

how the process of attaining autonomy and relatedness develops over time in families whose members

have different attachment models. The previous research demonstrated that attachment models cross-

sectionally predict displays of autonomy and relatedness in family interactions. But do these

predictions change over time? The rapidly changing nature of the parent-child relationship during

adolescence (Allen et al., 1998) suggests that the links between attachment models and autonomy and

relatedness may change, as well. Yet this has never been empirically investigated.

This study further investigates individual and family differences in the developmental task of

striving for autonomy while maintaining relatedness. Observations of mother-adolescent interactions and


individual interviews will be used to study the relationship between adolescents’ and mothers’ internal

representations of attachment and family members’ behaviors within the relationship. Unlike previous

research, the present study will assess the separate and combined influences adolescent and maternal

attachment representations in order to better explain these processes. Incorporating the notion that

adolescence is a transitional period involving changes within the parent-child relationship, the present

study will also go beyond past research by observing changes in family interactions at two different

points in adolescent development. The current study will also expand existing research by exploring

which specific autonomy and relatedness behaviors are most linked to attachment representations.

In this study we plan to address the following specific questions and hypotheses: 1) How do

attachment representations manifest themselves in family interactions? It is expected that individuals with

more secure attachment states of mind will promote autonomy while maintaining relatedness, while

individuals who have more preoccupied attachment models will have difficulty maintaining autonomy and

relatedness. 2) Do adolescent and maternal attachment representations combine to influence autonomy

and relatedness? It is expected that families in which both the adolescent and mother hold more secure

attachment representations will be those most likely to promote adolescent autonomy and relatedness,

while families in which both members have more preoccupied attachment models will be those most

likely to undermine autonomy and relatedness. 3) How do the relative influences of attachment

representations change over time? It is expected that families with more secure models of attachment

will increase the promotion of autonomy and relatedness over time more than their preoccupied

counterparts. This study examines connections between attachment models and family interaction


behaviors in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse sample of moderately at-risk adolescents. The

sample was selected to allow a maximally meaningful range of family structures and types at various

levels of psychosocial functioning, including substantial numbers of families and adolescents functioning

both adequately and poorly.

Method

Participants

Eighty-eight ninth and tenth graders (45 male, 43 female) and their mothers participated in this

study. Upon entering the study, adolescents ranged from age 14 to 18.75 years with a mean of 15.9

years (SD = 0.9). At the second wave of research, approximately two years later, the mean age of

adolescents was 18.1 years (SD = 1.0) with a range from 15.9 to 22 years. Sixty-one adolescents

identified themselves as European-American (69.3%), 29 as African-American (29.6%), and one as a

member of another group (1.1%). Forty-three percent of adolescents were living with both biological

parents when they entered the study. The median family income was $25,000 with a range from less

than $5,000 to greater than $60,000. Parents’ median education level was some college or technical

school training beyond high school (range was from less than an eighth-grade education to completion of

an advanced degree). At the second wave of data collection, 59.8% of adolescents were still in high

school, 14.9% had dropped out, 18.4% had already graduated, 5.7% were attending college, and

1.1% had obtained a general equivalency diploma (GED).

Participants were recruited through public school systems serving rural, suburban, and

moderately urban areas. Adolescents were selected for inclusion in this study on the presence of at


least one of four possible academic risk factors: 1) failing a single course for a single marking period, 2)

any lifetime history of grade retention, 3) 10 or more absences in one marking period, or 4) any history

of school suspension. These broad selection criteria were used to include a wide range of adolescents

who could be identified from academic records as having the potential for future academic and social

difficulties. Included in the sample are both adolescents who had already experienced serious difficulties

and others who were performing adequately with only occasional minor problems. As intended, these

criteria identified approximately one-half of all ninth- and tenth-grade students as eligible for the study.

Procedure

After adolescents were identified as meeting the criteria of the study, letters explaining the study

were sent to the families of each potential participant. Interested families sent back post cards

containing information about how and when to contact them by phone. If both the adolescent and the

parent(s) agreed to participate, they were scheduled to come in for two, three-hour sessions.

Approximately 67% of the families contacted by phone agreed to participate in the study. Families

were paid a total of $105.00 for their participation. At each session, active informed consent was

obtained from both parents and adolescents. Adolescents and their parents were interviewed

separately, and in the introduction and throughout the sessions, confidentiality was assured to all family

members for all data collected.

Two years following the initial session, the families were again contacted by phone and invited to

return for two more sessions. Again, families were paid $105.00 for their participation, active informed

consent was obtained, and confidentiality was assured. All data in the study were covered under a


Department of Health and Human services Confidentiality Certificate which protects data against

subpoena by federal, state, or local courts and other agencies.

Measures

Adult Attachment Interview and Q-set (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996; Kobak, Cole,

Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993). Researchers administered this structured interview to

explore individuals’ evaluations and descriptions of their childhood relationships with parents.

Participants were probed for abstract terms as well as specific supporting memories. For instance,

interviewers asked participants to list five words describing their early attachment relationships and then

to describe specific instances that corresponded to each word. Other questions addressed experiences

of upset, separation, loss, trauma, and rejection. Finally, interviewers asked participants to provide

more integrative descriptions of changes in the relationship and the current state of the relationships.

The interview consisted of 18 questions and lasted one hour on average. Questions from the original

adult version of this interview were slightly adapted to better accommodate an adolescent population

(Ward & Carlson, 1995). Interviews were audiotaped and then transcribed for coding.

The AAI Q-Set (Kobak et al., 1993). This Q-Set was designed to resemble the Adult

Attachment Interview Classification System (Main & Goldwyn, in press) while assessing continuous

qualities of attachment organization. [The data produced by this system can be reduced via an algorithm

to classifications that largely agree with three-category ratings from the AAI Classification System

(Borman-Spurrell, Allen, Hauser, Carter, & Cole-Detke, 1995; Kobak, al., 1993)]. Each coder using

the Q-Set method reads an AAI transcript and provides a Q-sort description by using a forced


distribution and assigning 100 items into nine categories ranging from most to least characteristic of the

interview. All interviews were blindly rated by at least two coders with extensive training in both the Q-

sort and Main Adult Attachment Interview Classification System.

The Q-sets were then compared with dimensional prototype sorts for: secure versus anxious

interview strategies, reflecting an overall cohesion of discourse, an accurate integration of episodic and

semantic attachment memories, and a clear objective evaluation of attachment; preoccupied strategies,

reflecting either a rambling and unfocused nature of dialogue on attachment experiences or an angry

preoccupation with attachment figures; dismissing strategies, reflecting an inability or unwillingness to

discuss memories and issues of attachment, an inaccurate idealization of attachment figures and the

relationship, and/or a lack of evidence for valuing attachment, in general; and deactivating versus

hyperactivating strategies, representing the overall balance of dismissing and preoccupied styles.

Kobak et al. (1993) validated the use of these dimensions and stated that they accurately capture the

constructs of the AAI Classification System. Each participant’s scale score consisted of the correlation

of the 100 Q-sort items with each attachment dimension (ranging from -1.00 to 1.00). The Spearman-

Brown reliabilities for the final scale scores were .84 for security, .89 for dismissal of attachment, .82 for

preoccupation, and .91 for the hyperactivating versus deactivating scales. Although this system was

designed to yield continuous measures of attachment organizations rather than replicate classifications

from the Main and Goldwyn (in press) system, the current study reduced the scale scores to

classifications by using the largest Q-scale score above .20 as the primary classification (Kobak et al.,

1993). When scores were compared to a subsample (N=76) of the adolescent AAI’s classified by an


independent coder with well-established reliability in classifying AAI’s (U. Wartner), 74% received

identical codes (kappa = .56, p <.0001), and 84% of scores matched in terms of security versus

insecurity (kappa = .68).

Family Interaction Task. Adolescents and their mothers participated in a revealed differences

task in which they discussed a issue of disagreement. Typical topics included money, grades, household

rules, friends, brothers and sisters, communication, plans for the future, alcohol and drugs, religion, and

dating. These interactions were videotaped and transcribed for coding.

Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System (Allen, Hauser, Bell, Boykin, & Tate, 1995).

Coders used both the videotapes and transcripts of mother-adolescent interactions to determine the

extent to which autonomy and relatedness were exhibited and/or undermined throughout the course of

the discussion. Coders followed concrete behavioral guidelines provided by the Autonomy and

Relatedness Coding System (Allen et al., 1995) to rate both mothers’ and adolescents’ individual

statements on one or more of 10 subscales with scores ranging from zero to four. Subscales were

grouped into four categories: 1) promoting autonomy, including subscales of stating reasons and

displaying confidence; 2) undermining autonomy, including subscales of recanting one’s own position,

overpersonalizing the discussion, and pressuring the other to agree; 3) promoting relatedness, including

subscales of asking questions, validating the other person, and actively engaging in discussion; and 4)

undermining relatedness, including subscales of interrupting the other person and displaying hostility

during the interaction. The global scale of promoting autonomy is designed to capture the degree to

which an individual can think and act independently while allowing and encouraging the other member of


the dyad to attain autonomy as well. In contrast, the undermining autonomy scale measures the degree

to which each individual attempts to control the conversation, thereby not allowing the other person to

strive for autonomy. The relatedness scales are similarly designed to capture how well each family

member maintains the closeness of the relationship during a disagreement. Specific guidelines for each

code and example statements are presented in Appendix A.

Each interaction was coded by at least two trained coders, and inter-rater reliability for these

scales was calculated using Spearman-Brown correlations. Reliability coefficients for each scale were

.86 for adolescents exhibiting autonomy, .77 for adolescents undermining autonomy, .82 for mothers

exhibiting autonomy, .71 for mothers undermining autonomy, .82 for adolescents exhibiting relatedness,

.80 for adolescents undermining relatedness, .84 for mothers exhibiting relatedness, and .80 for mothers

undermining relatedness. Past research has found this coding system to be a reliable predictor of both

family and adolescent functioning (Allen et al., 1994a; Allen et al., 1994b; Allen & Hauser, 1996;

Becker-Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik, 1997).


Results

Preliminary Analyses

Sample means. Means and standard deviations of measures of attachment are presented in

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the global autonomy and relatedness scales are presented in

Table 2, and means and standard deviations of specific autonomy and relatedness subscales are

presented in Table 3. Also presented in Tables 2 and 3 are the t-test scores for differences between

mean scores on all autonomy and relatedness scales when adolescents were 18 and 16 years old.

Analyses revealed that both adolescents (t(88) = 3.71, p < .001) and their mothers (t(88) = 2.92, p <

.01) undermined relatedness more when adolescents were 18 than 16 years old. Results also showed

that mothers increased their undermining of adolescents’ autonomy (t(88) = 4.98, p < .001) over the

two-year period. No changes in adolescents’ promotion of autonomy, undermining of autonomy, or

promotion of relatedness were observed over the two-year period. In addition, mothers promoted

autonomy ( t(88) = 4.98, p < .001) and relatedness (t(88) = -4.42, p < .001) less as adolescents got

older (see Table 2). Similar patterns of change emerged when each global autonomy and relatedness

scale was broken down into its specific subscales (see Table 3).

Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Attachment Measures Mean S.D.

Attachment Measures Adolescent Secure Attachment Organization .26 .35 Adolescent Preoccupied Attachment Organization .07 .23 Adolescent Dismissing Attachment Organization .09 .38 Maternal Secure Attachment Organization .26 .37 Maternal Preoccupied Attachment Organization .09 .23 Maternal Dismissing Attachment Organization -.04 .35


Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Global Autonomy and Relatedness Scales

Time 1 Time 2 Time 2 - Time 1

Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t

Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy 1.92 .92 2.00 .80 .74 Mother Promoting Autonomy 2.71 .70 2.56 .62 -1.96* Adolescent Undermining Autonomy .89 .58 .93 .57 .58 Mother Undermining Autonomy .87 .46 1.18 .53 4.98***

Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness 1.30 .52 1.32 .52 .19 Mother Promoting Relatedness 2.14 .54 1.89 .50 -4.42*** Adolescent Undermining Relatedness 1.20 .69 1.20 .63 3.71*** Mother Undermining Relatedness .90 .56 1.09 .58 2.92**

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p ≤ .05. + p < .10. N = 88.


Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Specific Autonomy and Relatedness Subscales

Time 1 Time 2 Time 2-Time 1 Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t Autonomy Subscales:

Adolescent Promoting Autonomy Adolescent Reasons 1.51 .83 1.51 .66 -.01 Adolescent Confidence 2.33 1.14 2.49 1.05 1.21 Mother Promoting Autonomy Mother Reasons 2.32 .84 2.11 .65 -2.20* Mother Confidence 3.09 .73 3.00 .73 -1.12

Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Recanting 1.05 .77 .51 .64 -5.33*** Adolescent Blurring .82 .95 1.22 .98 2.99** Adolescent Pressuring .78 .87 1.06 .85 2.68**

Mother Undermining Autonomy Mother Recanting .10 .26 .17 .40 1.52 Mother Blurring .98 .82 1.61 .93 5.56*** Mother Pressuring 1.53 .90 1.75 .89 2.20*

Relatedness Subscales:

Adolescent Promoting Relatedness Adolescent Queries 1.10 .85 .96 .69 -1.31 Adolescent Validating .94 .63 1.02 .77 .95 Adolescent Engagement 1.88 .80 1.96 .69 .93

Mother Promoting Relatedness Mother Queries 2.39 .73 1.80 .89 -6.04*** Mother Validating 1.52 .81 1.40 .77 -1.29 Mother Engagement 2.52 .68 2.47 .56 -.67

Adolescent Undermining Relatedness Adolescent Disrupting/Interrupting 1.73 .79 1.73 .74 -.02 Adolescent Hostile/Critical Statements .67 .79 .67 .77 -.03

Mother Undermining Relatedness Mother Disrupting/Interrupting 1.22 .78 1.39 .72 1.92+ Mother Hostile/Critical Statements .58 .62 .80 .74 2.47*


Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. N = 88.


Descriptive statistics. All measures were examined for possible gender, racial/ethnic minority

status, and family income effects. Gender effects were not found for autonomy and relatedness

behaviors, but significant effects emerged with attachment strategies (see Table 4). As hypothesized,

female adolescents were more likely to exhibit a preoccupied attachment style than male adolescents (r

= .29, p < .01). Also, consistent with prior findings, male adolescents tended to display dismissing

attachment strategies more often than their female counterparts (r = .18, p <.10). Racial/ethnic minority

status (a dummy variable coded as 0 = European-American; 1 = Member of Racial/Ethnic Minority

Group) and family income both had significant effects on autonomy and relatedness behaviors as well as

attachment style (see Table 4). Specifically, white, middle-class families holding secure attachment

models and promoting autonomy and relatedness more often than their less privileged counterparts.

Due to their effects on the examined measures, gender, racial/ethnic status, and family income were

incorporated in all further analyses.


Table 4 Correlations of Autonomy and Relatedness Behaviors and Attachment Strategies with Gender, Racial/Ethnic Minority Status, and Family Income Gender Racial

Minority Family Income

r r r

Attachment Organizations Adolescent Secure Attachment Organization .06 -.34*** .30** Adolescent Preoccupied Attachment Organization .29** -.09 -.17 Adolescent Dismissing Attachment Organization -.18+ .40*** -.31** Maternal Secure Attachment Organization -.04 -.30** .31** Maternal Preoccupied Attachment Organization -.17 -.03 -.09 Maternal Dismissing Attachment Organization .12 .41*** -.33***

Time 1: Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy .04 -.31** .33*** Mother Promoting Autonomy -.08 -.05 .20+ Adolescent Undermining Autonomy .17 -.07 .02 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.17 .04 .05 Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness -.08 -.19+ .24* Mother Promoting Relatedness -.03 -.26** .29** Adolescent Undermining Relatedness .02 -.09 -.05 Mother Undermining Relatedness -.14 -.05 .05

Time 2: Autonomy Scales Adolescent Exhibiting Autonomy .03 -.12 .20+ Mother Promoting Autonomy .05 .03 .08 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy .16 -.10 .02 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.11 .07 .03 Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness -.09 -.04 .14 Mother Promoting Relatedness -.05 -.06 .20+ Adolescent Undermining Relatedness .08 -.16 .03 Mother Undermining Relatedness .04 .14 -.13


Note. *** p≤ .001. ** p < .01.* p < .05.+ p < .10.


Intercorrelations among attachment measures. Correlations between adolescent and

maternal attachment organizations are presented in Table 5. The scales measuring security of

attachment representation were highly negatively correlated with the dismissing scales for both

adolescents (r = -.93, p < .001) and mothers (r = -.85, p < .001) The scales for security were also

moderately negatively correlated with the preoccupation scales for adolescents (r = -.37, p <.001) and

mothers (r = -.51, p < .001). Preoccupation scales were also positively correlated with dismissing

scales (r = .19, p <.10 for adolescents; r = .34, p <.001 for mothers). Because of the redundancy

indicated by the high correlations among the security and dismissing scales, the maternal and adolescent

dismissing scales were not used in further analyses. Adolescent attachment organization was not related

to maternal attachment organization beyond a trend level: adolescent secure attachment organization

correlated negatively with maternal preoccupied attachment organization (r = -.19, p < .10) and

adolescent dismissing attachment organizations correlated positively with maternal preoccupied

attachment organization (r = .19, p < .10).

Table 5 Intercorrelations among Attachment Organizations

Attachment Organizations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Adolescent Secure -- 2. Adolescent Preoccupied -.37*** -- 3. Adolescent Dismissing -.93*** .19+ -- 4. Maternal Secure .15 .01 -.15 -- 5. Maternal Preoccupied -.19+ .13 .19+ -.51*** -- 6. Maternal Dismissing -.13 -.03 .11 -.85*** .34*** --

Note. *** p< .001. *** p < .01.* p < .05.+ p < .10.


Intercorrelations among autonomy and relatedness measures. Correlations between each

global autonomy and relatedness scale are presented in Table 6. Results show that interactive behaviors

promoting autonomy and relatedness were positively related for adolescents at ages 16 and 18 (r = .25,

p < .05 for Time 1; r = .49, p ≤ .001 for Time 2) and for mothers when adolescents were 16 only (r =

.28, p ≤ .01 for Time 1). The data also reveal that undermining autonomy was positively correlated

with undermining relatedness for both adolescents (r = .45, p ≤ .001 for Time 1; r = .60, p ≤ .001 for

Time 2) and mothers (r = .43, p ≤ .001 for Time 1; r = .58, p ≤ .001 for Time 2). Results also indicate

that adolescent global scales for autonomy and relatedness were related to maternal scales (see Table

6).

Intercorrelations among each specific autonomy subscale are presented in Table 7a and those

among specific relatedness subscales are presented in Table 7b. These results indicate similar relations

between adolescent and maternal behaviors emerge when global autonomy and relatedness scales are

broken down into their specific subscales (see Table 7a & 7b).


Primary Analyses

Simple correlational analyses of attachment organizations and global autonomy

and relatedness scales. Initial analyses looked at simple correlations between maternal and adolescent

attachment security and preoccupation and global measures of autonomy and relatedness as well as

specific individual autonomy and relatedness behaviors. These simple correlations are presented in

Table 8. They indicate numerous relationships between attachment models and behaviors displaying

and promoting autonomy and relatedness and a few links with undermining behaviors. These

relationships will be explored further below.

Table 8 Simple Correlations of Global Autonomy and Relatedness Scales with Attachment States of Mind Security Preoccupation Adolescent Maternal Adolescent Maternal r r r r Time 1: Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy .09 .31** .11 -.19+ Mother Promoting Autonomy -.06 .13 -.00 -.01 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy -.06 .02 .04 -.13 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.07 .13 -.05 .02

Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness .35*** .29 -.19+ -.35*** Mother Promoting Relatedness .19+ .29** .14 -.07 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness -.18+ .04 .22* -.02 Mother Undermining Relatedness .06 .05 -.02 -.02

Time 2: Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy .02 .07 .06 .04 Mother Promoting Autonomy .06 .17 -.08 .00 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy -.14 -.10 .08 .14 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.08 -.15 -.14 .06

Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness .09 .26* .06 -.05 Mother Promoting Relatedness .15 .19+ .02 -.10 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness -.12 -.10 .16 .21*


Mother Undermining Relatedness -.05 -.11 .02 .05

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.


Correlation analyses of attachment organizations and autonomy and relatedness. The first

set of analyses describe the most typical behaviors exhibited by adolescents and their mothers when one

member of the dyad displayed a more secure or more preoccupied attachment style. Thus these data

answer the question: how did security or preoccupation manifest itself in family interactions around

autonomy and relatedness? Primary analyses for this question used partial correlations between

adolescent and maternal attachment organizations and global measures of autonomy and relatedness,

after accounting for the effects of the three demographic variables previously identified (a dummy

variable for gender, a dummy variable for membership in a racial/ethnic minority group, and family

income). These data are presented in Tables 9, and, as expected, indicate that attachment security and

preoccupation are related to a wide range of family members’ behaviors in handling issues of autonomy

and relatedness.


Table 9 Correlations of Autonomy and Relatedness Behaviors with Attachment States of Mind (After Partialing Gender, Race/Ethnic Status, and Family Income)

Adolescent Maternal Adolescent Maternal Security Security Preoccupation Preoccupation Partial r Partial r Partial r Partial r Time 1:

Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy -.06 .21+ .13 -.17 Mother Promoting Autonomy -.11 .08 .06 .00 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy -.11 .00 -.01 -.11 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.06 .14 .02 .01

Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness .30** .23* -.17 -.36*** Mother Promoting Relatedness .08 .20+ .19+ -.06 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness -.22* .03 .20+ -.04 Mother Undermining Relatedness .05 .04 .02 -.05

Time 2:

Autonomy Scales Adolescent Promoting Autonomy .08 .01 .08 .07 Mother Promoting Autonomy .05 .17 -.07 .03 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy -.20+ -.12 .02 .17 Mother Undermining Autonomy -.06 -.15 -.07 .06

Relatedness Scales Adolescent Promoting Relatedness .06 .24* .11 -.05 Mother Promoting Relatedness .11 .15 .07 -.08 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness -.19+ -.15 .12 .22* Mother Undermining Relatedness .01 -.06 .01 .05

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ .01.* p < .05.+ p < .10.


As hypothesized, maternal secure attachment organization was positively related to adolescent

promotion of relatedness at ages sixteen and eighteen (r = .23, p < .05 for Time 1; r = .24, p < .01 for

Time 2). Results also showed that adolescent secure attachment representations related positively to

adolescents exhibiting relatedness at age 16 (r = .30, p < .01). In addition, adolescent secure

attachment organizations were negatively related to adolescents’ undermining autonomy at ages 16 and

18 ( r = -.22, p < .05 for Time 1; r = -.19, p < .10 for Time 2).

Maternal preoccupation with attachment was found to be negatively correlated with

adolescents’ exhibition of relatedness at age 16 (r = -.36, p < .001). At age 18, adolescents with more

preoccupied mothers attempted to undermine relatedness (r = .22, p < .05). Adolescent preoccupation

with attachment showed a trend towards positively relating to mothers’ promoting relatedness (r = .19,

p < .10) and adolescents’ undermining of autonomy (r = .20, p < .10) when adolescents were 16 years

old. No significant findings, however, were observed between adolescents’ preoccupied attachment

models and family behaviors two years later (see Table 9).

In order to further explore possible ways in which attachment models manifest themselves in

family interactions, the specific subscales were investigated. However, the relations between the

subscales and attachment models must be interpreted with caution since the sheer number of subscales

being used in analyses increase the probability that chance relationships will surface. Yet, analyses still

revealed that attachment models were related to specific interaction behaviors in similar patterns to

those involving global measures of autonomy and relatedness. These findings are presented in Appendix

B.


Hierarchical regression analyses of attachment organizations and measures of autonomy

and relatedness. The second set of primary analyses addressed how different aspects of mothers’ and

adolescents’ attachment models combine to explain autonomy and relatedness behaviors at a given

point in time. Hierarchical regression analyses examined the main effects of gender, racial/ethnic

minority status, family income, adolescent security, maternal security, adolescent preoccupation,

followed by maternal preoccupation in predicting global as well as specific measures of autonomy and

relatedness. Variables were entered in the above order. Relationships between attachment and all

scales and subscales were tested. Significant findings are presented in Tables 10-13 and are discussed

in further detail below.

In examining the degree to which adolescents exhibited autonomy at age 16, analyses revealed

that after accounting for the effects of related demographic covariates, only maternal secure attachment

organization positively predicted for adolescent autonomy at a trend level or above (β = .21, p < .10)

within an overall significant model (see Table 10).

Table 10 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Autonomy at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates

Adolescent Autonomy at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .08 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.18

Family Income .26* .145**

.145

II. Adolescent Security III.

-.06 .147** .002

Maternal Security .21+ .185** .038+ IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.12

.195**

.010

Maternal Preoccupation .11 .203** .008


Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.


Further analyses indicated that adolescent positive relatedness at age 16 can be predicted from

a combination of attachment representations (see Table 11). Specifically, adolescent security (β = .31,

p < .01), maternal security (β = .23, p < .05), and maternal preoccupation (β = -.28, p <.05) each

were significant predictors of adolescent relatedness after accounting for the effects of demographic

variables, accounting for 17.6% of the variance, combined.

Table 11

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Relatedness at Time 1 from Maternal and Adolescent Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates

Adolescent Relatedness at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) -.05 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.09

Family Income .18 .065

.065


.31** .147** .082**

Maternal Security .23* .192** .045* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

-.06

.194**

.002

Maternal Preoccupation

-.28* .243** .049*



When making predictions from attachment representations as assessed when adolescents were

16 to interactive behaviors at age 18, only maternal secure attachment organization remained as a

significant predictor of adolescent relatedness (β = .25, p < .05) (see Table 12). Table 12

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Relatedness at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates

Adolescent Relatedness at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) -.07 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

.03

Family Income

.14

.025

.025


.07 .029 .004

Maternal Security .25* .084 .059* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.18

.105

.021


.12

.114 .009



Analyses also showed that maternal positive relatedness when adolescents were 16 could be

predicted by adolescent preoccupation, with a trend toward maternal security also contributing (see

Table 13). Specifically, maternal security (β = .20, p < .10) and adolescent preoccupation (β = .28, p

< .05) account for a combined 9.0% of the variance after the effects of related covariables were

considered.

Table 13 Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Relatedness at Time 1 from Maternal and Adolescent Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates

Maternal Relatedness at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .01 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.15

Family Income .22+ .103*

.103


.09 .109* .006

Maternal Security .20+ .143* .036+ IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.28*

.197**

.054*


.05 .199** .002

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ 01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. All specific subscales were once again investigated to further explore the relationships between

attachment and interaction behaviors. Significant findings, presented in Appendix C, largely replicate the


patterns found for the global autonomy and relatedness scales. Analyses still revealed that interaction

behaviors often appeared to be jointly determined by each individual’s attachment organization.

Hierarchical regression analyses of attachment models and changes over time of global

measures of autonomy and relatedness. The relative changes in autonomy and relatedness behaviors

over the two-year period were determined based on the combined effects of adolescents’ and mothers’

states of mind regarding attachment. More specifically, in order to identify which adolescents gained the

most and least autonomy and relatedness over the two years following the initial assessment, a

hierarchical regression strategy, similar to that described above, was used in which future levels of

autonomy and relatedness (as indicated at age 18) were predicted after first accounting for current

levels (those at age 16) and other relevant factors. Predicting a future level of a variable while

accounting for predictions from initial levels (e.g., stability) yields a series of path models which reflect

one type of change over time: increases or decreases in the observed variable relative to predictions

based upon initial levels (Cohen & Cohen, 1975).

These analyses revealed no significant predictions of change to global scales of behaviors

around autonomy and relatedness, although there were two trends. Specifically, maternal secure

attachment organization displayed a trend toward predicting adolescent relatedness at age 18 (β = .20,

p < .10) even after accounting for the effects of related factors and adolescent relatedness at age 16,

and maternal preoccupation displays a trend toward predicting adolescent negative relatedness at age

18 (β = .20, p < .10) after accounting for related demographic factors and the level of negative

relatedness exhibited by adolescents at age 16.


Similar predictions were observed for various specific family behaviors, although, once again

interpretations of these findings must be made with caution. For instance, analyses revealed that the

degree to which adolescents pressured their mothers at age 18 was predicted by security of adolescent

attachment models (β = -.27, p ≤ .01) combined with security of maternal attachment models (β = -

.18, p < .10). Again, these predictions are those that existed above and beyond what was predicted

from related factors and the degree to which adolescents pressured two years earlier (see Table 14).

Table 14

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Pressuring at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Adolescent Pressuring at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Adolescent Pressuring at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

.11

Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.14

Family Income

.03

.033

.033

II. Adolescent Pressuring at Time 1

.36***

.162**

.129***

III. Adolescent Security IV. Maternal Security

-.27**

-.18+

.222***

.251***

.060***

.049+

V. Adolescent Preoccupation VI. Maternal Preoccupation

-.08

.16

.255***

.272***

.004

.017

Note. *** p ≤ .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.


Results also indicated that mothers’ secure attachment models significantly predicted the level

and extent of their reasoning when their adolescents were 18 beyond what was predicted by related

covariables and their level of reasoning when adolescents were 16 (β = .27, p < .05) (see Table 15).

Table 15

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Mothers’ Reasoning at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Mothers’ Reasoning at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Mother Reasons at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

.03


.01

Family Income

.09

.007

.007

II. Mother Reasons at Time 1

.30**

.093+

.086**


.12

.27*

.105+

.166*

.012

.061*


-.08

.15

.171*

.185*

.005

.014


In addition, maternal preoccupied attachment representation significantly predicted the quality

and amount of questions posed by adolescents at age 18 (β = .28, p ≤ .05) after accounting for the

effects of related covariables and level of questioning at age 16 (see Table 16).


Table 16

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Query Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Adolescent Query Behavior at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Adolescent Queries at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

-.11


.00

Family Income

-.07

.016

.016

II. Adolescent Queries at Time 1

.21*

.059

.043*


-.00

-.03

.059

.060

.000

.001


-.04

.28*

.061

.111

.001

.050*

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p ≤ .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Further analyses revealed that the degree to which older adolescents validated their mothers

thoughts and opinions was predicted from the combined effects of maternal and adolescent attachment

states of mind (see Table 17). Specifically, maternal secure attachment organization (β = .32, p ≤ .01)

combined with adolescent preoccupied attachment organization (β = .26, p < .05) to predict the degree

to which adolescents validated their mothers at age 18 even after accounting for the predictive effects of

related demographic variables and the amount of validating exhibited by adolescents two years earlier.


Table 17

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Validating Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Adolescent Validating Behavior at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Adolescent Validating at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

-.00


.03

Family Income

.18

.028

.028

II. Adolescent Validating at Time 1

.25*

.087+

.059*


-.01

.32**

.087

.177**

.000

.090**


.26*

.01

.222**

.222**

.045*

.000

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p < .05. + p ≤ .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.


Results also showed that mothers with more secure models of attachment were likely to

increase the degree to which they were engaged in the discussions (β = .23, p < .05) more than other

mothers even after accounting for the effects of their level of engagement when their children were 16

years old (see Table 18).

Table 18

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Engagement at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Maternal Engagement at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Maternal Engagement at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

.06


-.08

Family Income

.08

.022

.022

II. Maternal Engagement at Time 1

.34**

.128*

.106**


.09

.23*

.134*

.178**

.006

.044*


.15

.02

.193**

.194*

.015

.001

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤.01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.


Final analyses revealed that maternal attachment states of mind also predicted changes in

adolescents’ levels of critical/hostile behavior from age 16 to age 18 (see Table 19). Specifically, those

adolescents who became most hostile over time were more likely to have mothers who adhered to

preoccupied attachment models (β = .24, p < .05), while those adolescents whose level of hostility

decreased the most over time had mothers who held more secure attachment representations (β = -.27,

p < .01).

Table 19

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Critical or Hostile Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Adolescent Critical or Hostile Behavior at Time 1 and Related Covariates

Adolescent Critical/Hostile at Time 2 β R2 Total ∆R2 I. Gender (1=M; 2=F)

.10


-.28*

Family Income

-.12

.071+

.071+

II. Adolescent Relatedness at Time 1

.42***

.236***

.165***


-.13

-.27**

.250***

.316***

.014

.066**


-.09

.24*

.322***

.358***

.006

.036*



Discussion

The current study provided further support for the idea that attachment models are linked to

behaviors involving autonomy and relatedness in adolescence. As hypothesized, both adolescents and

mothers with more secure attachment representations tended to promote autonomy while maintaining

relatedness, whereas preoccupied family members tended to undermine autonomy while both promoting

and undermining relatedness. Expanding on previous research, results also showed that the degree to

which families successfully maintained relatedness while promoting autonomy can best be predicted by

both family members’ attachment states of mind rather than by any given individual attachment model.

In addition, the present study further revealed that the attachment representations held by adolescents

and their mothers predicted relative changes in how families handle the adolescent struggle for autonomy

over time. Each of these findings will be discussed in greater detail below.

Predictions from Attachment Security

As hypothesized, the attachment representations of adolescents and their mothers were

significantly related to how family members interacted during family discussions. Each individual’s

model of attachment corresponded to specific adolescent and maternal behaviors that either promoted

or undermined autonomy and/or relatedness. These findings are summarized in Table 20 below.


Table 20

Summary and Overview of Correlated Findings Regarding Attachment Representations and Autonomy and Relatedness Behaviors Adolescents’ and Mothers’

Behaviors When Adolescent is 16 Years Old

Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Behaviors When Adolescent is 18

Years Old If Adolescent was Relatively More Securely Attached

• Adolescent exhibited relatedness

by validating mother’s opinions and being engaged in the discussion.

• Adolescent did not undermine relatedness through hostile or critical comments.

• Adolescent did not undermine mother’s autonomy through pressuring statements.

• Adolescent did not undermine

relatedness through hostile or critical comments.

If Mother was Relatively More Securely Attached

• Adolescent exhibited autonomy by showing confidence in his/her opinions.

• Adolescent exhibited relatedness. • Mother exhibited relatedness by

validating adolescent’s opinions.

• Mother provided thoughtful and elaborate reasons in support of her views.

• Adolescent exhibited relatedness

by validating mother’s opinion. • Adolescent did not make hostile or

critical comments to mother. • Mother validated adolescent and

was engaged in the discussion. If Adolescent was Relatively More Preoccupied with Attachment

• Adolescent undermined relatedness by interrupting and cutting off mother.

• Adolescent did not ask questions of mother.

• Mother validated adolescent’s opinions.

No significant relationships were found.

If Mother was Relatively More Preoccupied With Attachment

• Adolescent did not exhibit

relatedness through questions and engagement in the discussion.

• Adolescent pressured mother to agree.

• Adolescent undermined relatedness

by making hostile and critical comments to mother.


Consistent with previous research (Allen & Hauser, 1996; Becker-Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik,

1997; Kobak et al., 1993; Kobak et al., 1991), this study demonstrated that when compared to

adolescents with less secure attachment models, adolescents who held secure attachment

representations were more likely to exhibit relatedness-promoting behaviors, such as validation of

mothers’ views and opinions and engagement in the conversation, were less likely to undermine

relatedness through hostile and critical comments, and were less likely to undermine autonomy by

pressuring mothers to adopt their points of view. These findings, therefore, suggest the adolescents with

more secure models of attachment were engaging in discussions that facilitated the developmental task

of attaining autonomy while maintaining relatedness. These findings are consistent with attachment

theory which states that individuals with secure attachment organizations recognize that they depend on

others and are aware of the import of attachment relationships (Main & Goldwyn, 1994). The

adolescents with secure attachment models, may, therefore, have been more apt to try to preserve this

relationship throughout the course of a disagreement. In addition, these adolescents may have refrained

from pressuring their mothers because they believed they could attain autonomy in more positive ways

without posing a threat to their mothers (Allen & Land, in press).

Also in accordance with past research (Kobak et al., 1994), results indicated that mothers’

secure attachment representations were also closely linked to both maternal and adolescent behaviors

promoting autonomy and relatedness. Specifically, adolescents with mothers who adhered to secure

attachment representations displayed confidence in their discussions (one marker of autonomy) and

relatedness-promoting behaviors, and did not display hostility towards their mothers. Similarly, these


mothers promoted adolescent autonomy by providing thoughtful and elaborate reasons to support their

views while maintaining relatedness through validation of adolescents and engagement in discussion.

Findings suggest that mothers’ secure models of attachment enabled and encouraged adolescents to

strive for autonomy while remaining connected to their mothers in disagreement. One possible

explanation for this relationship may be that more securely attached mothers did not feel threatened by

their adolescents’ strivings for autonomy, thereby encouraging them to think and act independently.

Another possible explanation may stem from the idea that in these families where mothers had more

secure attachment representations, the mothers served as a secure base from which their children were

free to explore (Main & Goldwyn, 1994).

Predictions from Preoccupied Attachment

As predicted, the present study also found strong links between preoccupied attachment

representations and difficulties in families’ handling of autonomy and relatedness behaviors. A summary

of these findings can be found in Table 20. In contrast to the previously discussed relationships between

secure attachment organizations and the promotion autonomy and relatedness, the behaviors displayed

by families in which at least one member was more preoccupied with attachment were, overall, not only

lacking in the positive qualities of autonomy and relatedness, but were often associated with the active

undermining of autonomy and relatedness. For instance, findings indicated that adolescents who held

preoccupied models of attachment inhibited relatedness in interactions by not asking questions, by

interrupting or cutting off their mothers, or simply by trying to end the discussion prematurely. The

behaviors exhibited by these adolescents are consistent with the description of individuals with


preoccupied attachment representations, as put forth by Main and Goldwyn (1994). They suggest that

individuals preoccupied with attachment may be passive and fearful (seen in adolescents’ withdrawal

from discussion), and angry and overwhelmed by emotions concerning the attachment relationship (seen

in adolescents’ interrupting and cutting off mothers’ speech).

Contrary to previous research and anticipated findings, the current study also found that mothers

of adolescents with more preoccupied attachment models, however, tried to validate these adolescents.

Their mothers’ reactions may be attempts to illicit response from withdrawn adolescents or to contain

overwhelmingly emotional discussions. Another possible explanation for these results stems from the

enmeshed nature of preoccupied attachment relationships (Main & Goldwyn, 1994). Perhaps

preoccupation is not only related to passive and active expressions of negative relatedness, but of some

positive relatedness as well.

More negative behaviors were also displayed by families in which mothers held preoccupied

models of attachment. The adolescents in these dyads did not exhibit relatedness through questioning

meant to sustain discussion nor were they actively engaged in the conversation. In addition, as these

adolescents got older, they no longer withdrew from conversation. Instead they displayed behaviors

that deliberately undermined autonomy and relatedness. For example, they pressured mothers to adopt

their views and made hostile and critical remarks towards their mothers. One possible explanation for

these displays of withdrawal, hostility, and pressuring behaviors stems from the notion that these

adolescents may have experienced frustration and anger with their more preoccupied mothers because

they did not believe they would be heard or understood (Allen & Land, in press). A second possible


explanation for these findings could be that the behaviors described above were viewed by the

adolescents as the only possible means of attempting to attain autonomy within the attachment

relationship (Allen et al., 1996). In comparison to the way adolescents with more securely attached

mothers strived for autonomy while remaining positively related, this tactic appears more destructive and

less effective.

Predictions from Both Adolescents’ and Mothers’ Attachment Models Combined

As stated earlier, this study went beyond previous research to investigate the combined as well

as individual predictive value of each family member’s attachment model on autonomy and relatedness.

Findings revealed that both adolescents’ and mothers’ attachment models combined to predict the

degree of relatedness in family interactions, whereas, promoting or undermining autonomy was only

predicted by individual attachment models. As hypothesized, the combination of adolescent and

maternal security best predicted adolescents’ promoting relatedness. Secure attachment models may,

therefore, be seen as adding positively to each other, increasing the likelihood that the struggle for

autonomy can take place in a highly related dyad. Somewhat contrary to the hypotheses, maternal

relatedness, particularly validation of adolescents, and adolescents’ validation of their mothers were best

predicted by maternal security combined with adolescent preoccupation. As stated earlier, possible

explanations of this phenomenon may lie with the enmeshed nature of the preoccupied relationship.

Another possible explanation may have to do with the changing nature of the parent-child relationship

and of the adolescents themselves. Appearing preoccupied with attachment may have been a

developmental stage for some adolescents. Future research that assesses attachment models at varying


stages of adolescent development is needed to better understand the conflicted relationship between

preoccupied attachment and positive and negative relatedness.

Predicting Changes in Autonomy and Relatedness Over Time

In an attempt to investigate the developmental nature of the tasks of attaining autonomy and

relatedness, the present study measured changes in the relationships between attachment and behaviors

involving autonomy and relatedness over time. Findings indicated that attachment models not only

predicted adolescents’ and mothers’ behaviors, they predicted how these behaviors changed over time.

These results were only partly in support of the hypotheses, however, since they indicated that most

changes in both adolescents’ and mothers’ behaviors were predicted by mothers’ attachment models

only. Similar relationships to those discussed above were observed; namely security was again related

to increases in positive interactive behaviors and decreases in more negative behaviors, while

preoccupation was again associated with increases in negative behaviors. Specifically, adolescents

whose mothers were more securely attached displayed more relatedness-promoting behaviors (e.g.

validation of mothers’ views and opinions) and less relatedness-undermining behaviors (e.g. criticism

and hostility towards mothers) by age 18 than did other adolescents, even after accounting for

relatedness at age 16 years. In contrast, children of mothers with preoccupied attachment models

displayed more hostility and criticism by age 18 than did other adolescents, even after accounting for

hostility and criticism displayed two years earlier. Maternal attachment organization also predicted

changes in mothers’ behaviors over time. For example, mothers who were more securely attached

provided more thoughtful and elaborate reasoning to support their views during disagreements and were


more engaged in conversation when their children were 18 than did other mothers, even after accounting

for their reasoning and engagement two years earlier. One possible explanations for these findings could

be that mothers’ secure attachment representations encouraged the relationship to become closer

(through adolescent and maternal relatedness-promoting behaviors) over time, thereby better allowing

adolescents to strive for autonomy effectively as they got older.

The one change in behavior predicted by both adolescent and maternal attachment

representations was a decrease in adolescent pressuring. Adolescents who both held secure attachment

models and had mothers with secure attachment representations exerted less pressure on their mothers

to adopt their opinions at age 18 than did other adolescents, even after accounting for pressure exerted,

or lack thereof, at age 16 years.

These findings suggest that adolescents’ display of relatedness and mothers’ promotion of

autonomous relatedness can be explained solely by maternal attachment organization, whereas,

adolescents’ display of negative autonomy (pressuring) is closely related to the combination of

adolescent and maternal attachment representations. Results seem to indicate that adolescent

attachment representations were not related to the development of closeness within the parent-child

relationship. However, one possible explanation for this lack of prediction may lie in the notion that,

perhaps, adolescents attachment organizations changed over time as well. If adolescent attachment

representations were not as stable as their mothers’ attachment representations because these

representations were developing in much the same way the adolescents were, relationships between

adolescent attachment organizations and the development of relatedness over time would have been


undetectable. In effect, it may be the case that adolescent attachment models at age sixteen do not

predict future behaviors, instead the changing attachment representations may only be able to predict

concurrent behaviors until mental models become more stabilized with development and experience.

Future research can investigate this possibility by assessing attachment representations at various stages

of development, measuring the stability and predictive value of attachment through adolescence.

Limitations

Although the results of this research are in accordance with previous studies and raise several

important issues, it is important to note that these data must be viewed with some degree of caution.

The findings suggest that attachment may be one possible predictor of many key interaction behaviors.

However, as the results reveal, attachment models do not completely explain why some families are

more successful at navigating adolescents’ strivings for autonomy than others. Further investigation of

other contributing factors is necessary to better understand this developmental process.

In addition, the analyses conducted with specific autonomy and relatedness behavior subscales

were exploratory in nature. The sheer number of significance tests used in these analyses may have

revealed chance relationships that can not necessarily be used to confirm the hypotheses. Although

numerous interesting links were identified with these analyses, further investigation needs to focus on

particular significant subscales in order to provide sufficient evidence for conclusions to be drawn.

It is also important to note that since the current findings are correlational, causation can not be

inferred, and it is possible that the relationships observed are caused by a third, separate variable. For

example, perhaps adolescents’ maturity level or cognitive development could explain why some


adolescents scored highly on both measures of attachment and interaction behaviors. Since both

attachment representations and behaviors of autonomy and relatedness were measured through verbal

tasks (Adult Attachment Interview and Family Interaction Task), another possible explanation for the

observed results may rest in the adolescents’ verbal abilities, although prior research has shown that

attachment security is not particularly related to verbal ability (Crowell, Treboux, & Waters; 1993).

Future research would need to measure such additional factors in order to obtain a more complete

picture of adolescent development.

Another possibility for the link between attachment and behaviors promoting autonomy and

relatedness lies with the idea that another factor mediated this relationship. Perhaps, individuals holding

secure models of attachment or individuals with attachment figures who hold secure attachments mature

more quickly or develop at a faster pace than their more preoccupied counterparts, and it may be that

this higher level of maturity allows them to better engage autonomy struggles while maintaining

relatedness at younger ages. In order to account for such a mediating factor, further research would

need to evaluate individuals’ development and continue observing the participants into later life.

Another limitation of this research lies with the makeup of the observed sample. As previously

discussed, this study was intended to identify moderately at-risk adolescents. Although these

adolescents represented approximately half of their high school class, their academic and social riskiness

implies that these findings may not be generalizable to their less risky counterparts. In addition, the

participants of this study consisted of only one half of those families eligible to participate. This number,

although reasonable for the expected time requested of families to complete the study, may reflect a


possible selection bias. Finally, the fact that results are based solely on mothers’ versus both parents’

data is limiting. In the future, inclusion of data on fathers will be helpful and necessary to further broaden

the applicability of these findings. Perhaps fathers interact differently with their children than mothers do.

Or, the attachment models held by fathers may differ in relation to struggles for autonomy within families.

Further research can address these questions in hopes of increasing our understanding of adolescent

development.

Overall Implications

Overall, these findings suggest that families with secure attachment models were better able to

navigate the adolescent developmental task of attaining autonomy while maintaining relatedness than

families adhering to more preoccupied models of attachment. In addition, it appears that adolescents in

families that were more preoccupied with attachment may have still been struggling for autonomy.

However, various problems that may have arisen in these families, such as fear of loss, dysfunctional

anger, and extreme dependence (Main & Goldwyn, 1994) could have forced adolescents to strive for

autonomy in relatively negative ways (e.g. using pressure to persuade mothers).

In addition, it is also important to note that, consistent with previous research (Kobak et al.,

1993; Boykin, 1997), the current study found that attachment representations as well as levels of

autonomy and relatedness in family interactions appeared to be linked to such demographic factors as

gender, racial/ethnic minority status and family income. In order to better evaluate these relationships,

future investigations can include a more substantial number of lower-income families and racial/ethnic

minority members.


The current study broadened the scope of research on the relationship between attachment

representations and the navigation of the adolescent task of attaining autonomous relatedness; however,

several questions remain unanswered. For example, do the behaviors exhibited by secure individuals in

the context of a family disagreement map onto their relationships with peers and romantic partners? Will

these securely attached individuals have an easier time solving problems and communicating effectively

with other people? Future investigation of interactions of adolescents with their peers, romantic

partners, and later in life with their children can begin to address these questions. Another issue raised

by these findings lies in the development of secure attachment organization. What is it about secure

attachment that allows for the exploration of autonomy? What can be taught to help individuals become

more securely attached? In order to determine the answer to these questions, future research needs to

examine attachment representations over time and which other factors may play roles in the

development of attachment models.


References

Alexander, J. F. (1973). Defensive and supportive communications in normal and deviant

families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 223-234.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1984). Attachment. In N. S. Endler & J. McV. Hunt (Eds.), Personality

and the behavioral disorders, Volume 1 (pp. 559-602). New York: Wiley.

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

psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allen, J. P., & Hauser, S. T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family

interactions as predictors of young adults’ states of mind regarding attachment. Development and

Psychopathology, 8, 793-809.

Allen, J. P., & Land, D. L. (in press). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R.

Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment theory and research. New York: Guilford.

Allen, J. P., Aber, J. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1990). Adolescent problem behaviors: The

influence of attachment and autonomy. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 455-467.

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994a). Longitudinal assessment

of autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego

development and self-esteem. Child Development, 65, 179-194.

Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K., Boykin, K. A., & Tate, D. C. (1995). Autonomy and

relatedness coding system manual. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.


Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Eickholt, C., Bell, K. L., & O’Connor, T. G. (1994b). Autonomy

and relatedness in family interactions as predictors of expressions of negative adolescent affect. Journal

of Research on Adolescence, 4, 535-552.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent

psychological functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406-1419.

Becker-Stoll, F., & Fremmer-Bombik, E. (1997, April). Adolescent-mother interaction and

attachment: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in

Child Development, Washington, D.C.

Bell, R. Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. American Psychologist, 34, 821-

826.

Best, K. M., Hauser, S. T., & Allen, J. P. (1997). Predicting young adult competencies:

Adolescent era parent and individual influences. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 90-112.

Borman-Spurrell, E., Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. C. (1995).

Assessing adult attachment: A comparison of interview-based and self-report methods. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger. New

York: Basic Books.

Boykin, K. A., & Allen, J. P. (1997). Autonomy and adolescent social functioning: The

moderating effect of risk. Under review.


Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the

behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cohn, D. A., Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., & Pearson, J. (1992). Mothers’ and fathers’

working models of childhood attachment relationships, parenting styles, and child behavior.

Development & Psychopathology, 4, 417-431.

Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationships in the transition to adolescence: Continuity

and change in interaction, affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adamas, T. P. Gullotta

(Eds.) From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? Advances in Adolescent Development,

Volume 2 (pp. 85-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Collins, W. A., & Repinski, D. J. (1994). Relationships during adolescence: Continuity and

change in interpersonal perspective. In R. Montemayor & G. R. Adams (Eds.), Personal relationships

during adolescence: Advances in Adolescent Development, Volume 6 (pp. 7-36). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated.

Connell, J. P., Halpern-Felsher, B. L., Clifford, E., Crichlow, W., & Usinger, P. (1995).

Hanging in there: Behavioral, psychological, and contextual factors affecting whether African American

adolescents stay in high school. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 41-63.

Crandell, L. E., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Whipple, E. E. (1997). Dyadic synchrony in parent-child

interactions: A link with maternal representations of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health

Journal, 18, 247-264.


Crowell, J., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (1993). Alternatives to the Adult Attachment

Interview: Self-reports of attachment style and relationships with mothers and partners. Paper

presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.

Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., & Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of

the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of

disrupted parenting. Child Development, 61, 1112-1123.

Freitag, M. K., Belsky, J., Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., & Scheurer-Englisch, H.

(1996). Continuity in parent-child relationships from infancy to middle childhood and relations with

friendship competence. Child Development, 67, 1437-1454.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished

manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley (3d ed.).

Gjerde, P. F., & Block, J. (1991). Preadolescent antecedents of depressive symptomatology

at age 18: A prospective study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 217-223.

Glachan, M. D., & Murray, C. (1997). Mothers’ reports of early attachment experiences and

their perceptions of the quality of their network of family relationships. Early Child Development &

Care, 129, 115-127.

Grotevant, H. D., & Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and

the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415-428.

Hill, J. P., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence.

Annals of Child Development, 3, 145-189.


Kenny, M. E. (1994). Quality and correlates of parental attachment among late adolescents.

Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 399-403.

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993).

Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem solving: A control theory analysis.

Child Development, 64, 231-245.

Kobak, R. R., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Everhart, E., & Seabrook, L. (1994). Maternal attachment

strategies and emotion regulation with adolescent offspring. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4,

553-566.

Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms

during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 461-

474.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment rating and classification systems. In M.

Main (Ed.), A typology of human attachment organization assessed in discourse, drawings and

interviews (working title). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moore, C. W. (1997). Models of attachment, relationships with parents, and sexual behavior

in at-risk adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Virginia.

Rhodes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Blakely, B. S. (1995). Adult attachment styles and

mothers’ relationships with their young children. Personal Relationships, 2, 35-54.


Schultheiss, D. P., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Contributions of family relationship factors to the

identity formation process. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 159-166.

Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Developmental

Psychology, 17, 833-840.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Interdependency in the family: Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the

parent-adolescent relationship. In S. Feldman & G. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing

adolescent (pp. 225-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Steinberg, L., & Hill, J. P. (1978). Patterns of family interaction ad a function of age, the onset

of puberty, and formal thinking. Developmental Psychology, 14, 683-684.

Taub, D. J. (1997). Autonomy and parental attachment in traditional-age undergraduate

women. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 645-654.

Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among attachment representations,

maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child

Development, 66, 69-79.

Weinfield, N. S. (1996). Attachment and the representation of relationships from infancy to

adulthood: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University

of Minnesota.

Zimmermann, P., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Spangler, G., & Grossmann, K. E. (1995, March-

April). Attachment in adolescence: A longitudinal perspective. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting

of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, Indiana.


Appendix A

Summary of Guidelines for Coding of Autonomy and Relatedness Behaviors (Allen, Hauser, Bell, Boykin, & Tate, 1995)

Specific Scales Definition of Code/Guidelines for Coding

Promoting Autonomy

States reasons clearly for disagreeing

The clarity, cohesion, and thoroughness of the argument determines the scoring of this scale.

Confidence for stating thoughts and opinions

Confidence is a global scale; the level of confidence is coded after the entire disagreement is viewed. Signs of confidence are pro-actively exerting one’s position, showing no signs of backing down, and speaking without hesitation. Signs of lacking confidence include looking down, stating position in a hesitant way, and backing out of the discussion.

Undermining Autonomy

Recanting position without being persuaded by other person

This category of scores identifies untrue statements made to placate the other person or de-escalate the discussion.

Blurs Statements of this type overpersonalize the discussion by placing blame on the other person. In other words, they are equated with the disagreement. These statements can be made in a variety of ways. (Example: “You’re just saying that because you’re a perfectionist.”)

Pressures other person to agree This code assesses the degree to which statements directly or indirectly influence the other person to change their position without the use of reasoning. Pressuring statements can be rhetorical questions, sarcastic statements, acting as if no disagreement exists, or making overt demands on the other person among other things. (Example: “So is that my fault that you did not say anything to me?”)

Promoting Relatedness

Queries Questions are coded with regards to what type of information is being sought. Queries aimed at evoking facts are scored lower than more open-ended questions provided to better understand the other


person’s position and reasoning.


Validates/ agrees/ positively reacts to other person

This category codes statements that validate the other person by either agreeing with them, complimenting them, or acknowledging their position.

Engaged interaction Engagement is scored globally; again it is assessed after an entire discussion. Behaviors indicative of an engaged interaction include empathy and an overall effort to connect with the other person.

Undermining Relatedness

Distracting/ ignoring/ cutting off other person

This code involves statements which interrupt or cut off the other person, disregard their statements and point of view, or attempt to cease the discussion.

Hostile or devaluing statements These statements are critical in nature, rude, disdainful, and devaluing. Both the tone and content of these types of statements are scored. (Example: “Nasty as you are, you think I’m just supposed to hand you money?”)


Appendix B

Correlations of Specific Autonomy and Relatedness Subscales with Attachment Organizations (After Partialing Gender, Race/Ethnic Status, and Family Income)

Adolescent Maternal Adolescent Maternal Security Security Preoccupation Preoccupation Partial r Partial r Partial r Partial r Time 1: Adolescent Promoting Autonomy Adolescent Reasons -.04 .13 .12 -.13 Adolescent Confidence -.07 .24* .13 -.18 Mother Promoting Autonomy Mother Reasons -.09 .06 .12 .05 Mother Confidence -.10 .10 -.02 -.04 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Recanting -.05 -.10 -.08 .08 Adolescent Blurring -.03 -.00 .04 -.14 Adolescent Pressuring -.16 .10 .00 -.14 Mother Undermining Autonomy Mother Recanting .00 .16 .17 -.09 Mother Blurring .03 .09 .04 .05 Mother Pressuring -.12 .09 .01 -.01 Adolescent Promoting Relatedness Adolescent Queries .06 .17 -.20+ -.25* Adolescent Validating .32** .14 -.09 -.18 Adolescent Engagement .27** .15 -.06 -.31** Mother Promoting Relatedness Mother Queries -.05 .05 .13 .03 Mother Validating .12 .22* .18+ -.10 Mother Engagement .12 .15 .09 -.06 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness Adolescent Interrupting -.17 .04 .20+ -.03 Adolescent Critical Statements -.21* .02 .15 -.03 Mother Undermining Relatedness


Mother Interrupting .05 .05 .01 -.09 Mother Critical Statements .04 -.00 .02 .02


Adolescent Maternal Adolescent Maternal Security Security Preoccupation Preoccupation Partial r Partial r Partial r Partial r Time 2: Adolescent Promoting Relatedness Adolescent Reasons .02 .13 .05 -.01 Adolescent Confidence -.10 -.07 .09 .11 Mother Promoting Autonomy Mother Reasons .08 .27** -.07 -.05 Mother Confidence .01 .05 -.06 .10 Adolescent Undermining Autonomy Adolescent Recanting -.04 .06 -.01 -.04 Adolescent Blurring -.06 -.13 -.01 .14 Adolescent Pressuring -.30** -.15 .05 .19+ Mother Undermining Autonomy Mother Recanting -.11 -.16 .02 .04 Mother Blurring -.07 -.13 -.11 .09 Mother Pressuring .01 -.08 -.06 -.00 Adolescent Promoting Relatedness Adolescent Queries .01 .01 -.07 .14 Adolescent Validating .07 .33** .19 -.17 Adolescent Engagement .06 .16 .12 -.05 Mother Promoting Autonomy Mother Queries .04 -.08 .02 .02 Mother Validating .09 .20+ .04 -.10 Mother Engagement .12 .26* .11 -.12 Adolescent Undermining Relatedness Adolescent Interrupting -.10 .01 .16 .07 Adolescent Critical Statements -.21* -.26* .04 .30** Mother Undermining Relatedness Mother Interrupting .16 .03 -.02 -.08 Mother Critical Statements -.09 -.12 .03 .16

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p < .05.+ p < .10.


Appendix C

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Specific Autonomy and Relatedness Subscales Attachment Models Predicting Behaviors Promoting Autonomy Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Exhibiting Confidence at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Confidence at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .08 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.24*

Family Income

.19

.139**

.139**

II.

Adolescent Security III.

-.07 .143** .004

Maternal Security .24* .194** .051* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.11

.210**

.016


.10 .208** .002

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Reasoning at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Maternal Reasons at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .03 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

.01

Family Income

.09

.007

.007


.09 .014 .007

Maternal Security .28** .085 .071** IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

-.06

.087

.001


.17 .105 .018

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.


Attachment Models Predicting Behaviors Undermining Autonomy Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Pressuring Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Pressuring at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .11 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.14

Family Income

.03

.033

.033


-.32** .123* .090**

Maternal Security -.15 .142* .019 IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

-.11

.150*

.008


.11 .157* .007

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Attachment Models Predicting Behaviors Promoting Relatedness Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Exhibiting Relatedness Through Queries at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Queries at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) -.14 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

.12

Family Income

.07

.033

.033


.06 .036 .003

Maternal Security .18 .065 .029 IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

-.24+

.105

.040+


-.19 .127 .022


Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Validating Behavior at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Validating at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) -.09 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.12

Family Income

.02

.028

.028


.34** .127* .099**

Maternal Security .14 .145* .018 IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.07

.148*

.003


-.08 .152+ .004

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Validating Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Validating at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) -.00 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

.03

Family Income .18

.028

.028


.07 .032 .004

Maternal Security .35** .141* .109** IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.27*

.191**

.050*


-.00 .191 .000



Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Engagement at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Engagement at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .12 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.21+

Family Income

.26*

.171***

.171***


.27** .232*** .052**

Maternal Security .14 .248*** .016 IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.07

.252***

.004


-.27* .299*** .047*

Note. *** p ≤ .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88. Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Validating Behavior at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Maternal Validating at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .13 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.11

Family Income

.18

.073+

.073+


.12 .085 .012

Maternal Security .22* .129* .044* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.29*

.188**

.059*


.02 .188* .000



Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Validating Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Maternal Validating at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .13 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.02

Family Income

.27*

.085+

.085+


.09 .093+ .008

Maternal Security .20+ .128* .035+ IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.10

.135+

.007


.02 .135+ .000

Note. *** p < .001. ** p < .01. * p < .05. + p ≤ .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Maternal Engagement at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Maternal Engagement at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .06 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.08

Family Income

.08

.022

.022


.13 .035 .013

Maternal Security .27* .101 .066* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.20

.129+

.028


.03 .129 .000



Attachment Models Predicting Behaviors Undermining Autonomy Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Critical or Hostile Behavior at Time 1 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Critical/Hostile at Time 1 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .02 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.26*

Family Income

-.12

.051

.051


-.22* .095+ .044*

Maternal Security .03 .096 .001 IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

.07

.099

.003


-.10 .105 .006


Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Adolescent Critical or Hostile Behavior at Time 2 from Adolescent and Maternal Attachment Organizations After Accounting for Related Covariates Adolescent Critical/Hostile at Time 2 I. β Total R2 ∆R2 Gender (1=M; 2=F) .10 Race (0=White; 1=African American/Other)

-.28*

Family Income

-.12

.071+

.071+


-.22* .112* .041*

Maternal Security -.26* .173** .061* IV. Adolescent Preoccupation V.

-.05

.175**

.002


.20 .200* .025

Note. *** p < .001. ** p ≤ .01. * p ≤ .05. + p ≤ .10. β weights are those taken from entry of variables into models. N = 88.

attachment and autonomy in adolescence 1people.virginia.edu/~psykliff/pubs/publications/alex...

Documents