,9
.m-
L341,
_.sz ‘

‘ «It
- Nit:

:2“ A
fi‘u
FL

HEAT“???

‘5. n

"-3:- . J:

 

*‘t.

‘1. '

AA P:.

 

“‘ dig:
.
“1.?" '
ABM-.0

:* z'

 

 

THESIS

_’ '_ O ‘1‘,—

‘)

.5v/

illlllllllllllllllIllHill“llllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 0102

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
PERSONAL ATTACHMENT
AND
ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS

presented by

Betty Feintuch

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

M .A . degree in Psychology

[fl/é

Major professorg

/John R. HurleyA h. D.

 

Date 3,1177%;

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LBBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to roman this chockout from your record.
TO AVOlD FINES mum on or More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Manama Action/Equal Oppommlty lmtltulon
Wanna-m

PERSONAL ATTACHMENT
AND
ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS

BY
Betty Feintuch

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1994

ABSTRACT
PERSONAL ATTACHMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS

BY
Betty Feintuch

Derived from Bowlby's (1988) attachment theory, the
hypothesis was addressed that security of attachment is
associated with greater acceptance of both self and of
others. Before starting a course requiring extensive small
group participation, 56 college seniors (39 women, 17 men)
completed an Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(Armsden, 1986; Greenberg, 1982) that separately assessed
.one's attachment to mother, father, and peers. Weeks later,
after more than 20 hours in one group, each rated the
within-group conduct of all same-group members for self—
acceptance and acceptance of others, yielding self-ratings,
one's average rating of group peers, and how these peers'
rated the individual on each scale. As hypothesized, the
three attachment and six acceptance indicators generally
correlated positively (17 of 18; 4ps < .05) and, especially
for attachment to peers, sometimes significantly.
DevelOpmental and/or ecological variables seemed strongly
involved in these findings. This study's limitations and

implications were discussed.

This manuscript is dedicated to
my mother, Gladys Curtis
my father, Marvin Kelley
and
my late dear friend, Myrtle Yoshinaga Grey

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is has been made possible through the
combined interest and dedication of people who are very
important to me and who have given generously of their time
and expertise. I especially appreciate the understanding
and guidance of my committee, including Dr. John Hurley, Dr.
Ellen Strommen, and Dr. Bertram Karon.

First, I thank Dr. Hurley, my chairman and advisor,
without whom this all would not have been possible. It is
his interpersonal sensitivity, intellectual quality,
academic integrity, and dedication to what he believes in
that has been a continual inspiration to me. His generosity
in allowing me access to his interpersonal groups provided a
meaningful setting that otherwise would not have been
available for this research. The appreciation I feel goes
deeper than words can express.

I thank Dr. Strommen for early and important
discussions on relationships, attachment theory, and women's
issues. Her encouragement and support has been greatly
appreciated. Her perceptive comments and timely and
constructive feedback were most helpful.

I especially express my appreciation to Dr. Karon for
his warm support and genuine interest, which has been more

iv

V
important to me than he can ever know. His constant
encouragement and enthusiasm never fails to motivate and has
been invaluable to me.
Lastly, I wish to recognize all the individual and
anonymous group members who took time to completed
questionnaires and the ratings without which this research

could not have been done.

List of Tables

Introduction

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background and Theory .

Interpersonal Style and Theories of

Attachment Theory and Background

Attachment and Interpersonal Style

Hypotheses

Method .

Participants and Setting

Measures and Procedures
Interpersonal Measures
Attachment Measures

Statistical Analyses

Results .

Descriptive Statistics

Study Findings

Discussion

Summary and Recommendations

Appendices

References

vi

14
16
18
18
21
21
21
22
24
24
28
37
45
48
57

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Attachment
and Interpersonal Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2 Product—Moment Correlations Among Attachment
Measures 0 O O O O O O C O O O O I O O O O O O O O 27

3 Product-Moment Correlations Between Measures of
Self- and Other-Accepting Conduct (fl=56) . . . . . 29

4 Product-Moment Correlations of Attachment with
Interpersonal Measures (§=56) . . . . . . . . . . 30

5 Product-Moment Correlations of Attachment with
Early (E) and Late (L) Ratings of Self- and
Other-Accepting Conduct by Gender . . . . . . . . 33

6 Product—Moment Correlations of Attachment with
Early (E) and Late (L) Ratings of Self- and
Other-Accepting Conduct by Status . . . . . . . . 34

7 Correlations Between Attachment and Range of
Interpersonal Ratings GIVEN . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vii

PERSONAL ATTACHMENT
AND

ACCEPTANCE OF SELF AND OTHERS

"Relationship is a mirror in which you can
see yourself, not as you would wish to be, but as
you are." (Krishnamurti, 1964, p. 122)

"The bird a nest, the spider a web, man
friendship." (William Blake, 1915, p. 251)

INTRODUCTION

The quality of interpersonal relationships is widely
recognized as a central factor in the general well-being and
overall mental health of individuals (Horney, 1950;
Sullivan, 1953). It is also generally accepted that the
quality of adult relationships is greatly influenced by
early experience in infancy and childhood experiences in the
relationship with the parent/care-giver (Erikson, 1963;
Stern, 1985). A broad range of theories and psychological
measures too numerous to list here have been formulated to
assist in understanding the precursors, processes, and
correlates of the deve10pment of competence in interpersonal
relationships.

One such theory that has received considerable

attention is Bowlby's theory of attachment, which was

2
initially developed to help better understand the infant's
tie to its mother (Bowlby, 1958), but which has been
extended to encompass various psychological issues and
relationships into adolescence and adulthood (Bowlby, 1969,
1979). For example, Ryan and Lynch (1989) found attachment
status to be important in understanding the vicissitudes of
adolescent and early adulthood issues of separation and
autonomy. Fenney and Noller (1990), Shaver, Hazan, and
Bradshaw (1988), and Collins and Read(1990) have studied
various aspects of romantic love in relation to levels of
attachment. Hazan and Shaver (1990) examined the
relationship of attachment theory to love and work, while
Collins and Read (1990) conducted three studies examining
the relationship of adult attachment to internal working
models and relationship quality in dating couples. From a
more theoretical perspective, Franz and White (1985)
revisited Erikson's (1963) developmental theory related to
individuation, and prOposed a dual path in the development
of both men and women that accounts for the importance of
intimacy and attachment in relationships.

To extend further the utility of this theory of
attachment and to better understand the correlates of
interpersonal style, it would be of interest to examine how
a person's level of attachment might relate to their
interpersonal style in communicating with peers. The
purpose of this study is to examine correlations between

levels of attachment to father, mother, and peers and the

3
various dimensions of interpersonal style, as indicated from
ratings given by peers, ratings given to peers, and ratings
of self. It is hypothesized that, in general, the more
secure a person's level of attachment, the more positive

will be her or his ability to relate to peers.

BACKGROUND AND THEORY
Interpersonal Style and Theories of Measuremgg;

Since theories of the central importance of
interpersonal relations in human develOpment and well-being
were articulated and extended by Sullivan (1953), Horney
(1950), and others, researchers and writers have attempted
to make ordered sense of interpersonal transactions.
Theorists and researchers attempting to provide a systematic
coherent description of interpersonal transactions have used
various theoretical paradigms and statistical methodologies.
In efforts to develoP a meaningful model, these theorists
have approached the measurement of interpersonal behavior
from a number of perSpectives. Following the early work of
Leary (1957) and his associates, one of the more useful,
explanatory, and predictive models that has been develoPed
in a number of versions over the last thirty years by
several authors is commonly known as the circumplex model of
interpersonal behavior (Gifford & O'Connor, 1987; Humphrey &
Benjamin, 1986; Merenda, 1987; Wiggins, 1982).

All circumplex models attempt to describe interpersonal
behaviors using descriptive adjectives or action verbs that

provide a dual bipolar correlational arrangement in an

5
orthogonal circular configuration when analyzed
statistically using multivariate methodologies. These
models order behaviors in terms of descriptive categories
that are mutually exclusive, complementary, or opposites,
with ordering in a circular fashion, where bipolar
attributes fall on Opposite ends of the vertical and
horizontal axes of the circumplex. These orthogonal axes
have consistently been found to represent attributes along
the lines of affiliation versus power or love versus hate
and dominance versus submission. The circumplex model has
been found useful as a tool for the understanding and
integration of theories of interpersonal behavior and style
(Merenda, 1987; Wiggins, 1982).

It was from these research findings and related theory
that Hurley (1976, 1978, 1989b) developed measures of
interpersonal functioning for use in small groups. Parallel
to the dominance-submission axis are Hurley's measures of
acceptance versus rejection of self (ARS). This ARS measure
of interpersonal style consists of four bipolar subscales
representing the rater's view of how the target person shows
feelings versus hides feelings, is expressive versus
guarded, is active versus passive, and is dominant versus
submissive. Similarly, Hurley's measures of acceptance
versus rejection of others (ARO) parallels the affiliation-
disaffiliation or love-hate dimensions of circumplex models.
Hurley's ARO measures of interpersonal style represent the

rater's view of how the targeted individual is warm versus

6

cold, helps others versus harms others, is gentle versus
harsh, and accepts others versus rejects others.

These measures of interpersonal style have been used in
a number of studies in recent decades (Hurley, 1976, 1978,
1986a, 1986b, 1990; Hurley, Feintuch, 8 Mandell, 1991).
They have repeatedly yielded statistically significant
linkages with a variety of behaviors, including group
members' interpersonal gains (Hurley, 1986b), member growth
associated with leader behaviors (Hurley, 1989a; Hurley &
Rosenberg, 1990), mutual eye contact (Hurley & Bennett,
1988; Hurley & Marsh, 1986), and with the range of ratings
used by the individual in ratings of others (Hurley, 1986a).

These ARS and ARO measures have also demonstrated both
convergent and discriminant validity when compared with
correSponding and divergent measures from conceptually
related scales, including Lorr and McNair's (1963)
Interpersonal Behavior Inventory (Hurley, 1989b), Epstein's
and Meier's (1989) Constructive Thinking Inventory (Hurley,
1990), and Bales' and Cohen's (1979) Systematic Multiple
Level Observation of Groups (Hurley, 1991). Additionally,
May (1991) found the internal consistency of these group
measures to be .86 (Cronbach's alpha) for ARS and .81 for
ARO for small group peers' mean ratings of the individual.
Thus these ARS and ARO measures apparently provide valid and
useful indicators of an individual's interpersonal style.

The measures are included in Appendix A.

7

Attachment Theory and Background
Attachment theory was originally formulated by Bowlby

 

(1958) to provide a framework for better understanding the
infant's needs and behaviors in seeking and maintaining his
security in proximity to the mother. Subsequently,
theoretical concepts related to attachment issues and
attachment behaviors have received much attention by a wide
range of researchers with diverse orientations (Ainsworth,
1967; Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Blehar, Lieberman, 8
Ainsworth, 1977; Bornstein, 1989; Bretherton, 1985; Cassidy,
1988; Cohn, 1990; Main, 1990; Oppenheim, Sagi, & Lamb,
1988). For example, attachment theory was soon extended to
account for more socially SOphisticated behaviors in
toddlers and early school age children, such as higher
levels of social participation and dominance observed in the
more securely attached child (LaFeniere & Stoufe, 1985).
Similarly, Arend, Gove and Sroufe (1979) found that the
level of early attachment was related to various dimensions
of ego-control and ego-resilience in 4-5 year-old children.
The tendency toward a remarkable level of stability of early
patterns of attachment has been confirmed in numerous
studies (Ainsworth, 1989; Arend et al., 1979; Bowlby, 1988;
Bus 8 Van Ijzendoorn, 1988; Cassidy, 1988; Emde & Harmon,
1982; George & Main, 1979; LaFeniere & Sroufe, 1985; Sroufe
& Waters, 1977).

As noted earlier, more recently attachment theory has

been extended and is being widely used as a framework within

8
which to examine various adolescent and adult issues and
concerns. Such tepics of study include separation and the
develOpment of autonomy in adolescents (Greenberg, Siegel, 8
Leitch, 1983; Kobak 8 Sceery, 1988; Ryan 8 Lynch, 1989;
Steinberg 8 Steinberg, 1986), the function of parental
attachment among college students (Berzoff, 1989; Kenny,
1987a, 1987b, 1990), love as attachment (Collins 8 Read,
1990; Hazan 8 Shaver, 1987, 1990; Shaver 8 Hazan, 1987,
1988; Shaver et al., 1988), and attachment quality as a
predictor of the quality of romantic love relationships
(Fenney 8 Noller, 1990; Hazan 8 Shaver, 1987). Others have
discussed attachment failures as etiology in adult mental
illness (Bowlby, 1953, 1973a, 1980; Frances 8 Dunn, 1975;
Kestenbaum, 1984; Melges 8 Swartz, 1989; Munro, 1969) and
the intergenerational transmission of certain attachment
behavioral characteristics (Ricks, 1985).

In Bowlby's schema, attachment is the representational
model and attachment behavior is the working model whereby
the infant attempts to maintain proximity to the
mother/care-giver who will be accessible and responsive in
meeting his needs, providing comfort and security, and thus
insuring his survival. This mother/care-giver provides the
securely attached child with a ‘secure base' from which the
child will explore and develop well-founded self-reliance
(Bowlby, 1973b, 1988). Later, in adolescence and adulthood,
friends and peers may provide the ‘secure base' (Bowlby,

1979, 1988).

9

Bowlby viewed insecure attachment resulting from
situations such as the trauma of separation and loss of the
mother-figure, or inadequate mothering, before six years of
age, as having many significant sequelae including
psychopathology and personality disturbances (Bowlby , 1969,
p. 3-35; 1979, chap. 1). The latter include detachment,
separation anxiety, ambivalence, disorganization, anger,
guilt, and/or hapelessness, all likely to have far-reaching
effects both on the individual’s intra-psychic state and on
his interpersonal relationships.

While attachment provides the more or less secure base
from which the individual explores and takes the risk of
entering new relationships, attachment behaviors are
activated when the individual comes under stress, engages in
exploratory activities, or is at risk of loss or rejection.
The response of an insecurely attached individual to a
strange or stressful situation may lead to clinging or over-
dependent, detached or withdrawn, or hostile and aggressive
behaviors. Such tendencies would likely be revealed in an
individual's interpersonal style and be discernable by
others in any meaningful relationship or repeated
interactions with them over an extended period of time.

The psychological dynamics Operating in attachment
behaviors can be understood theoretically. Since Bowlby,
himself an analyst, deve10ped the theory of attachment to
help bring psychoanalytic principles more into the realm of

empirical and observational requirements of modern science,

10
the close correSpondence with psychoanalytic principles
remains. According to Bowlby, the concept of the working
model as the self— and other-representation of interpersonal
relationships is roughly equivalent to, and interchangeable
with, the psychoanalytic concept of the ‘internal object'
(Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1988, p. 120).

Closely related to both object relations theory and
attachment theory is the concept of internalization as
discussed by Behrends and Blatt (1985), Blatt and Behrends
(1987), and Blatt and Blass (1990). They define
internalization as "...those processes whereby individuals
recover lost or disrupted, regulatory, gratifying
interactions with others, which may have been either real or
fantasied, by appropriating those interactions, transforming
them into their own enduring, self-generated functions and
characteristics" (Behrends 8 Blatt, 1985, p. 22).

Loewald (1970) believed that it is relationships that
are internalized rather than objects. This process may be
seen as approximately equivalent of Bowlby's concept of self
representation and other representation, which provides the
internal model for expectations of external relationships.
Blatt and Blass (1990) stated, "Psychological development is
a process in which an individual, through interaction with
significant others, internalizes aspects of both the quality
of attachment (or relatedness) and conscious and unconscious
attitudes and feelings toward the self..."

Behrends and Blatt (1985) explicitly assumed that the

11
"...mechanisms which instigate growth at one level of
personality functioning are precisely those which insure it
at any other level—-from birth through senescence, even
though individuals grow in their complexity and change with
regard to their social-psychological context" (pp. 12-13).
This theoretical position may be seen as an ongoing dynamic
model that is consistent with, and perhaps supportive of,
the findings discussed earlier relative to the degree of
stability of attachment status researchers have found,
lending further support to the psychological significance
and importance of level of attachment in relation to
interpersonal style over the entire life span.

Behrends and Blatt (1985) also stated that the first
prerequisite for internalization was unity of the infant-
mother matrix and, with later deve10pment, the presence of a
need-satisfying or gratifying involvement of another human
being. The next requirement for internalization to take
place involves the minute and manageable disruption of the
near-perfect union with mother or, later in develOpment, the
manageable ‘experienced incompatibility' with another person
in a relationship. Finally, this manageable loss or
disruption is recovered from through internalization of the
function provided by the other person, leading to new levels
of differentiation and individuation. They also stated
that, "The adolescent can separate from familial objects,
seek new relationships and redefine old ones, only because

significant aspects of these familial relationships have

12
been internalized. Once again, in these new relationships,
the adolescent seeks more mature and refined forms of
gratifying involvement through attachments to peers,
ideologies, and idealized other." (Behrends 8 Blatt, 1985,
p. 33).

Blatt and Blass (1990, p. 120) described the result of
develoPment as a "gestalt of internalizations" which
includes both "...the quality of the interpersonal
relationships and the feelings toward the self acquired in
these relationships. Thus the quality of the internalized
familial relationships, which seems roughly parallel to
attachment status, are refined and transferred from family
to peers, parallel to the way in which attachment level
might be reasonably seen as reflected in the interpersonal
style of adolescents and young adults.

Conceptualizing this process of the development of
capacities for interpersonal relationships in terms of
attachment theory, behavioral observations may be
categorized according to various types or qualities of
attachment labelled secure attachment, ambivalent
attachment, and avoidant attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, 8 Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). These categories are
roughly descriptive of the predominant behavioral mode
through which the individual exhibits attachment behaviors
when under stress or in need of support, but may also be
observed in ongoing behavior patterns, such as tendencies

toward either clinging or detached attitudes toward others.

13

It is through the use of attachment theory as a
reference base that Greenberg (1982) and Armsden (1986)
developed their Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(IPPA). The IPPA is a self-report instrument which assesses
attachment status through questions addressing such issues
as the degree of mutual trust, quality of communication, and
the extent of anger and alienation toward mother, father,
and peers, with the same or similar questions asked about
each category of persons.

Armsden (1986) assessed the internal reliability of the
IPPA items for mother, father, and peers using Cronbach's
alpha. She reported coefficient alphas of .87 for
attachment to mother, .89 for attachment to father, and .92
for attachment to peers.

Armsden (1986) also examined the validity of the IPPA.
She found significant correlations between measures of self-
esteem and more secure attachment. Her findings show secure
attachment negatively correlated with the symptoms and
experience of anxiety, depression, anger, and loneliness.
Armsden also studied the correlates of attachment measures
on the IPPA with the stress and coping measures developed by
Lazarus and Folkman (Folkman, 1984; Folkman 8 Lazarus, 1980;
Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus 8 Folkman, 1984). In general, she
found a significant correlation between greater security of
attachment and strength of c0ping, levels of well-being, and
stability in the sense of self. The IPPA assessment items

are included in Appendix B.

14

Attachmentland Interpersonal Style

 

Based on theories of attachment and interpersonal style
it might be expected that individuals with more secure
levels of attachment would rate others and be rated by
others more favorably on measures of interpersonal
functioning than would those less securely attached.
Operating from a more adequate base, securely attached
individuals would tend to be more realistic in their
expectations and demands of others, leading to more open and
accepting behaviors. For example, from a position of
greater security, they would be more willing to express
their feelings and treat others as more valued and warm.and
offer them more acceptance than would less securely attached
individuals. Because of their history of experiencing
significant others as accessible and responsive, these more
securely attached persons would most likely view and rate
others as more open, accepting, and responsive than would
those less securely attached. Thus expecting acceptance and
responsiveness from others, those who are more securely
attached would also tend to behave less defensively, as
manifested by interpersonal behaviors and ratings indicating
expectations of love and status. Correspondingly, persons
of a more insecure attachment status would more likely see
and rate others as more closed, unaccepting, unresponsive,
and cold. Operating from a less secure base of ambivalent
or avoidant attachment, they would tend to be more clinging

and dependent, or more disaffiliative and detached,

15
respectively, leading to less generous ratings of their
peers' conduct on interpersonal affiliativeness and status.

Correspondingly, it might be expected that individuals
with more secure levels of attachment would be rated more
positively by others for both similar and parallel reasons.
For, as noted above, it is the relationship that is
considered internalized. Thus the attributes of the more
securely attached individual, including a tendency toward
more realistic expectations and demands on others, a
willingness to express their own feelings and to treat
others warmly, a more Open and accepting manner, and
expectations that others will be accessible and responsive,
would likely result in others rating the securely attached
person higher on interpersonal measures related to
acceptance versus rejection of self (ARS).

Consistent with other findings (Hurley, 1986a, 1986b),
it might be expected that persons who are more securely
attached would tend to use a wider range of ratings.
Individuals showing a greater security in their attachment
would be more likely to accurately identify a wide range of
interpersonal skills in their peers since, coupled with a
more secure representation of themselves, they would tend to
have a less defensive style and hold more realistic
perceptions of others' behaviors in relationships. Their
stronger sense of adequacy or security would tend to allow
them to take greater risks in arousing the ire of peers when

giving lower ratings when they perceived such ratings as

16
accurate. Their less defensive stance would result in less
idealization indicated by consistently high scores, or
conversely, less negative projections or transferences
indicated by consistently low scores on measures of ARS and
ARO. The prediction that secure attachment is associated
with giving a wider range of interpersonal ratings would
also be consistent with research on the role of both self-
schematas (Fong, 1982; Markus, 1977) and cognitive
complexity (Aronoff 8 Wilson, 1985; McNeil, 1974; Schneier,
1979; Woike 8 Aronoff, 1992) in social situations.

Because attachment status appears to be a valid
indication of the internal representation of both an
individual's model of relationships and feelings about self
in relationship, attachment measures are expected to be
positively and significantly correlated with corresponding
measures of interpersonal styles relative to the degree of
acceptance of self and of others. Mindful of these theories
of attachment and interpersonal functioning, the following
hypotheses were formulated concerning the relationship
between these measures of attachment to family and peers and
the measures of acceptance versus rejection of self and
others.

Hypotheses

A. More secure levels of attachment, as assessed by
higher scores on the IPPA, will be associated with more
accepting conduct toward both self and others, as measured

by both higher self-ratings on ARS and ARO and by the higher

17
ratings received from their pooled group peers on measures
of ARS and ARO.

B. More secure levels of attachment, as assessed by
higher scores on the IPPA, will be associated with more
accepting conduct toward others, as measured by the
individual's higher ratings given others on measures of ARS
and ARO.

C. More secure levels of attachment, as assessed by
higher scores on the IPPA, will be assOciated with assigning
a wider range of scores to others on measures of both ARS

and ARO.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Participants in this research project were 56 students
enrolled in an undergraduate psychology course over three
terms at Michigan State University. The subjects were late
adolescent college students ranging in age from
approximately 20 to 24 years of age and included 17 men and
39 women. This class met for a one hour lecture weekly in
addition to 90-minute small group (5-10 students) sessions
twice each week, and extended 12-hour small group sessions
near the third and seventh weekends of ten week academic
terms .

The stated purpose of the class is to provide a
supportive learning environment in which students can

explore their interpersonal style and obtain feedback from

peers. The textbook, Interpersonal Living: A

Skill Contr ct A roach t Human-Relations T a'nin in
Groups, by Egan (1976), helped set group norms in relation
to such concerns as focusing on the here-and-now, self-
disclosure and expression of feelings, empathic listening,
communication of understanding, constructive confrontation,
and ongoing immediacy of interaction. The core of this

course is the experiential involvement in the small groups.

18

19

These small groups are formed during the initial class
meeting. They were led by trained small group facilitators
who are students who have taken this class in the past,
shown promise in terms of relatively high ratings on the
self-acceptance and Other-acceptance measures by peers in
their initial group, and received a term Of further training
through participation in a didactic class and experience in
an advanced group. Occasionally a group was led by a
psychology graduate student or the class professor.

Attempts were made to assure gender balance within
groups and tO avoid having previously well-acquainted
persons in the same group. The focus was on providing
empathy and mutual support in order to promote understanding
and growth in interpersonal relating. TO ensure
confidentially, much emphasis was placed on keeping
information and concerns within each group. This also
encouraged the focusing of attention on within-group events
rather than siphoning energies out Of the group. These
efforts were based on beliefs that individual group members
are more likely to feel free to express themselves Openly
with diminished concern for the perceptions and expectations
Of friends, and lessened worry about confidentiality.

Relatively high degrees Of trust and related feelings
of security and support sometimes develop within these
groups as early as in the first 12-hour session, which
normally occurred after about six 90-minute sessions or

about three weeks into the term. This trust Often continues

20
to grow throughout the term. Superficial tOpics Of
conversation such as college major, living arrangements,
dating status, and so forth, are discouraged, thus directing
the focus to the individual's experiences, thoughts,
feelings, and conduct within their small group. Relatively
high levels of intimacy and cohesiveness commonly ensue,
partially due to norms about relating positively and
constructively, but perhaps more importantly because Of the
atmosphere Of immediacy in empathic and sensitive mutual
disclosure Of feelings, perceptions, and reactions relative
to other small group members. Trust, cohesiveness, and
intimacy are further enhanced through honest and Often
immediate feedback provided in a caring and sensitive manner
by Other group members and/or insightful facilitators.

This high level of group functioning is important to
the individual and to the current study because it
contributes to a setting in which one person may become
acquainted with several others on a level Of intimacy and
understanding that is uncommon even in situations or
relationships Of much longer duration. Thus, these
interpersonal learning group members' evaluations Of
interpersonal functioning, while somewhat situation-
specific, may be more veridical and more deeply meaningful
than similar evaluations from close friends, roommates,

parents, and other meaningful relationships.

21

Measures and Procedures

Two basic measures of attachment and one multi-
dimensional measure Of interpersonal style were used. The
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) addressed the
individual's degree or level Of attachment to each parent
and to peers outside the group. A single-item global
measure Of attachment was also administered. Measures Of
Acceptance versus Rejection Of Self (ARS) and Acceptance
versus Rejection of Others (ARO) were Used to address the
individual's current style Of interpersonal functioning
within their small groups.
Interpersonal Meagppgg

The ARS and ARO measures were completed twice each term
by each group member following the first regular 90-minute
group meeting after each 12-hour sessions, thus providing
both early and late ratings. These ten-point semantic
differential scales were completed by each member for self
and each Other group member on four bipolar ARS subscales
and four bipolar ARO subscales (see Appendix A).
Attaghment Measures

The Inventory Of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) was
given at the beginning of the term. This attachment measure
is a self-report inventory containing a total of 75 items on
a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from "Almost Never or
Never True" to "Almost Always or Always True" (Armsden,
1986; Greenberg, 1982). Sets Of 25 items relate separately

to feelings about mother, about father, and about

22

relationships with peers (see Appendix B). TO discourage
using stereotypical response sets, IPPA questions are
randomly staggered in scoring direction.

The IPPA assesses the degree of mutual trust, quality
Of communication, and the extent of anger and alienation
toward mother, father, and peers, yielding a numerical score
that represents the degree or level Of attachment felt
towards important others in the individual's life (Armsden,
1986; Greenberg, 1982; Greenberg et al., 1983). Both the
combined and individual attachment scores derived from the
mother, father, and peer items were the primary measures Of
attachment status.

The single item attachment item was given tO assess the
relative frequency Of secure, ambivalent, and avoidant
attachment styles in the current sample compared to Other

studies. This measure is included in Appendix B.

Stapisticgl Analyses
The hypotheses A, B, and C prOposed in this study (p.

17), as measured with the IPPA and interpersonal scales,
were tested using the Pearson product-moment correlations.
These data were also analyzed for gender effects as well as
possible differences between group facilitators and regular
group members. Analyses included comparing separate
attachment scores identifying any differences in the
correlations involving only mothers; only fathers; mothers

plus fathers; only peers; and overall attachment level to

23
mothers plus fathers plus peers. The single-item.attachment
measure was used to assess whether the current sample's
attachment pattern was similar to those reported by other

researchers.

RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics

Means and standard deviations for attachment scores and
both early and late ARS and ARO measures are shown in Table
1. Overall the scores found in the current study were most
Often similar tO those reported by other researchers for
both attachment and interpersonal measures. It is
noteworthy that women had higher scores than men on all
attachment measures, and also on all interpersonal measures
except early self-rated acceptance Of self.

The present students' mean IPPA scores were compared to
those reported for Armsden's (1986) sample which included
401 late adolescent college students. The present sample's
mean attachment scores generally differed less than .4
standard deviation (pg) units from those reported by Armsden
(1986, p. 49), with the exception that the mean for males'
attachment to father in the current study was about .9 pg
units lower than Armsden's and the males' mean attachment to
peers was about .8 pg units higher. Males in the current
study were only slightly more attached to their mothers (.1
pg units), than males in Armsden's study. All female
attachment scores in this study were higher than Armsden's,

but by less than .4 pg units. When compared using the

24

mmouo Hams» omommoxm Ame. w mv aaucmoamacmam mosam> pouoomumpca
oa one muonEmE moonm we Omam .cmE ma pcm cofios mm mcaooaoca .mmum amaoa

 

.maummumacsoo mdumamnmmouo Ho umpcmm

 

.muoumaaaaomm
wwmmm

 

 

 

 

 

Ao.m. m.m~ .m.~a m.m~ Am.m. o.m~ la.~v o.m~ .m.~. s.m~ mama .mamma zm>ae
.m.m. m.a~ .m.m. m.m~ Am.~. m.m~ lm.m. m.am le.mc m.s~ saamm .mammm zm>ao
Am.~v s.m~ Aa.mv k.m~ Aa.mv m.s~ Am.mv ~.m~ .o.m. a.m~ mama .am>amomm
Am.me m.a~ Am.m. a.a~ .m.sv m.e~ Am.~c .mqmm la.m. ~.am saamm .om>amumm
Am.mv a.m~ Aa.m. m.m~ xo.a. m.s~ Aa.mc a.m~ .m.mv m.m~ mama .mamm
.m.~v m.m~ .m.ao m.m~ Am.m. m.m~ lm.ec m.k~ .m.¢. m.m~ aaamw.mamm
Odd MHOSHO MO COHHOmemIOUGwn—hmood
lo.m. m.m~ Ao.nc m.m~ .m.m. ~.m~ .s.~O m.m~ .m.~. a.m~ mama .mamma zm>am
l~.~o a.e~ Am.mc a.¢~ is.m. s.- Ae.m. mem Am.mv a.a~ saamm .mamma zu>am
Am.~v a.o .e.¢. m.m~ Ao.e. ~.m~ as.e. m.m~ .m.¢. h.m~ mama .nm>amomm
la.m. m.m A~.mc m.- l~.mc a.- .m.mv ~.e~ Am.m. m.m~ saamm .om>amomm
Am.m. «mam Am.v. v.m~ Aa.ao m.m~ Aa.mc m.s~ Am.e. m.a~ mama .mamm
Am.m. Mama im.mc o.e~ Am.qo m.m~ Am.m. a.m~ Am.m. ~.m~ saamm .mamm
mam maom mo cowaom.omnmocmu mood
is.m~. a.om~ .s.sa. c.ma~ Am.oa. ~.~m~ .o.oav mqmmm Am.a¢. m.om~ m + m + z
.m.ame m.msa .m.o¢v a.~sa A~.amv m.sma .m.mm. mqwaa Aa.mm. ~.maa a + z
.m.mae s.em Am.m~3 m.ma Ao.m~. ~.mm .s.¢~. diam Aa.m~. ~.om lac amnamm
i~.aao m.mm Av.e~. m.~m Am.mav m.mm .m.m~o m.am .m.-v o.mm lac amaao:
.m.m. «.maa Ao.oav a.moa Am.aac m.40a Am.mc s.moa .m.m. ~.aoa Ame mammm
ammsmomaam
am 2 am 2 am 2 ow (s, am 2 ummmmum
mmmmmmwflwmmu mmwmamm mum mmamm III
(mmumum Hoocow

aosocoo accomuomuoaca ocm acoenomaa< mo monommoz How moaumaamum o>aadauomon

a OHQMB

26
standard p-test (two-tailed), the present sample's IPPA
scores did not differ significantly from those found in
Armsden's much larger sample Of similar age college
students. However, women's attachment scores consistently
exceeded men's, and facilitators' scores consistently
exceeded members', although the only statistically
significant difference (p < .05) involved attachment to
fathers and was stronger for women than for men.

The Table 1 means and standard deviations for
acceptance versus rejection Of self— and other-ratings are
similar to previously reported findings (Hurley, 1989b,
1994). Women received higher acceptance ratings than men in
11 Of 12 instances, although these differences were
statistically significant only for early self-acceptance
ratings given to peers and for early Other-acceptance
ratings received from group peers. Facilitator's ratings
were significantly higher than those for members by four of
the six self-acceptance ratings, but did not differ
significantly for acceptance Of others. Thus, facilitators
were rated significantly above members for acceptance of
self (ARS) by both self and their group members.

The relationships among attachment measures for mother,
father, and peers are shown in Table 2. The present
correlation Of -.02 between attachment to mothers and peers
was significantly weaker than the .38 correlation between
attachment tO fathers and peers. However, Armsden reported

parallel values Of .31 and .18, respectively (1986, p. 63).

27

Table 2
Product-Moment Correlations Among Attachment Measures

Peers Mother Father M + F M + F + P

Peers (P) -.02 .38** .24T .46**
Mother (M) .31** .28* .78** .70**
Father (F) .18** .45** .82** .84**
M + F T T T .97**
M + F + P T T T T

_ 56; Armsden's
(1986) values below, N = 401. T Data not available.

Note: Present values above the diagonal, N =

** Q < .01, * p < .05, T p < .10, two-tailed test.

While the interstudy father-peer correlations (.38 vs. .18)
did not differ significantly (Fisher's g = 1.49), the two
mother-peer correlations (-.02 vs. .31) did (g = 2.34).
Also, the present .28 correlation between attachment tO
mothers and fathers was significantly (p < .01) weaker than
Armsden's .45 correlation (g = 3.13). Interestingly, in the
present study attachment to fathers and peers correlated
more highly than attachment to mothers and peers.

On the single item attachment measure, 48% Of these
students classified themselves as secure, 32% as ambivalent,
and 20% as avoidant. These findings are consistent with
prior studies, except that the latter works have commonly
found avoidant attachment tO be slightly more prevalent than
ambivalent attachment, and secure attachment characterizes

approximately 9% more. For example, various studies have

28

found about 57% securely attached, about 24% avoidantly
attached, and about 19% ambivalently attached (Hazan 8
Shaver, 1987, 1990; Pistole, 1989; Shaver 8 Hazan, 1987).

The interpersonal measures evidenced considerable
interoccasion stability in correlations (Table 3) ranging
from .48 to .85. The highest values were associated with
self— and peer-rated acceptance Of self and with peer-rated
acceptance Of others. Appreciable agreement between self-
and peer-ratings Of individuals existed although this was
stronger for self-acceptance than for acceptance of others.
Raters' leniency, as assessed by the individual's mean
ratings assigned to other group members, also showed
moderate stability (.48 and .54) as well as cross-
dimensional generality (mgp ; = .58).
Stpdy Findings

Presented in Table 4, the attachment measures'
correlations with the interpersonal conduct ratings showed
the latter more strongly associated with attachment to peers
than with attachment to either mothers or fathers. Peer
attachment correlated positively and significantly (p < .05)
with acceptance Of self, as rated early by self and later by
peers, and also with late ratings assigned to others for
acceptance Of Others. Each parallel other-occasion
correlation also attained or closely approached the .10
level Of statistical significance. Additionally, attachment
to fathers was correlated (p < .01) with late other-

acceptance, and closely approached significance (p < .10) on

29

 

 

 

seem am 5H asmm ma
«hm Hm «tom ream
aaah same aamm
seam «amm
ramv
A m Q m A m
m>mw vumaooom mamm

 

Lemma mnmnuo mo
cowaommmm .m> mocmamooom

.amma omaamauoza .oa. v m a .mo. v m a .ao. v a ma

.m aoa ooa an saamm mma>ao

each +MN ha ma
same same we ha
#H +mm ma mo
NH ma +m~ amm
sane ma amm «mm

ma same ca ma

ammo oo oo

 

 

 

mHI mot
«amm
A m A m
m>mw vm>flmomm

 

 

 

 

.poaaaEO mamsaomp aag wmmmm

«aae ma la. mama

ma «am Ame saama
m>mw

me no: la. mama

mo mo: Am. maumm
mmwaumum

aaam ma lav mama

ma mam lav saama
aamm

mHOSfiO MO OOGMD $004

mamm Na lac mama

ammo «am Ame aaama
0>MU

seam atom ARV TUNA

seam aamw Amy haumm
om>amoom

«rah Adv wflmn

Ame saamm

 

Hmm

 

m

mocmanmoodumaww
a m
mamm

 

 

 

ammdv mamm mo

:Oaaomnom .m> mocmammood

Ammuz. postdoc mcaamoooduamaao ocm imaom mo moasmmmz coozaom maoaumaoauoo acoEOzuaOdooam

m magma

30

.amma omaamauoaa .oa. v m a .mo. v m « .ao. v a ma
.a aoa ooa an saamm mma>ao .mmaaaso mamsammm aaa mmadm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amen amm ma ma mam ma am we am ma aa so- a + a + 2
«mm amm ma ea amm ma ma so ma ma mo ma- a + z
mamm oN so ma am ma amm mo ma am ma oo lav mamaamm
ma ma om aa ma oa mo mo mo mo- aa- aam- Ase mamaaoz
m~m am mo ma ma mo ea so amm amw aam mam Ame mammm
aamaammaaa

a a allllm. laulllm .mwullua a a a a

m>mo muaammmm mama m>mo muaawmmm wamw
20mm. mamaao ao .mmm. aauw,ao

cOaaOOnom .m> oocmamoood coaaomnom .m> moamamooo<

Ammumv mousmmoz achmammuoacH naa3 acofinomaam mo mcoaamaoaaou acmEOzlaosooam

v OHDOB

31
late self-acceptance.

Other notable features Of Table 4 include the
attachment measures' consistently positive associations with
how favorably one rated others as well as their consistently
more positive correlations with acceptance Of others than
with self-acceptance. Also, 10 Of the 30 self-acceptance
(ARS) correlations were below 1.10 versus only 3 Of 30
parallel other-acceptance (ARO) correlations. Self-
acceptance also contributed to all five Of Table 4's
negative correlations, including the three surprising
negative associations with attachment to mothers.

Thus, hypothesis A, which predicted association Of more
secure levels Of attachment with higher self-ratings and
higher ratings from peers on both ARS and ABC, received
substantial support for both peer- and self-rated acceptance
Of self (ARS), but less support for one's Other-acceptance
(ARO) ratings from self and peers. Hypothesis B, which
predicted association of more secure levels Of attachment
with more favorable ratings Of others, was broadly supported
in that all 20 related correlations were positive, with four
Of these statistically significant (p < .05) and three
others approaching significance (p < .10). Of these seven
largest correlations, two associated attachment to fathers
with a more favorable rating Of group peers versus a single
similar association with attachment to peers and none with

attachment to mothers.

32
Curiously, attachment to mother had a nearly

significant negative correlation with early self-acceptance
ratings given to self (; = -.24, p < .10). The associations
Of composite attachment ratings (mother + father and mother
+ father + peer) with these interpersonal measures, even
when statistically significant, seem artifacts Of the noted
correlations between the interpersonal ratings and
attachment to peers and fathers. Perhaps one reason for
this might be that the concordance or discordance between
attachment to mother, father, and peers would relate more
closely to interpersonal functioning than the total
attachment score. Obviously a much larger sample would be
necessary to meaningfully explore this and related
hypotheses.

Gender-based correlations Of attachment and
interpersonal ratings, presented in Table 5, identified
significant positive correlations between women's attachment
to peers and self-acceptance ratings from peers and self on
each occasion. Women's attachment to their fathers also
associated positively with how generously they rated others
for other-acceptance early and late (p < .10). Women’s
early other-acceptance ratings were also correlated
positively with both composite attachment measures (p <
.05). Six Of the 60 women's correlations statistically
significant (p < .05) and 2 others approaching significance

(2 < .10).

33

 

 

.amma omaamauosa .oa. v m a .mo. v m a .ao. v m ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m uOm ooa we wanna Opa>aa .omaaaso mamanmo aad dwmmm
«mm mm: man mo: mm mm: ON «hm ma ma mm mm m + m + 2
we mm: ma mos mm mm: em «mm mm ma ma mm m + z
«a mm- ha- mo- mo mm- amm aam aa «a aw om Ame mamaamm
am mNI mo ao em man no em mm oa mo ma A2. muonaoz
awe «o oo men ma mm: ma mm eon aa ma ow Ame mammm
muonao mo oucmaamood
mm mm: aa mo: mm mm: aa ma mm on so we m + m + 2
mm mm: mo ao om mm: ca aa ma ma eon mo: m + 2
on em: ha aa mm mm: mm mo ma ma ma mo Amy mamnamm
am mm: Non aan em mm: mo: Na we me: am: am: Axe muonaoz
m~ Na: Na man aon mo: oa aa «we «om amm «mm .m. maomm
A m A m A m A m A m A m
o>mu oufiwmumm maom o>mw mmmwmmwm waom
do: ha :mEOz mm

Hmpcmo he uosocou mcauamoodnamnao ocm Imamm mo
mmcaamm AAV mama ocm Ame wanna naa3 acmenomaad mo mcowamamaaou acmEOzlaosooam
m magma

34

The attachment and interpersonal measures had notably
less reliable associations for the small male subsample (p
=17), as merely 2 Of these 60 correlations reached the .10
level Of confidence. Surprisingly, however, 30 Of the 60
correlations based upon the men's data were negative (versus
merely 7 for women). Most (26 of 30) Of the men's negative
correlations involved early ratings Of acceptance.

Parallel correlations of attachment with participant’s
group status (member versus facilitator), presented in Table
6, showed stronger associations with acceptance Of others
than with acceptance Of self. Only 1 of 60 self-acceptance
correlations attained statistical significance (p < .05)
versus 7 of the 60 Other-acceptance values with six more of
the latter correlations approaching statistical significance
(2 < .10).

Members' attachment to fathers and peers associated
significantly only with late ratings of Others for other—
acceptance. Members' attachment to fathers also had a
nearly-significant association with late self-rated
acceptance of others. Surprisingly, members' attachment to
mothers showed a significant negative correlation with early
self-acceptance ratings given to self. Facilitators' peer
attachment was positively correlated with the Other—
acceptance ratings they received from, and gave to, others
on each occasion.

For hypothesis C, the anticipated associations between

more secure levels Of attachment and use Of a wide range in

35

 

 

mm oa mm as mm mo-
mo mo- ma mm «a , mo-
mo- ma- oa am so- “at
aa oa ma ca- mm «a
an» amm mam ans as ma
an mm mm mm ea an
an mm on mw no an
an «a mm em «a ma
mo me mm mm- man ha
me mm mm mm me on
.lellum. .JAIIIIAI Iallllau
O>m0 Um>wm00m mamm

 

maoamaaaaomm ca

msumam an auspcoo mcaamoooduumeao pom imaom mo

.amma mmaamauosa .oa. v m a .mo. v m . .ao. v m a.

aoa ooa an saamm mma>aa

 

.mmaaaso mamsaomm aam

 

amm ha
akN ha
amm ma
pa ca
ma we
so ma-
so mm-
ma mo-
Nal aAMI
«a ha
a a
aamw

 

 

aaafi +m~ MA mH
ahm +mN ma 5H
aamv mm 00 «A
ha NH 0N NH
aom NH wet mo
AN mo NA NA
ma Ho ma mo
MN Act ma ma
we no mo Not
ma mo mm ¢A
.H N .H M
«Nam om>aooom
immwmamz we

«0&02

m + m + z
a + z
is. mamaamm

Asa mameaoz
mummm

 

m+m+2
n+2

Amy muonamm

Ase mamaaoz

Amy mumom
wocmaamoomuwwww

 

mmcaumm AAV ouMA use Any hauom naa3 acmenomaud mo mcoaamaoaaou acofiozlaosooum

w manna

36

Table 7
Correlations Between Attachment and Range of Interpersonal
Ratings GIVEN

 

 

AB§ A39
gaply, Late figply Late
Peers .08 .14 -.16 .16
Mother -.19 -.06 -.11 .05
Father .11 -.16 -.20 .251
M + F -.04 -.14 -.20 .14
M + F + P -.02 -.16 -.22T .17

 

T a 5 -10

these interpersonal ratings given Others were not found, as
shown in Table 7. Merely 2 of these 20 correlations even
approached statistical significance (p < .10), one positive

and one negative.

DISCUSSION

The purpose Of this study was to test hypotheses about
ways in which an individual's attachment status related to
his/her interpersonal style as revealed by peer and self-
evaluations Of conduct within a small informal group.
Because attachment status was conceptualized as the
individual's internal representation of the self in
relationship with others, it was hypothesized that greater
attachment to parents and peers would be positively
correlated with more favorable ratings Of one's
interpersonal conduct by both self and others, as well as
rating peers' interpersonal conduct more generously.

The present sample Of late adolescent college students
was similar tO that in related studies by Armsden (1986) and
Hurley (1986a, 1989a, 1989b). However, because Of the
limited sample size (N = 56), a large effect size (Cohen,
1977, 1992) would have been necessary to refute the null
hypotheses at the .05 level of confidence with an .80 power
level. Keeping the limitations in mind, several interesting
findings and patterns emerged.

While the overall set of correlations found between the
measures Of interpersonal conduct and attachment were

largely in the direction predicted, fewer than expected

37

38
reached statistical significance. For the total sample,
correlations between peer attachment and interpersonal
conduct reached (p < .05) or approached statistical
significance (p < .10) in five (of 12) instances, versus
merely two parallel associations with attachment to fathers
and only one significant negative association with
attachment to mothers. While peer attachment was largely
associated with favorable ratings from self and peers for
acceptance Of self, it also correlated positively and
significantly with one's late ratings assigned to peers for
other-acceptance. The remaining statistically significant
associations with attachment were largely with one's average
ratings of group peers for their acceptance Of others. The
third hypothesis that more secure levels of attachment would
be associated with giving other a wider range of scores on
interpersonal measures did not receive support.

The IPPA attachment measure, which was accorded
substantial validity by Armsden's study Of 401 late
adolescent college students, was selected for the present
study. The present men and women's self-reports of
attachment to parents and peers were similar to Armsden's
(1986). However, these MSU women consistently scored higher
on attachment to mothers, fathers, and peers than the MSU
men, whereas Armsden's men were slightly more attached to
their fathers than were her women, although no present mean
attachment rating differed significantly from.Armsden's

parallel data.

39

Correlations between present reports of attachment to
fathers and peers were also similar to Armsden's. However,
the present correlations between attachment to mothers and
peers, and between attachment to mothers and fathers, varied
significantly from Armsden's parallel values. In the
current study, attachment to fathers and peers correlated
more closely than did attachment tO mothers and peers, the
reverse Of Armsden's findings.

The present sample's ratings on the single-item
attachment measure, used to assess overall attachment
patterns, suggested general congruence with other studies in
the distribution of attachment styles. Thus, the patterns
of attachment noted in this sample appear broadly
representative of larger pOpulations. The sources of the
Observed differences are unclear, but may be due to
imprecise measurements, self-selection into this college
group learning course because of relationship concerns
different than a random sample would exhibit, or chance.

The interpersonal ratings showed substantial agreement
between ratings by self and by pooled small group peers for
both self-acceptance (mgp p = .68) and other-acceptance (mgp
p = .41), suggesting convergent validity. Conversely,
sharply lower correlations between individual self-
acceptance and other-acceptance ratings (mpg p = .21)
indicated discriminant validity. Thus, as might be
expected, there was substantial concurrence between self-

and group peers' perceptions of an individual's

40
interpersonal functioning. Additionally, individuals' rated
acceptance of others received from their peers correlated
more positively with their mean ratings assigned to group
peers (mpg p = .20) than did the parallel ratings for self-
acceptance (mgp p = .04), supporting this acceptance
measure's construct validity.

Consistent with the general view of the greater
importance of social relationships to women, they received
higher ratings than men on 11 of the 12 interpersonal
indicators, with two reaching statistical significance.

This pattern, considered with the consistently substantial
correlations (.48 to .85) between early and late ratings on
each interpersonal measure, suggests that these
interpersonal measures largely functioned as expected.

The relative importance of attachment to parents versus
peers may vary by situation, as may the correspondence Of
attachment with interpersonal conduct. For example, Armsden
(1986, p. 73) found that in a few circumscribed areas, such
as ease of showing feelings and being known, her
undergraduate sample described their attachment to peers as
being stronger than their attachments to parents.

The closer associations of interpersonal conduct with
attachment to peers than to either mothers or fathers might
be conceptualized as, at least in part, a problem Of
contextual influence. It may simply be that, in the context
of peer groups, the level of peer attachment was more

relevant to interpersonal conduct with peers than was

41
attachment to parents. In other circmmstances, such as with
superiors in an adult work setting, different patterns of
association between attachment and interpersonal conduct
might be found. Alternatively, the importance of peer
attachment and its association with interpersonal conduct
could be related to the develOpmental status of these
college students, who may be in the process of transferring
primary attachment away from home and parents. However,
attachment measures less dependent on direct self-reporting
might yield more consistent evaluation across targets Of
attachment and also reduce any self-report biases, self-
presentation issues, and interferences by defenses.

While these students consistently reported greater
attachment to mothers than to fathers (Table 1), their
attachment to fathers related more highly to their
interpersonal ratings in 10 of 12 instances. However, only
for the later ratings of self— and other-acceptance did the
correlations of father attachment reach or approach
statistical significance. The relatively closer association
of father attachment with interpersonal conduct may be seen
as consistent with the role of father in bridging separation
from mother and facilitating interpersonal relations with
others outside the nuclear family. Perhaps, although
attachment to mother is greater, it may be that the level of
attachment to father is most salient in the level of
interpersonal functioning with peers, or that too close

attachment to mother at this develOpmental level is

42
negatively associated with more positive interpersonal
relationships with peers.

Women's attachment and interpersonal ratings
consistently correlated more positively than men's. Women
Obtained significant correlations for early and late ratings
by both self and peers on self-acceptance, whereas only the
correlations for men's late other-acceptance ratings given
approached significance (p < .10). Wholly unexpected were
the 30 negative correlations among the 60 associations Of
acceptance with men's attachment ratings, although 26 Of the
20 negatives were with early ratings. In a puzzling
departure from both the broader pattern and from these
inverse associations, men's attachment-acceptance
correlations exceeded those Of the women for 9 of 10
instances for later acceptance ratings given to others, and
all 10 of these associations were positive.

While speculative, these notable shifts of the men's
correlations may suggest that with practice and exposure men
became more comfortable with interpersonal relationships.
Later in these groups they tended to rate their group peers
in ways more consistent with their stated degree of
attachment, possibly suggesting a shift towards more
genuineness and congruence between internal representations
and external relationships. Men's notable interoccasion
shift from negative to positive correlations Of attachment
with how they rated peers for other-acceptance may be

partially related to their greater opportunity to resolve

43
issues with the Opposite sex because of the disproportionate
number of women in these small groups (p = 39), limited
sample of men (p = 17), or due to chance.

Taken separately, neither members nor facilitators had
notably positive associations between attachment and self-
acceptance. The sole significant correlation among these 60
was the negative correlation between attachment to mother
and early self—acceptance, and may be due to chance. The
correlations of acceptance of Others with attachment were
sharply different, for 9 of these 30 attained or approached
statistical significance for group members, as also did 4 of
30 parallel correlations for facilitators. Most Of these
larger associations involved members' ratings of their group
peers for acceptance of others, whereas for facilitators
they involved the other-acceptance ratings both given to and
received from these peers.

The third hypothesis concerned whether attachment was
associated with the range one used for rating group peers on
the interpersonal measures, and did not receive support.
These correlations were low and 12 Of 20 were negative, with
only two approaching significance (p < .10), one positive
and one negative. The lack of association of attachment and
range of ratings given may be due to the restricted range of
the interpersonal ratings, small sample size, or chance.
Alternatively perhaps no systematic relation exists between
attachment and range of interpersonal ratings given. It was

thought that more securely attached individuals, because Of

44
a less defensive style and greater willingness to take
interpersonal risks, would tend to employ a wider range of
ratings. However, it is possible that more securely
attached individuals view themselves and others more
favOrably and are thus consistently more generous in their
ratings, reducing the range of ratings they might have
otherwise given others, which then should produce negative
correlations.

Finally, while the measures used apparently have
substantial validity and reliability, as discussed earlier,
they are also likely have flaws and shortcomings. In
particular, other measures of attachment have been
developed, such as the four-category model by Bartholomew
and Horowitz (1991) and the adult interview protocol
attachment measure by Main and Goldwyn (1988). Such
measures might provide a research Opportunity to further
test the relationship between security Of attachment and
levels Of interpersonal functioning, as well as provide a
further test of the validity of the IPPA measure, especially

with a larger sample sensitive to smaller effect sizes.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In summary, these findings indicated broad associations
between the late adolescent's strength Of attachment to
peers and their interpersonal conduct. Self-reported
attachment to peers was mainly associated with self— and
peer-rated acceptance of self, as defined by items
addressing expressiveness, Openness, and dominance.

Surprisingly, attachment to mothers tended to be
negatively associated with these items. Attachment to
fathers was positively correlated with favorable ratings Of
small group peers for acceptance of others, as defined by
items concerned with warmth, helpfulness, gentleness, and
acceptance. These associations were clearer among this
sample of 39 women than among the 17 men.

Contrary to expectations, attachment was not found to
be related to the range used for interpersonal ratings Of
group peers. Like similar samples, these college students
described their attachment as strongest to their mothers,
next strongest to their fathers, and less strong to their
peers.

There are a number Of directions for further research
in this area. Replication with a larger sample, especially

a larger number Of men, and with other non-student

45

46
pOpulations, could lead to a better understanding Of the
relationship of attachment and interpersonal style. A
larger sample would allow for analysis Of the impact Of
discordant attachment levels for fathers and mothers versus
concordant attachment for the dyad relative to both peer
attachment and interpersonal conduct.

With any replication, additional parallel measures for
attachment and interpersonal functioning could increase
confidence in the findings, and lead to refinement of the
measurement of both constructs. Inclusion Of closely
related measures, such as an Object relations inventory or
intimacy scales, could add depth Of understanding to the
various constructs and further enhance insights and
knowledge Of the individual in his or her interpersonal
environment, which provides a critical security base.
Further studies with a larger sample would permdt analysis
of the additional variables, and consideration should be
given to including appropriate parallel measures.

In light of current concerns about gender differences
and sex roles, research that facilitated further
understanding of the relationship between attachment and
interpersonal conduct would be a high priority. Such
studies designed to reveal differences in the correspondence
Of attachment with interpersonal conduct for males versus
females would be most helpful in light Of the current
interest in gender differences in relationships and parallel

develOpmental lines, from both theoretical and practical

47

perspectives. For example, a better understanding Of the
associations Of internal representations of self, others,
and relationships, as mapped by attachment measures, with
interpersonal conduct, could inform both corrective and
preventive strategies in such critical issues as sexual
discrimination, spousal abuse, acquaintance rape, sexual
harassment, and the role of fathering in child development.

Perhaps less urgently, it would be helpful to
understand how the relative importance of different
attachment objects varies by life circumstances. Attachment
to mothers, fathers, or peers may be relatively more
important in some domains and in some circumstances than in
others. For example, it would be interesting to learn
whether the association of attachment with interpersonal
style would change five years after graduation from college,
or whether findings would differ for employed men and women
Of the same age who were not in college and not dependent on
parents.

In any study, it would be useful to understand how age,
socioeconomic status, marital status, parenting status, and
related factors affect association of attachment status with
interpersonal style. This remains an area for further

research.

APPENDIX A

48

RATINGS OF BEHAVIORS IN GROUPS

INSTRUCTIONS: On this minibooklet's last page note that all group members'
represents your personal impression of each members' actual behavior within

all group sessions up to now. These ratings will be most useful if you use the

full range of possible ratings for each scale.
shared with all group members later. Complete all ratings on each page before

turning ahead to the next. Unlike other scales which address behavior, the

Rate all group members, including self and Ieader(s). These ratings will be fully
Liked versus Disfiked scale solicits your personal responses.

names have been listed. Encircle your own name. Starting with the following

page, encircle the letter between the extremes of each scale that best

SHOWS FEELINGS

abc
abc

d.'ghol o’k'mn
dot

Shiitklmn
‘deafgh..l:-Jkllmn
‘deefgh.l.lak.-lmn
abcdofghi.l.klmn
ade.fgh.l.lel-mn
adeQOIgh.l.lakllmn
abc GCTth. .aJklrmn
abcdofghii.klmn
abcdoIthlkImn

HIDES FEELINGS

DISLIKED

GD.» 6...!

Bhijklmn
abed.f9hi.lklmn
adeOTgh.:-.J.Klumn
tde.‘9h.I.l..K-|m0
adeOigh.l.lklmn
IdeOfgh.l:lk.lmn
'de.‘9h.-I.lokllmn
ideOfghiiaklmn
IdeOigh.I.Jklmn
‘deCTgh.l.IJ-Knlmn

LIKED

EXPRESSIVE

ah:
the
the
8.06
3.06
ab:
she
«be
abc
abc

doIQh

dOIQh

dOIQh
dOIQh
dafgh
d.ll9h
d.Tgh
dotQh
d..ol9h
dCTgh

.IJKI-Mfl
.lk'mn
.lkimn
.lk'mn
:lklmn
.lklmn
.lklmfl
.Ilkllmn
.lklmn
ilknlmn

GUARDED

Ibc
abc
3.06
8.06
the
IUD.
lbc
Ibc
1.06
the

COLD
dot—Uh
dofgh
doIQh
dof9h
d.(lgh
6.39."

6.61.9."-

d.‘gh

WARM

.IJk-I-mn
a’k'mn
.’k|mn
olk'mn
.Jkrmn
.lklm n
jk|m n.
o’k'mn
o’k'mn

M

PASSIVE

.DC
be
be
be
b0
.00
.DC
b:
be
b6

dddddddddd

align.
.fgh.
ecu—Uh.
Ofgh.
align.
Olly."
Col-9h.
.fgh.
ef9h.
.fgh.

I]

ACT-IVE

HARMS OTHERS

be
be
be
be
be
be
be
be
be
be

dddddddddd

eight. .lklm
Ofghiu .Iak'm
Ofghi. ilk-8m
eight. .lklm
.Tgh:l .Iakllm
.llghil .lakIm
Ollgh.l.llkl.m
.fghi. jk'm
Calghiiaklm
Ofghiiaklm

HELPS OTHERS

.lak'm n
jklm n
.Ilklm fl
.lak-Im n
.lklm n
:lknlm fl
.lklm n
iklmn
.Klmn
.lak-lm n

nnnnnnnnnn

aaaaaaaaaa

SUBMISSIVE

b6
.00
be
be
DC
.DC
.DC
b0
b0
b0

dddddddddd

0.... 9h
0:... 9h
Col 9."
0.1 OH
.cl 9."
CI 9.0
Of 9."
0.! 9h
0.! 9h
.0: Oh

.I .lklmn
.I .IaklMfl
.I .nlk-Im fl
.I.Io.K-Imn
.I .Iaklm n
i .lklmn
.I .lklmn
.I.lok.lm0
.I.IJ.K..lmn
.I.I..Knlmn

DOMINANT

GENTLE

b6
b6
b0
b6
.DC
b6
b0
b6
On.
On.

dddddddddd

0.... 8h

ef9h

.fgho
.fgho

Cough

HARSH

.I..J.Kl.mn
:lilknlmn
.Iu.’k'mn
:I:lakllmn
.I.’kl.mn
.Ilklmn
.IJklMfl
jkllmn
.Ijk'mn
.I.I..K.lm0

encircle your nameN

a
III
M
M
w
M)“
m
m
m
m
m
(m
m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A

CEPTS OTHERS

CdOCIgh..l .lk'mn
Odellgh:l .lakllmn
CdOfSh.l.Jk-Imn
Cdefgh.l:l.k.lmn
cdoIthlklmn
edetlghil .I-aklmn
cdefochilklmn
Odes-Chialklmn
CdOfghIiJklmn
cdefa.hi.lklmn

REJECTS OTHERS

bbbbbbbbbbc

50

r r ' r' riI n r h vi r
Consider what interpersonal behaviors you have observed and what the person
says. Discount anecdotes reported by others, or other second-hand
information.

Behavior manifested varies with the persons involved and with the individual‘s
role. Rate what is most typical of the person.

ansigg; the ingjvigpal's nggtipps jg ypp=
In arriving at a judgement consider the individual's attitude and interactions to
you along with other information.

As much as possible base your ratings on directly observable behavior.

Make no effort to present a consistent portrait. People may manifest, for good
reasons, seemingly contradictory behaviors.

If you cannot decide, go on to the next item and come back later to those items
you skipped.

If you feel uncertain about a judgement, record your best guess. Be sure to
judge every statement.

APPENDIX B

51

INVENTORY OF PARENT AND PEER ATTACHMENT (IPPA)

Informed Consent Letter

This research is conducted in order to increase information
about people's interpersonal styles, and specifically as these
styles relate to interpersonal style in the Small
Interpersonal Group Experiential Learning (SIGEL) groups.

It should take less than 30 minutes to complete this
questionnaire, including reading the instructions, reading
each question carefully, and answering each question
ethoughtfully.

Your participation in answering this questionnaire is
voluntary and you may withdraw from participating at any time
without penalty. Your answers and all information will be
held strictly confidential, and you will remain anonymous with
regard to any research findings. You indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire.

The procedures for completing this questionnaire have been
explained in class. Please feel free to ask if you have any
further questions. Other questions about the test or any
concerns that you have will be answered by Dr. John Hurley,
106 Olds Hall, 355-4615.

Remember, the research will hold these answers in complete
confidentiality so please answer in a way that reflects your
perception Of the stated situation as accurately and
faithfully as possible.

£52

RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaireasks about your relationships with important people in your life--your
mother, your father, and your close friends. Please read the directions to each part carefully.

Part I

Each of the following statements asks about your feelings about your mother or the woman who
has acted as your mother. If you have more than one person acting as your mother (e.g,,a
natural mother and a stepqmother) answer the questions for the one you feel has most in-
fluenced y0u.

Please read each Statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true the statement is
for you now. ‘—

Almost Not Some- Often Almost
Never or Very times True Always 0

Never Often True Always
True True True
I. My mother respects my feelings. I 2 3 h 5
2. I feel my mother does a good job as my mother. I 2 3 h 5
3. I wish I hid a different mother. I 2 3 h 5
h. Hy mother accepts me as I am. I 2 3 h 5
5. I like to get my mother's point of view on things
I'm concerned about. I 2 3 h 5
6. I feel it's no use letting my feelings show around
my mother. ' l 2 3 h S
7. My mother can tell when I'm upset about something. I 2 3 h 5
8. Talking over my problems with my mother makes me feel
ashamed or foolish. l 2 3 5 5
9.- My mother expects too much from me. I 2 3 h 5
lo. I get upset easily around my mother. I 2 3 h 5
ll. I get upset a lot more than my mother knows about. I 2 3 h 5
l2. when we discuss things, my mother cares about my point
of View. I 2 3 h 5
l3. My mother trust: my judgment. I 2 3 h 5
lb. My mother has her own problems, so I don't bother her
with mine. I 2 3 h 5

I5. My mother helps me to understand myself better. I 2 3

53

Almost Not Some- Often Almost
Never or Very times True Always er

 

Never Often True Always
True True True
I6. I tell my mother about my problems and troubles. I 2 3 h 5
I7. I feel angry with my mother. I 2 3 h
I8. I don't get much attention from my mother. I 2 3 h 5
l9. My mother helps me to talk about my difficulties. l 2 3 h 5
20. Hy mother understands me. I 2 3 h 5
2i. when I am angry about something, my mother tries to
be understanding. I 2 3 5 5
22. I trust my mother. I 2 3 h S
23. My mother doesn't understand what I'm going through
these days. I 2 3 5 5
2h. I can count on my mother when I need to get something
off my chest. I 2 3 5 5
25. If my mother knows something is bothering me, she asks
me about it. I 2 3 h 5
Part II
This part asks about your feelings about your figghgg, or the man who has acted as your fat r.

If you have more than one person acting as your fathgr (e.g”,natural and step-father) answer
the questions for the one you feel has most influenced you.

Almost Not Soee- Often Almost
Never or Very times True Always or

Never Often True Always
True True True
I. My father respects my feelings. I 2 3 h 5
2. I feel my father does a good job as my father. I 2 h
3. Iwishl had a different father. I 2 3 h S
A. My father accepts me as I am. I 2 3 h S
S. I like to get my father's point of view on things I'm
concerned about. I 2 3 h 5
6. I feel it's no use letting my feelings show aound my
father. I 2 3 5 5
7. My father can tell when I'm upset about something. I 2 3 h S
8. Talking over my problems with my father makes me feel
ashamed or foolish. I 2 3 h S
I 2 3 S

9. My father expects too much from me.

l0.
II.

I2.

I3.
lb.

I5.
l6.
I7.
I8.
I9.
20.

ZI.

22.

23.

2h.
25.

Part

This
read

54

 

 

, Almost Not Same- Often Almost

Never or Very times True Always of
Never Often True Always
True True True

I get upset easily around my father. I 2 3 h S

I get upset a lot more than my father knousabout. I 2 3 ‘I 5

when we discuss things, my father cares about my

point of view. I 2 3 h 5

My father trusts my judgment. I 2 3 h 5

My fatier has his own problems, so I don't bother him

with mine. I 2 3 h 5

My father helps me to understand myself better. I 2 3 h 5

I tell my father about my problems and troubles. I 2 3 k 5

I feel angry with my father. I 2 3 b 5

I don't get much attention from my father. I 2 3 5 5

My father helps me to talk about my difficulties. l 2 3 h 5

My father understands me. - I 2 3 h 5

when I am angry about something, my father tries to be

understanding. I 2 3 h 5

I trust my father. I 2 3 h 5

fly father doesn't understand what I'm going through

these days. I 2 3 h 5

I can count on my father when I need to get something

off my chest. 2 3 h 5

If my father knows something is bothering me, he asks

me about it. I 2 3 h S

III

Please

part asks about your feelings about your relationships with your close friends.

each statement and circle the ONE number that tells how true the statement is for you now.

Almost
Never or
Never

True

I like to get my friend's point of view on things
I'm concerned about.

My friends can tell when I'm upset about something I

 

Not Some- Often Almost
Very times True Always (
Often True Always
True True

2 3 h 5

2 3 h S

NO‘U‘

II.
l2.
I3.
I5.
IS.

I6.
I7.
l8.
I9.

20.
2|.

22.

23.

25.

25.

55

 

Almost Not Some- Often Almost
Never or Very times True Always or
Never Often True Always
True True True

when we discuss things, my friends care about

mv point of view. ' I 2 3 5 5

Talking over my problems with my friends makes me

feel ashamed or foolish. I 2 3 h 5

I wish I had different friends. I 2 3 5 5

My friends understand me. I 2 3 5 5

My friends help me to talk about my difficulties. I 2 3 5 5

My friends accept me as I am. I 2 3 5 5

I feel the need to be in touch with my friends more

often. I *2 3 h 5

My friends don't understand what I'm going through

these days. I 2 3 5 5

I feel alone or apart when I'm with my friends. I 2 3 5 5

My friends listen to what I have to say. I 2 3 5 5

I feel my friends are good friends. I 2 3 5 5

My friends are fairly easy to talk to. l 2 3 5 5

when I am angry about something, my friends try to be

understanding. I 2 3 5 5

My friends help me to understand myself better. I 2 3 5 5

My friends care about how I am. I 2 3 5 S

I feel angry with my friends. I 2 3 h S

I can count on my friends when I need to get something

off my chest. I 2 3 5 5

I trust my friends. I 2 3 5 5

My friends respect my feelings. I 2 3 - 5 S

I get upset a lot more than my friends know about. I 2 3 5 S

It seems as if my friends are irritated with me

for no reason. I 2 3 5 S

I can tell my friends about my problems and

troubles. l 2 3 5 S

If my friends know something is bothering me,

they ask me about it. I 2 3 h 5

56

ADULT ATTACHMENT PROTOTYPES

Instructions

Following are descriptions of three typical patterns of feelings in close
relationships. While no description fits anyone perfectly, please check the one
that does the best job of describing the way you usually feel in close relationships.

A. I am comfortable without a lot of closeness. It is important to me to
be independent and self-reliant. I’d rather not depend on others or
have others depend on me.

B. Iwant closeness, but I find that others are reluctant to get as close as
I would like. [worry that others won’t care about me as much as I
care about them.

C. I am comfortable with closeness, and find it relatively easy to trust

and depend on others. I don’t worry about being hurt by those I’m
close to.

Please rate the extent to which each of the above is like you.

not at all somewhat very much
like me like me like me
Pattern A. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7
Pattern B. 1 2 3 4 S 6 7

PatternC. l 2 3 4 5 6 7

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore,
MD: The Johns HOpkins Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency,
and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-
mother relationship. Child Develo ment, 5Q, 969-1025.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy.
American Psychologist, 52, 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment,
exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the
behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation.
Child Develoomspp, 5;, 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological studv
of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Arend, R., Gove, F. L., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity
of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten:
A predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in
preschoolers. Child Develo ment, sg, 950-959.

Armsden, G. G. (1986). Attachment to parents and peers in
late adolescence: relationships to affective status,
self-esteem and coping with loss, threat and challenge
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington,
1986). UMI Dissertation Abstracts International.
(University Microfilms No. 86-13,133).

 

Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. (1985). Personality in the
social process. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Bales, R. F., & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOQ; A system for

the multiple level obssrvation of small groups. New
York: Free Press.

57

58

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment
styles among young adults: A test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personalit and Social Ps cholo ,
pl, 226-244.

Behrends, R. S., & Blatt, S. J. (1985). Internalization
and psychological deve10pment throughout the life

cycle. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 59, 11-
39.

Berzoff, J. (1989). The role of attachments in female
adolescent development. Child and Adolescent Social

Blake, W. (1915). The marriage of heaven and hell. In J.
Sampson (Ed.), The pgstical works of William Blake (p.
251). New York: Oxford University Press.

Blatt, S. J., & Behrends, R. S. (1987). Internalization,
separation-individuation, and the nature of therapeutic

action. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, s,
187—254.

 

Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1990). Attachment and
separateness: A dialectic model of the products and
processes of develOpment throughout the life cycle.

Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, ii: 107-127.

Blehar, M. C., Lieberman, A. F., & Ainsworth, M. D. D.
(1977). Early face-to-face interaction and its
relation to later infant-mother attachment. Child
stelopment, ifi: 182-194.

Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Maternal responsiveness:
Characteristics and consequences. New Directions for

Child Deve10pment, 2;, 1-112.

Bowlby, J. (1953). Some pathological processes set in
train by early mother—child separation. Journal of
Mental Science, 22, 265-272.

Bowlby J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his
mother. International Journal of P3 cho-Anal sis, 32,
350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume 1:
Attachment. London: The Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1973a). Attachment and Loss: Volume III:

Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Harper
Colins.

59

Bowlby, J. (1973b). Self-reliance and some conditions that

promote it. In R. Gosline (Ed.), support, innovation,
apd Autongmy (pp. 19—22). London: Tavistock

Publications.

Bowlby, J. (1979). Th Ma ' Breakin f Affe onal
Bonds. London: Tavistock/Routledge.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Aptaghment and Loss: Volpms II; Loss:
Sagness and Depressign. NY: Harper Collins.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parenp-chilg attachment
ggg hsglshy human gsvlepmgnt. New York: Basic Books,

Inc .

 

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment Theory: Retrospect and

Prospect. Grgwing Pgints of Attachment Theory snd
ggssg£g_. [Monoqraphs of the Society for Research in

Child Development, Serial No. 209]. 50, 3'35.

Bus, A. G., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Attachment and
early reading: A longitudinal study. Jo na of

Genstlg Psychology, 149, 199-210.

Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment and the self
in six-year-olds. ghlld Development, s2, 121—134.

Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysls fig; she
pghgvlppal sciepges. New York: Academic Press.

Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Ps cholo ical Bulletin,
lzz, 155-158.

Cohn, D. A. (1990). Child-mother attachment of six-year-
olds and social competence at school. Child

stelopment, pl, 152—162.

Collins, N. L., 8 Read, 8. J. (1990). Adult attachment,
working models, and relationship quality in dating

couples. Journal of Pegsonallty and Soglgl Psychology,

ss, 644-663.
Egan, G. (1976). Inpegpersonal Living: A SkillsZCpntract
a h H - lat' T ' ' ' r s.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Emde, R. N., & Harmon, R. J. (Eds.). (1982). The

gsvelopmenp of gttachment apd affiliatlve systems. New

York: Plenum Press.

Epstein, S. (1983). Scoring and interprepation of mpther-
fgphsr-pser scale. Unpublished manuscript. University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

60

Epstein, S., & Meier, P. (Eds.). (1989). Constructive
thinking: A broad caping variable with specific
components. Journal of Personglity and Soclal
Psychology, :1, 332-351.

Brikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and Society. NY: W. W.
Norton. (Originally published 1950).

Penney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a
predictor of adult romantic relationships. J ur f

Personality sng Socigl Psychglggy, ss, 281-291.

Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping
processes: A theoretical analysis. Jou n of

Personality and Sggial Psychglggy, gs, 839-852.

Folkman, S., 8 Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of
coping in a middle-aged community sample. gosInal pf
Health and Social gehaviop, ll, 219-239.

Fong, G. T. (1982). Self-schemes and judgments about
others. Soclal ngnitign, l, 191-204.

Frances, A., & Dunn, P. (1975). The attachment-autonomy
conflict in agoraphobia. Intern t'onal o of
P3 cho-Anal sis, ss, 435-439.

Franz, C. E., & White, K. M. (1985). Individuation and
attachment in personality development: Extending

Erikson's theory. Journal of Personallty, i1: 224-256.

George, C., & Main, M. (1979). Social interactions of
young abused children: Approach, avoidance, and

aggression. Chilg stslgpment, s9, 306-318.

Gifford, R., & O'Connor, B. (1987). The interpersonal

circumplex as a behavior map. Jgpgnal of Personality
and Social Psychology, sg, 1019-1025.

Greenberg, M. T. (1982). Reliability and valldipy of the
Inventory of Agolsscent Attachmegts. Unpublished

manuscript. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., & Leitch, C. J. (1983).
The nature and importance of attachment relationships
to parents and peer during adolescence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, lg, 373-386.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An
attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 270-280.

61

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love
conceptualized as an attachment process. Jgurnal of

Pshsonallty ang §ocial Psychology, s2, 270-280.

Horney, K. (1950). Neuggsis and human gpowth: The struggle
toward self-realization. New York: W. W. Norton 8

Company.

Humphrey, L. L., & Benjamin, L. S. (1986). Using
structural analysis of social behavior to assess
critical but elusive family processes. Amsrigan
P holo i t, ll, 979-989.

Hurley, J. R. (1990). Constructive thinking and elevated
ratings of self in interpersonal groups. Ths Journal

of Psyghology, 124, 563-573.

Hurley, J. R. (1976). Two prepotent interpersonal
dimensions and the effects of trainers on T-groups.

small group Behavior, 1, 77-98.

Hurley, J. R. (1978). Toward seeing ourselves as others
see us. In L. R. Wolberg & M. L. Aronson (Eds.), Group
Therapy (pp. 105-118). NY: Stratton.

Hurley, J. R. (1986a). Interpersonal behavior, range of

ratings, and personal security. Psyghological Repgrts,
£2, 219-228e

Hurley, J. R. (1986b). Leaders' behavior and group
members' interpersonal gains. G300 , lg, 160-177.

Hurley, J. R. (1989a). Affiliativeness and outcome in
interpersonal groups: Member and leader perspectives.

Psychotherapy, 25, 520-523.

Hurley, J. R. (1989b). Self-acceptance and other-
acceptance scales for small groups. Genetic Social

and General Psyghology Monographs, 1 5, 484-513.

Hurley, J. R. (1991). Self-acceptance, acceptance of
others, and SYMLOG: Equivalent measures of the two
central interpersonal dimensions? Journsl of Qlihlcal

Psycholggy, 11, 576-581.

Hurley, J. R. (1994). The "Big Five" personality
dispositions, everyday thinking, and later behavior in
small informal groups. Unpublished Manuscript.

 

Hurley, J. R., & Bennett, M. K. (1988). Interpersonal
ratings and mutual eye contact. Smsll Grgup Behavior,
l2, 528-543.

62

Hurley, J. R., Feintuch, B., & Mandell, M. J. (1991).
Novice leaders' first three groups: Change and
consistency in acceptance of self and other. Journal

of Sggisl gsychglogy, 131, 233-245.

Hurley, J. R., & Marsh, V. M. (1986). Contrasting
interpersonal correlates of mutual eye contact reports

by self and others. Pegcsptual and Motor Skills, gs,
1267-1274.

Hurley, J. R., & Rosenberg, D. B. (1990). Group members'
gains in acceptance of self and others associated with
leaders' behavior. Genetic, Sogial, and General
Psyghglggy Mohographs, l_§, 413-434.

Kenny, M. E. (1987a). The extent and function of parental
attachment among first-year college students. Journal

of Yohph snd Agolescenge, lg, 17-29.

Kenny, M. E. (1987b). Family ties and leaving home for
college: Recent findings and implications. Journal of
College Studsht Pers nnel, gs, 438-442.

Kenny, M. E. (Ed.). (1990). College seniors' perceptions
of parental attachments: The value of stability of

family ties. Joprnal of Cgllege Spugent stelpphent,
ll, 39-46.

Kestenbaum, C. J. (1984). Pathological attachments and
their relationship to affective disorders in adult

live. The American Jghrnsl of Psychoanalysis, 35, 33-
49.

Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late
adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and
representations of self and others. thld Development,
52: 135-146.

Krishnamurti. (1964). Think on phase things. New York:
Harper & Row, Publishers.

LaFeniere, P. J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Profiles of peer
competence in the preschool: Interrelations between
measures, influence of social ecology, and relation to
attachment history. Develgpmehtal Psychology, ll, 56-
69.

Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychologlcal stress and the opping
ppocess. New York: McGrow-Hill.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,
and goping. New York: Springer.

63

Leary, T. (1957). Inteppersonal diagnosis of pepsonality.
New York: Ronald Press.

Loewald, H. N. (1970). Psychoanalytic theory and the

psychoanalytic process. Psyghoanalytic Stugy of phe
Child, 2;, 45—68e

Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1963). An interpersonal
behavior circle. Jou na Ab o d So ial

Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment
organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies,
and the concept of conditional strategies. hpmgh

Developmenp, 3;, 48-61.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1988). An adult attschhenp
classifigatign systsm. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California, Department of Psychology.
Berkeley, CA.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing

information about the self. Journal of Persgnality &
Socisl gsyghology, 3;, 63-78.

May, B. A. (1991). The interaction between ratings of
self, peers' perceptions, and reflexive self-ratings.

Johrnal of Social Psychology, 131, 483-493.

McNeil, L. W. (1974). Cognitive complexity: A brief
synthesis of theoretical approaches and a concept
attainment task analogue to cognitive structure.

Psychologlcsl Repgrhs, s5, 3-11.

Melges, F. T., & Swartz, M. S. (1989). Oscillations of
attachment in borderline personality disorder.

hmsrlcah Journal of Psyghiahry, 1 g, 1115-1120.

Merenda, P. F. (1987). Toward a four-factor theory of
temperament and/or personality. Jgupnal of Perspnality
Asssssment, El: 367-374.

Munro, A. (1969). Parent-child separation: Is it really a
cause of psychiatric illness in adult life? hgchives

of Genersl Psychistry, 22, 598-603.

Oppenheim, D., Sagi, A., & Lamb, M. E. (1988). Infant-
adult attachments on the Kibbutz and their relation to
socioemotional development 4 years later.

Developmehtal Psychology, gs, 427-433.

64

Pistole, M. C. (1989). Attachment in adult romantic
relationships: Style of conflict resolution and
relationship satisfaction. Jour a1 0

Persgnsl gslghlghships, s, 505- 510.

Ricks, M. H. (1985). Ix. The social transmission of
parental behavior: attachment across generations. In
I. Bretherton 8 E. Waters (Eds.), Growing Points pf
Attachment: Theory ang Research, Monographs of ths
Soclety for gesearch in Chllg Developmen , No. 209:

vol. 50, 211-227.

Ryan, R. M., 8 Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy
versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of

adolescence and young adulthood. Chlld Devslppment,
fl, 340-356e

Schneier, C. E. (1979). Cognitive structure and preference
for constructs in impression formation: A field

experiment. Psychplogical Repgrts, 3;, 459-467.

Shaver, P., 8 Hazan, C. (1987). Being lonely, falling in
love: Perspectives from attachment theory. Journal of

Spgial Behavior and Persghslity, ;, 105-124.

Shaver, P., 8 Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the

study of love. Journal 03 Social and Pspsonality
Relationsh' s, s, 473-501.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C., 8 Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as
attachment: The integration of three behavioral
systems. In R. J. Sternberg 8 M. L. Barnes (Eds.), ghs
psychology of love (pp. 68-99). New Haven: Yale
University Press.

Sroufe, L. A., 8 Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an
organizational construct. Child Develo ment, is, 1184-
1199.

Steinberg, L., 8 Steinberg, S. B. (1986). The vicissitudes
of autonomy in early adolescence. Child DevelOpment,
hl, 841-851.

Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of ths

infant: A view from psychoanalysis and developmenpal
psychology. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.

 

 

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of
psychigtry. NY: W. W. Norton 8 Company.

65

Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex model of interpersonal

behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall 8 J.
N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in

glinical Psyghology (pp. 183-221). NY: Wiley.

(1992). Antecedents of complex

Woike, B. A., 8 Aronoff, J.
social cognitions. Journal of Personalipy ang Soclal
Psychology, Q3, 97-104.