 

 

 

,.. r {ﬂux ‘

  
 
 
 

I"

 

f” IlllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 016883

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
ADULT ATTACHMENT ,

NARCISSISM, SHAME, AND DEFENSIVENESS

presented by
BETTY FE INTUCH

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in PSYCHOLQQY

Q (ﬂy/(MK

with; / d8“,

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

LIBRARY

’ Michigan State
s Unlverslty

 

 

 

 

PLACE lN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

[RTE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

JAN 2J7 2001

 

 

JIiigji

0;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 WHO/Maﬁa“

 

 

 

ADULT ATTACHMENT,
NARCISSISM, SHAME, AND DEFENSIVENESS
By

Betty Feintuch

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1998

ABSTRACT
ADULT ATTACHMENT, NARCISSISM, SHAME, AND DEFENSES
Betty Elintuch

Examination of relationships between attachment and narcissism, shame,
defenses, and the positive and negative affects (n=538 undergraduates)
revealed close association between security of attachment and shame and the
affects, whereas other predicted relationships only occasionally reached
signiﬁcance. Secure attachment positively correlated with positive affects and
negatively with shame and negative affects, while fearful-avoidant and
preoccupied attachment yielded substantial correlations in the opposite direction
on these same affects.

Interestingly, predicted correlations between attachment and narcissism
yielded opposite results for the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissistic Inventory
(OMNI), (O’Brien, 1987), and Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), (Raskin &
Hall, 1979), on the various dimensions. On OMNI narcissism, secure
attachment showed a negative correlation with narcissism while fearful-avoidant
and preoccupied attachment showed robust positive correlations, as predicted,
unlike parallel predictions using the NPI narcissism scale (Raskin, 1979) where

correlations were more usually opposite the prediction. Additionally, unlike the

other attachment dimensions, the dismissing-avoidants generally showed lower

or, more usually, absent or reverse ﬁndings in relation to those expected.

The predicted correlations between attachment and choice of defense
mechanisms did not achieve signiﬁcance. However, the women's data (n=345)
showed clear patterns consistent with theories of psychopathology and
preference for mature versus primitive defenses, in surprising contrast to the

data from men (n=193). Implications for the ﬁnding are discussed.

Copyright by
BETTY FEINTUCH
1 998

This Manuscript is dedicated to

my father, Marvin Kelley
my mother, Gladys Curtis

my children, jeﬂ‘rey, Mark; and fettie
my grandchildren, feremy, Anna, and Tharyn
and

my teacher, chairman, mentor, and friend, john Hurley, Ph.D.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee, John R.
Hurley, Ph.D., Chairman; Bertram P. Karon, Ph.D.; Gershen Kaufman, Ph.D.;
Ellen Strommen, Ph.D.; and Alexander von Eye, Ph.D., without whose kind and
generous support this endeavor would not have been possible. Each provided
the appropriate guidance, support, and assistance at the time I most needed it. I
feel a deep gratitude to each for the relationship, mentoring, and inspiration that
came so naturally. My appreciation also goes to the undergraduate students Jill
Barton, Jason Raad, Heather Raleigh, and Priya lyer who assisted so
conscientiously with the data collection, and attended my weekly seminar, asking
many stimulating questions and offering their ideas. Both admiration and
‘thanks' go to Ray Bingham who, with a mixture of patience and kindness taught
me more about statistics and SPSS than any formal class could hope to teach.

I especially thank the undergraduate students who so carefully answered the
many probing and personal questions without which this rich data could not have
been available. Finally, I will always warmly appreciate the helpful
responsiveness of Kim Bartholomew, Ph.D., David Cook, Ph.D., and Robert

Raskin, Ph.D. in providing testing materials and advice in a timely manner.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
THEORY AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................... 4
Attachment Theory and Research .................................... 4
Narcissism as a Psychodynamic Concept ........................ 9

The Affect Shame ............................................................ 13
Defense Mechanisms and Defensive Styles .................... 23
Integration and Linking Research .................................... 25
Summary and Conclusions .............................................. 28
Hypotheses for Current Investigation ............................... 29
METHOD ..................................................................................... 31
Subjects and Procedures ................................................. 31
Materials and Measures ................................................... 32
Summary and Overview of Measures ................... 32

Consent Form ....................................................... 33

Attachment Measures ........................................... 34

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) ................ 35

O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissistic Inventory ............ 36

vii

Intemalized Shame Scale (ISS) ............................... 37

Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) ....................... 38

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule .................... 40

RESULTS ........................................................................... 42
Demographic Description of Sample .................................. 42
Descriptive Statistics .......................................................... 43
Comparisons With Norrned Samples ................................. 44
Study Findings ................................................................... 47

DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 53
OMNI and NPI Narcissism ................................................. 54
Dismissing-avoidant Attachment Dimension ...................... 60
Gender Differences in the Findings ................................... 61

Study Limitations ............................................................... 62
Summary and Recommendations ..................................... 64

APPENDICES

A: Consent Form ............................................................... 67

B: Personal History Questionnaire .................................... 68

LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................. 69

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................... 43
Table 2: DMI: Comparisons With Norrned Sample .......................................... 46
Table 3: Attachment Correlations with the NPI and OMNI Measures .............. 47

Table 4: t-test for Dependent Correlations Coefﬁcients: Comparison of
Correlations of Attachment and Narcissism on the NPI and OMNI

Measures ............................................................................................ 48

Table 5: Attachment Correlations with the DMI ............................................... 50
Table 6: Attachment Correlations with Intemalized Shame and Positive

and Negative Affects ................................................................. 52

Table 7: Correlations Between NPI and OMNI Subscales .............................. 55

Table 8: Correlations of NPI & OMNI with Defenses, Shame, and ................. 58

Positive & Negative Affects

ix

ADULT ATTACHMENT,
NARCISSISM, SHAME, AND DEFENSES
Infants begin to make subjective order of their experiences with
persons as well as with objects from the moment they are born, in
a very active way, on every level of which they are capable, to

reach the highest level of organization attainable at that time.
Daniel Stern, 1989, p. 169

INTRODUCTION

This study examines adult attachment and its relationship to narcissism,
shame, psychological defenses, and the positive and negative affects. The goal
is to examine ways in which attachment theory may be integrated with theories
about narcissism, shame, and the use of defense mechanisms as well as the
relationship between attachment and a range of positive and negative affects.

Interpersonal relationships form the affective environment within which the
individual "self" develops in unique ways, becoming a dynamic living personality
(Bowlby, 1979; Horney, 1950; Joffe & Sandler, 1968; Kumin, 1996; Rogers,
1961; Sullivan, 1953). In recent years researchers have examined early
relationships through the direct observation of infants and their caregivers. This

has led to a better understanding of the infant in his or her early interpersonal

2

environment, and its inﬂuences on subsequent quality of relationships and level
of functioning over the lifespan (Ainsworth, 1967, 1969; Ainsworth, et al, 1978;
Ainsworth & Bell, 1970; Bowlby 1953; Cassidy, 1988: Stern, 1985, 1989;
Winnicott, 1965, 1971).

Researchers have consistently found that the quality of early person-to-
person interaction is important. This early caregiver environment, with its
nurturing and its deﬁciencies, appears to signiﬁcantly enhance and limit
expression of the individual's potential and personality. Thus, better
understanding the patterns of connections between the quality of internal
attachment representations and related personality characteristics can be useful.
It can provide a framework which can inform clinical practice, and enhance our
understanding of a full range of both intrapersonal and interpersonal feelings,
thoughts, and actions.

Two central concerns in the forefront of psychological theory and
treatment are the importance of the quality of the patient's object relations in both
therapeutic and intimate relationships, and issues surrounding the difﬁculty in
treating persons with strong narcissistic characteristics. Such patients invariably
have problems with relationships, including the therapeutic relationship, which
are severe, pervasive, and resistant to change.

More recently, there has been increased attention to shame, a most
painful affect, and its inherent connection to narcissism. (Miller, 1985; Morrison,

1989, 1996; Nathanson 1987, 1992). Kaufman (1992, 1996) and Lewis (1971,

3

1987) have both written extensively about the role of shame in both the
disruption and the maintenance of relationships. Schore (1994) has discussed
the role shame plays in socialization of the toddler and the critical importance of
reparation when shaming occurs. Attending to the interpersonal nature of
shame, these theories suggest conceptual and organizing links between
attachment style, narcissistic phenomena, and vulnerability to the shame affects.

An important aspect of shame is its painful and devastating potential for
disorganizing the self system and basic feelings of well-being (Kaufman, 1992,
1996; Morrison, 1989; Vaillant, 1985). In fact, Morrison (1989) refers to shame as
the "underside of narcissism". Vaillant (1985, 1993) has referred to narcissism as
a multisyllabic word for pain. This suggests that it would be important to pay
particular attention to the use of related defense mechanisms in the study of
narcissism and shame (Cassidy & Kobak, 1988; Freud, 1926; Jacobson, 1994;
Wumiser, 1987, 1994).

Empirical examination of selected critical aspects of these theories and
their possible connections may help elucidate our understanding of these key
psychological concepts. It is the interface at which issues of attachment style,
narcissistic characteristics, the affect of shame, and ego defenses interact which

is the focus of this study.

THEORY AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Attachmentlbecutandﬁeseatcb

Attachment theory postulates that it is the basic need for human contact
and relationship that initiates and maintains the infants tie to the mother (Bowlby,
1958, 1969, 1979, 1988). There is also considerable evidence that this need for
human relationships continues to be important and is initiated with signiﬁcant
others over the entire life span (Ainsworth, 1967, 1969, 1989; Beherends & Blatt,
1985; Bowlby, 1979). A "secure base" established with the responsive early
caregiver is believed to facilitate exploration and provide the internal working
model for rewarding and intimate relationships throughout life (Bowlby, 1988).

Attachment theory further postulates that the loss of, or deﬁcits in, these
important early attachment relationships, may leave the individual with a variety
of insecurities, problems, and psychopathologies (Berzoff, 1989; Benjamin,
1993; Bornstein, 1989; Bowlby, 1973, 1980; Kernberg, 1980, 1984; Kohut, 1977;
Parkes, 1991). Bowlby viewed insecure attachment resulting from "loss"
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 assorted personality disturbances
(Bowlby, 1969, P. 3-35; 1979, chap.1). Others have discussed attachment

4

5

failures as etiology in adult mental illness (Bowlby, 1953, 1973, 1980; Frances &
Dunn, 1975; Kestenbaum, 1984; Kumin, 1996; Melges & Swartz, 1989;
Mikulincer, et al, 1990; Munro, 1969). There has also been considerable interest
and a number of research ﬁndings related to the intergenerational transmission
of attachment styles (Bretherton, 1990; Fonaghy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Main &
Hesse, 1990; Ricks, 1985; Steele & Steele, 1994).

According to Sroufe and Waters (1977) and Sroufe and Fleeson (1986),
attachment is best conceived of as a developmental and organizational concept
rather than as a trait. These authors believe attachment is most relevant when
viewed in its functions, the outcomes achieved, and its situational inﬂuences.
This view is consistent with Pistole's (1995) belief that insecure attachment
strategies reﬂect attempts to manage narcissistic vulnerability. Such dynamic
models suggest methods that can help us to better understand the interface
between interpersonal (behavioral) and intrapsychic issues and concerns
(internalization, internal working models) in a more dynamic and meaningful way.

Went, The predominant theoretical
models and derived measures currently used in the empirical study of the
beginnings, development, and consequences of the quality of human ("object")
relationships are based on John Bowlby's original attachment theory (Bowlby,
1958, 1969, 1973, 1980). A range of empirical assessment tools for older
children and adults have followed on the heels of Ainsworth's creative invention

of the Strange Situation designed to measure infant and toddler attachment

6

status. This measure speciﬁes a ﬁxed laboratory procedure for observation and
rating of infant or toddler attachment behavior with the caregiver present, in the
presence of a stranger, during separation, and at reunion with the caregiver.
Children who show appropriate distress, respond constructively to comforting,
and then return to normal play are classiﬁed as secure. Children who cling and
are not comforted on reunion are described as ambivalent or anxious-resistant.
Avoidant children are those who do not seek proximity, interaction, or comfort
with the caregiver at reunion.

Based on these early ﬁndings, attachment theorists subsequently
developed a number conceptual and empirical tools for assessing certain
manifest behavioral and cognitive qualities of internalized representations of
object relationships. Researchers have studied various aspects of the theoretical
internal "working models", and have applied these empirical tools to a wide
range of persons in diverse situations.

Aﬁaghmermﬂeseamh, LaFeniere and Sroufe (1985) and Arend, Gove,
and Stroufe (1979) found that early attachment status was related to levels of
social participation and dominance and to ego-control and ego-resilience in older
toddlers and elementary age children. The securely attached exhibited distinct
advantages. Evidence that early attachment patterns have a remarkable level of
stability has been conﬁrmed in numerous studies (Ainsworth, 1989; Bretherton,
1985, 1990; Bus & Van Ijzendoorn, 1988; Cassidy, 1988; Emde & Harmon,

1982; Sroufe 8. Waters, 1977).

7

Moving into adolescence, Greenberg, Siegel, and Leitch (1983), Kobak
and Sceery (1988), Ryan and Lynch (1989), and Steinberg and Steinberg (1986)
have studied attachment in relation to the development of autonomy and related
issues. Berzoff (1989) and Kenny (1987a, 1987b, 1990) examined the function
of attachment and its impact on separation and autonomy among college
students. Collins and Read (1990) and Hazan and Shaver (1987; Shaver &
Hazan, 1987, 1988; Shaver, et al, 1988) have conceived of love as attachment in
late adolescence and adulthood, while Feeney and Noller (1990, 1994), Hazan
and Shaver (1987), and Brennan & Shaver (1995) found the quality of
attachment to be a predictor of the quality and longevity of romantic love
relationships.

WW1, Although researchers have developed
a number of models and measures for assessing the quality of attachment
representations and relationships (Fishler, et al, 1990; Grifﬁn & Bartholomew,
1994; Sperling & Berrnan, 1994; Sperling, et al, In Press), most attachment
studies have used a three-factor model (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Collins
& Read, 1990; Hazan 8. Shaver, 1987, 1990; Main, 1990; Main & Hess, 1990;
Simpson, 1990). These three-category models address the question of whether
an individual perceives their important object(s) as generally available and
responsive, with the usual possible answers being, conceptually, "yes", "no", or
"maybe" (Hazan & Shaver, 1994a, 1994b). These answers are postulated to

indicate a predominately secure, or avoidant/dismissing, or

8

ambivalent/preoccupied quality of attachment, respectively.

However, there are two notable exceptions to the three-factor models.
Main (1990) and Main and Hess (1990), have found that a number of infants and
toddlers studied did not ﬁt criteria for any of the three categories, but exhibited
behavior which she has labeled "disorganized" or "unresolved" attachment.
These children show disturbing, distressed, and random behavior which might be
interpreted as their having been unable to develop any consistent attachment
strategy, i.e., separation or behavioral strategy.

Additionally, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) and Bartholomew and
Perlman (1994) have developed a prototypic four-category model and analogous
measures, intended to more closely follow Bowlby's theoretical internal working
model of attachment. The four outcomes are based on the possible pairings of
positive and negative views of self and other. A positive view of self and others
represents a secure position. Insecure styles result from internal working models
which include negative self and positive other (preoccupied), positive self and
negative other (dismissing), or, negative self and negative other (fearful).

In reviewing various adult attachment measures Bartholomew and
Horowitz (1991) noted that the interview method categorized avoidant persons
as denying distress and attachment needs, whereas the self-report measures
categorized them as feeling distress when close to others. This further
suggested two levels or types of avoidant attachment strategies (Bartholomew &

Horowitz, 1991, p. 227). Thus, the positive self, negative other was labeled

9

"dismissing", and the negative self, negative other, "fearful" (Bartholomew and
Perlman, 1994).

As discussed below, narcissism is also viewed as having similar
dichotomous manifestations, depending on the predominance or absence of
certain characteristics. These divergent narcissistic phenomena appear to be
somewhat analogous to the dismissing-avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment
categories. Because of this possible relationship, the four-category theoretical
model of attachment and the corresponding measures were selected for use in
this study.

One cluster of personality characteristics that seems to result in an
inordinately large number of problems in social, intimate, and psychotherapy
relationships is narcissistic personality phenomena. While most authors
recognize a 'normal' narcissism, evidenced by heathy self interest, exaggerated
attributes of narcissism lead to serious interpersonal problems.

Most often the term narcissism refers to a category of behaviors and a
relationship to self and others that reveals an excessively heightened importance
of the self as the primary object of interest. Other attributes may include the
sovereignty of a grandiose self, a heightened tendency towards idealization,
reliance on external recognition, and disruptions in reasonable levels of self-
esteem. These characteristics seriously interfere with intimate and authentic

interpersonal relationships (Freud, 1914; Kernberg, 1974, 1975, 1980; Kohut,

10

1971, 1977; Masterson, 1981; Morrison 1989, 1996; Sandler, eta], 1991). Thus,
while the narcissistically inclined frequently have a number of interpersonal
relationships, these are usually based on the heightened need for recognition
and approval, along with an avoidance of closeness and intimacy. In fact, a
hallmark of narcissism is the turning away from objects and signiﬁcant withdrawal
from close relationships.

Narcissism is generally thought to be a developmental outcome related to
failure in the early relationship with caregiver(s). (Bromberg, 1983, 1986;
Kernberg, 1975; Kohut, 1971; Kumin, 1996; Symington, 1993). According to
Kohut's theory of narcissism, the development of pathological forms of
narcissism is largely dependent upon the actual failures of the environment to
provide appropriate empathic responses to the infant's needs. Such failures lead
to developmental arrest and ﬁxation at primitive levels of grandiosity (Kohut,
1971, 1977). Kohut's formulation has been referred to as a "developmental
arrest" model, and represents the self psychological perspective.

Kohut (1971) described the grandiose self and the idealized self-object as
"the two great narcissistic conﬁgurations". (p. 327). These complementary
stances represent a search for absolute perfection and power, an attempt to
regain the omnipotence of the original narcissism, referred to by Freud as the
"puriﬁed pleasure ego". It is clear that these heightened states cannot be
consistently met in reality, and thus disappointments can precipitate a rapid fall in

enjoyment leading to intense shame-related feelings (Tomkins, 1963). This

ll

shame response, and the type of psychological defenses that may be recruited,
is of particular interest in this study and is discussed in a subsequent section.
In contrast, Kernberg's (1975) formulation has been referred to as a
"conﬂic " model. His model is based on both ego psychology and object
relations theories, and recognizes the central importance of affect, especially
aggressive impulses. Kernberg believed that the narcissistic condition signiﬁed
problems or defects in the formation of the intrapsychic structures, and
consequently, the internalized objects. He stated that,
...the pleasurable and painful affects are the major organizers of
the series of "good" and "bad" internalized object relations, and that
they constitute the major motivational or drive system that
organizes intrapsychic experience. (p.339)
and, that,
...the ultimate nature of narcissism...is dependent upon the
development of affective dispositions of the libidinal and aggressive
series as they relate to the development of internalized object
relations and their structuring into the ego, superego, and id.
(p.341)
Funhen
The organization of these two drives [libidinal and aggressive]
occurs under the inﬂuence of the developing internalized object
relationships, which, in turn are integrated under the organizing
inﬂuence of affects. (p. 339)
It is just here that this study seeks to focus attention at the intersection of the
person's intrapsychic or internalized relationships to his or her "objec ", as

similarly conceptualized in attachment theory; the vicissitudes of pleasurable and

unpleasurable affects, shame being the prototype interpersonal and socializing

12

affect; and, the narcissistic defenses.

In attempting to understand and predict the relation between attachment
and narcissism, Bromberg's (1983) model is especially useful. He stated that the
narcissistic "grandiose self" represents a "core patterning of self-other
representation designed to protect the illusion of self-sufﬁciency at all costs." (p.
364). He believed that the narcissist uses "...detachment as an ego defense...to
convert the fear of being abandoned, an ego-passive fear, to an active
movement away from relationship." (p. 364). This is consistent with Modell's
(1975, 1986) discussion of the narcissistic defense against affects the need to
maintain an illusion of self-sufﬁciency. Thus, in this study it is anticipated that
narcissism will be associated with avoidant attachment styles, as previously
suggested.

Additionally, a number of theorists have observed two opposing sides to
narcissism, which will also be of interest in this study, especially in their possible
relation to the two avoidant attachment patterns. It is this dual nature of
narcissism that Andreas-Salome (1962) called the "reactivity to narcissism", the
necessity to recognize at some level, however dimly, that on the other side of the
ideal image we hold of ourselves and others resides the "contrary features of
littleness and ugliness" (p. 17). Often with narcissistic denial and projections, it is
this other side that can not be recollected and integrated within the personality.
Bromberg ( 1983) recognized this narcissistic defense when he wrote of "...the

use of detachment or self-containment as a means of avoiding the experience of

l3

inadequacy..." (p. 379). Lax (1975) discussed the narcissistic grandiose self,
whose main job it is to be perfect, in terms of self-righteousness as a narcissistic
defense (p. 283). And, Morrison writes of shame as the underside of narcissism
(Morrison, 1989).

Further, these two aspects of narcissism are consistent with both Kohut's
(1977) and Kernberg's (1975) recognition of forms of both covert and overt
narcissism which may be seen in the clinical situation. Wrnk's (1991) empirical
study of the "two faces" of narcissism supports the view that, while there are
strong common attributes of narcissism, there is also a grandiose, exhibitionistic
manifestation and a vulnerable, over-sensitive version. It is this narcissistic
sensitivity and vulnerability to criticism, and particularly the exaggerated
response to the painful shame-related affects which are of particular interest in
this study and will be discussed further in the next section.

IbiAﬂecmLﬁbame

In examining affects, and the affect of shame in particular, several
theorists offer promising perspectives. While all agree on the central importance
of shame to intrapsychic development and interpersonal functioning, these
theorists differ on how they view the origin and nature of shame, how it
manifests, its internal generation or source, as well as its outcome, meaning, and
even deﬁnition. They are variously inﬂuenced by their own models of the psyche,
including the models they are attempting to refute or revise after ﬁnding them

less than fully adequate to explain their own observations. The three principal

14

perspectives are affect theory, psychoanalytic theory, and self-psychological
theory.

WW Tomkins' (1962, 1963, 1991 , 1992)
extensive study of the affects led him to postulate affect as the primary
motivating mechanism, and his work has provided other theorists with a rich
organizational map from which to further investigate affect. Most theorists
subscribe to his basic tenets, and especially to the centrality of affect as well as
the importance of shame in both human development and interpersonal
relationships. Tomkins argued that affects hold a central place in the
psychological organization of individuals. In his view, "...the primary motivational
system is the affective system, and the biological drives have motivational impact
only when ampliﬁed by the affective system" (1963, p. 6). Tomkins further
described the affect system as "...the primary provider of blueprints for cognition,
decision and action" (1963, p. 22).

More speciﬁcally, he viewed shame as an innate affect, and further,
considered shyness, shame and guilt as not distinguishable from each other at
the affect level (Tomkins, 1963). In Tomkins' view "...it is the differences in the
other components which accompany shame...which are experienced together
with shame, which make the three experiences different" (1963, p. 118). Shame
itself is deﬁned by Tomkins (1963) as an auxiliary affect because it becomes
activated whenever there is an incomplete reduction in the affects of excitement

or enjoyment, the positive affects. Thus, an affective state of excitement or

15

enjoyment must be present and must become blocked or suddenly diminished,
but only partially, in order for shame to be activated.

In examining individual differences in the particular meaning attributed to
any shame experience, as well as its varying manifestations, Tomkins makes the
following argument:

...the total ﬁeld in which shame is embedded in the central

assembly of components of the nervous system at the moment will

give quite different ﬂavors to shame depending upon its intensity

and upon the objects which appear to activate it and the objects

which appear to reduce it.

These differences in intensity and in objects have important
consequences for the nature of an individual's shame response

and the role that it plays within his personality. (p. 119)

Consistent with this particular theoretical perspective, we would expect to see
signiﬁcant differences in shame responses for the various dimensions of
attachment, which is also a central tenet of the current study.

In Tomkins' (1963) formulation, shame is therefore necessarily linked to
love. The threat of loss of love or rejection is central to the interpersonal nature
of shame. For Tomkins, defeat "is most ignominious when one still wishes to win.
The sting of shame can be removed from any defeat by attenuating the positive
wish" (1963, p. 138). Also embedded in Tomkins' theory of shame is a
suggestion of the narcissistic strategy which involves maintaining perfection
while preventing rejection through avoidance and detachment. In the narcissistic

strategy, projection and denial become additional means for protecting the

vulnerable self.

16

To extend this formulation further we have only to consider how Tomkins
views the possibilities for counteracting excessive shame:

When [the] cumulative debt of shame from unﬁnished business,

from moral violations, from the indifference or derision of others,

from unrelieved defeats reaches a total which cannot possibly be

paid out of esteem income, shame bankruptcy may be resorted to

by a conversion experience in which a new self is created which is

free to renounce past humiliations and to start anew. (1963, p. 139)
Thus, the "false sell” of Winnicott (1965), the "invulnerable" self of Rutter (1985),
the "as if" personality of Deutsch (1942), and the "grandiose self" of Kohut (1971,
1977), are very likely created, at least in part, as strategies to regulate shame.
This tendency to "renounce past humiliations" further points to narcissistic
strategies of defense speciﬁcally along the avoidant dimensions of attachment.

WWW Working from a psychoanalytic
perspective, Helen Block Lewis (1971, 1987) viewed shame as both distinct from
guilt, yet frequently also occurring along with it. She viewed shame as more
primitive than guilt, and shame-rage or humiliated fury as actually preceding the
more sophisticated state of guilt. From her perspective, guilt is viewed as the
object-preserving, superego response to a revengeful hate stemming from the
shame-generated rage. In her view, she contrasts guilt with shame; guilt is
deﬁned as an internalized identiﬁcation with the threatening or moralizing
punitive parent along the lines of the superego whereas shame is deﬁned as the

failure to live up to the idealized internalization of the loved and admired parent

in the form of the ego ideal (Lewis, 1971).

17

Further, Lewis viewed shame as motivated by emotional needs, directly
tied to the human need and wish to preserve loving relationships, and therefore
related to the attachment system and to socialization. In Lewis' deﬁnition, shame
"is about the whole self and is therefore 'global'. Guilt is more speciﬁc, being
about events or things" (1987, p. 18). She further described overt, but still
unidentiﬁed shame in which there is a state of self-hatred, and also a state of
bypassed shame which often passes unnoticeably into guilt. In Lewis' view, we
see the superego at work protecting the loved (and also hated) one from a
shame-humiliation-rage-revenge sequence. Such a pattern is also consistent
with avoidant dimensions of attachment. Speciﬁcally, the overt unidentiﬁed
shame that Lewis recognized as a state of self-hatred suggests the fearful-
avoidant attachment dimension, and the one of bypassed shame suggests the
dismissing-avoidant dimension.

WW1, Still other theorists have examined
shame from the perspective of self-psychology, often with object-relational
implications. Consistent with Tomkins, several theorists have discussed the
central role of shame as an affect, one that is seen as particularly disruptive to
the self experience, and which is also viewed as central in the dynamics of the
so-called narcissistic personality (Broucek, 1982, 1991; Morrison, 1989, 1996).
These theorists further hypothesized that an excessive proneness to shame is a
prominent, if not the prominent, narcissistic self-experience (Broucek, 1982,

1991; Morrison, 1989, 1996). Further, Morrison considered shame to be "...a

18
dominant painful affect of patients suffering from narcissistic vulnerability" (1989,
p. 134). Morrison's (1989) view was also reﬂected by Broucek (1991) when he
argued that "...shame in the young child represents maternal failure in providing
adequate mirroring for the child's developing sense of self" (Broucek, 1991, p.
55). Arguing from a self-psychological perspective, Broucek described three
sources of shame: 1) the infant's inability to initiate and maintain a "mutually
gratifying intersubjectivity"; 2) self-objectiﬁcation as a kind of "self-alienation or
primary dissociation"; and 3) the experience of "being unloved, rejected, or
scapegoated by important others" (1991, p. 24).

As Morrison ( 1989) deﬁned it, shame from a self-psychological
perspective represents the affective response to failure of mirroring by early self-
objects, and, is therefore, as he aptly labeled it, the "underside of narcissism."
Thus, Morrison’s perspective places shame in a distinctive context within self-
psychological theory:

...shame sensitivity and anxiety will reﬂect concern about the

detailed empathic attunement of, and attachment to, signiﬁcant

objects who function as selfobjects....shame may be experienced

as humiliation or embarrassment with regard to an external object

(the humiliation) or to an internalized object or function (the ideal

self) (1989, p. 196-197).

Working from a self-psychological perspective, Morrison places shame squarely
within the infant-caregiver relationship. The "empathic attunement" of the

selfobject parallels the emotionally available and responsive mother of the

securely attached infant in attachment theory. And further, Morrison's

19

"internalized object or function" is parallel to Bowlby's (1969, 1979, 1988) internal
working model of the attachment relationship.

Extending his view on the role of shame in narcissism to include the use
of psychological defenses, Morrison also offered a picture of how defenses
operated from a self-psychological perspective:

...for patients with primarily narcissistic patterns, shame will tend to

be more totally pervasive and will lead to the core of all aspects of

narcissistic vulnerability. Defenses again underlying shame will

tend to be more active and primitive, representing, in particular,
manifestations of projective identiﬁcation. (1989, p. 96)

 

It is precisely this characteristic of "active and primitive" defenses that can be
seen in the insecure attachment styles. Such primitive defenses as denial,
projection, and projective identiﬁcation disrupt or preclude rewarding
interpersonal relationships. They are also disruptive to the self when negative
affects do not remain accessible for processing and eventual integration into the
personality.

Consistent with self-psychological theory, Morrison (1989) believed that
shame may be hidden while still functioning as a central underlying concern.
Recognizing Kohut's (1971 , 1977) contribution, Morrison (1989) also referred to
the adaptive nature of the narcissistic externalizing and projective defenses
against shame, including anger, rage, contempt, envy, and/or depression.
However, it should be noted that contempt can also be turned inward. Here
again is the nexus of attachment, narcissism, and shame, coupled with a

particular defensive style that is the focus of the current study.

20

Shamelbegmamnacbmenﬂhm From an object-relational

perspective, Krystal (1988) discussed the primary disturbance occurring in the
affective sphere. He focuses particularly on the use of avoidance as an attempt
to mitigate effects of potential or threatened trauma from perceived or anticipated
painful negative affects:

The implication is that the attitude toward one's affects, which
results from the nature and extent of infantile, or later massive,
traumatic experience, becomes a determinant of perceptual and
cognitive styles, which in turn signiﬁcantly determine the nature of
the defenses employed to prevent trauma. A dread of one's affects
may, for instance, determine a tendency to use avoidance patterns,
including a dread of emotional "involvement" with objects or even of
self-exploration. (1988, p. 207)

 

Thus, one might expect to see an avoidant attachment style related to such a
scenario, with shame as a central motivating force. As Krystal described the
experience, it is the attitudes towards one's affects which determine the
characteristic defenses. When such a painful affect as shame occurs, it is
extremely difﬁcult to hold, process, and integrate resulting in the use of primitive
and externalizing defenses and an avoidant attachment style.

Also coming from an object-relational orientation, VVrlson (1987) believed
that shame

may eventually come to play as crucial a role theoretically in

understanding object relations and intersubjectivity as the role now

occupied by anxiety in psychoanalytic theorizing about individual

intra- or intersystemic conﬂict. (1987, p. 189)

Indeed, Freud (1926/1955) had moved from discussing anxiety as a response to

a danger situation to specifying it as a reaction to possible or anticipated object

21

loss or loss of object love. These views further suggest a highly salient
connection between shame, defensive strategies, and dimensions of attachment.

While the focus in the various theories of shame is most often on the
pathological or pathogenic aspects of shame, as in narcissism, nevertheless a
certain level of shame may be a desirable feature of the optimal socializing
process. Shame can short-circuit misdirected behavior and, if soothed

responsively, can become appropriately integrated (Kaufman, 1992, 1996;

 

Morrison, 1989, 1996; Schore, 1994; Tomkins, 1963). However, excessive
amounts of shaming or the failure to recognize and repair the narcissistic injury,
especially if intense or enduring, will signiﬁcantly interfere with the development
of positive self-experience and the optimal capacity for interpersonal relatedness
and intimacy. Problems in caregiver attunement and responsiveness are clearly
implied in excessive shaming and reparative failure (Kaufman, 1992, 1996;
Schore, 1994).

MW Arguing principally from an
affect theory perspective, Kaufman's (1992, 1996) theory of shame represents a
synthesis of affect theory, interpersonal theory, and object relations theory. He
viewed the principal activators of shame as having an interpersonal origin. The
interpersonal activation of shame involves breaking the interpersonal bridge, and
shame is deﬁned by Kaufman as feeling "seen in a painfully diminished sense"
(1992, p. 8) For Kaufman exposure is the deﬁning characteristic of shame.

By extending Tomkins' perspective further, Kaufman (1992, 1996) then

22

developed the concept of Memaﬂzedjhame. Kaufman viewed the innate affects
as becoming stored in memory in the form of scenes. This is the basic process
by which shame becomes internalized as integral to both personality and
identity. It is internalization of shame that ultimately results in a shame—based
identity.

Once shame becomes internalized it must be defended against, as for
example, by responding to others with contempt in order to protect oneself
against shame. Tomkins (1991) viewed contempt as a learned blend of dissmell
and anger, two of the innate affects. Contempt functions as a signal of rejection
to others and as a way of distancing from others. Contempt secondarily can also
serve as a retaliatory and externalizing defense by triggering shame directly in
others. In describing contempt as the "affect of rejection" (1996, p. 40) Kaufman
viewed contempt as a strategy of defense that operates prominently in all
narcissistic disorders. When it is directed at others, contempt always involves an
attempt to elevate the self above others, thereby making others appear inferior.
In this way, contempt produces a defensive sense of superiority, which typically
results in conceit and arrogance, but which also culminates in narcissistic
grandiosity with a dismissing-avoidant attachment style.

It is particularly the model of internalized shame, as originally developed
by Kaufman (1992, 1996) and based in affect, interpersonal, and object-relations
theories, that informs the current study. An investigation of the narcissistic

person's attachment style, shame proneness, shame internalization, and use of

23

defense mechanisms, will illuminate how shame is related to fundamental
patterns of attachment. Understanding these patterns will be informed by
Kaufman's (1992, 1996) view of interpersonal events as activators of shame and
the subsequent impact of internalized shame on later attachment.

i f iv

Psychological defense mechanisms represent the tools and processes of
the ego's compromise between demands emanating from internal desires,
impulses, and affects and demands from the environment, especially those
related to meaningful objects and which cause anxiety or a sense of danger (S.
Freud, 1926; A. Freud, 1937/1955). In some ways, the psychological defense
mechanisms can be viewed as parallel to the physiological immune system. Both
may have a similar homeostatic value to the individual (Krystal, 1988; Vaillant,
1993). In this role the defenses serve a necessary protective function.

However, in contrast to the immune system, which destroys the invaders,
the psychological defenses can neutralize or metabolize threatening stimuli in
much more creative, ﬂexible, selective, and useful ways. Theoretically, this may
be a highly important distinction to make, as it may be not the use of defense
mechanisms but rather the degree of ﬂexibility versus the rigidity with which they
are used which is indicative of a relatively healthy or pathological level of
psychological functioning. Conceptually, this ﬂexibility and selectivity in the use
of defenses may be thought of as representative of an active, alert, synthesizing

ego (Nunberg, 1931).

 

 

24

Anna Freud in her seminal book, IheEggandtlleMechanjsmm
Defense (l937/I988) stated that,

...if the instinctual demands with which they are associated are to
be warded off, these affects must submit to all the various
measures to which the ego resorts in its efforts to master them, i.e.,
they must undergo a metamorphosis. Whenever transformation of
an affect occurs...the ego has been at work and we have an
opportunity of studying its operations. We know that the fate of the
affect associated with an instinctual demand is not simply identical
with that of its ideational representative. Obviously, however, one
and the same ego can have at is disposal only a limited number of
possible means of defense. At particular periods in life and
according to its own speciﬁc structure, the individual ego selects
now one defensive method, now another-it may be repression,
displacement, reversal, etc.-and these it can employ both in its
conﬂict with the instincts and in its defense against the liberation of
affect. If we know how a particular patient seeks to defend himself
against the emergence of his instinctual impulses, i.e., what is the
nature of his habitual ego resistances, we can form an idea of his
probable attitude toward his own unwelcome affects. If, in another

patient, paﬁi rcular forms of affect transformation are str rgngly' m

h rimlet r ionfmin ni
nIn fh h m h
9‘ n - .-.rn hi In in u liml- . hi fr-- . . =01
' m o i l nﬂi mr l

. | I. . I. I .I'I | .I l
(Emphasis added) (A. Freud, I937ll988, pp. 32-33).

This view of the defenses is one model that informs the current study.
This research will examine more closely the relationship of various affects,
especially shame, to the use of alternative defenses and style of attachment.
Thus, using attachment status as a proxy for early object relations, an
examination of narcissism and of responses to shame in relation to defensive
strategies may permit a better understanding of the dynamics of narcissism,

including "normal", problematic, characterological, and pathological varieties.

 

25

lhilevich and Gleser (1993, lhilevich, 1968), who developed the defense
measure employed in the current study, viewed defense mechanisms as
"unconsciously motivated, involuntary reactions that are activated automatically
whenever perceived threats are too painful to confront consciously." (p. 15).
After extensively reviewing the history of assessment and measurement of the
use of defense mechanisms, they concluded that various groups of people differ,
"...not on the kind of defenses used but on the rigidity with which these defenses
are deployed and the extent of reality distortion involved." (p. 6).

The measure of defense mechanism utilization developed by lhilevich
and Gleser (1993) uses ﬁve defense categories, including aggressive, projective,
intellectualizing, intrapunitive, and repressive defenses. Their quasi-projective
technique uses story completion tasks with structured and forced defensive
responses, selected for both most and least preferred "solution". Thus, the
rigidity and preference for speciﬁc defenses and their relation to the reality of the
situation presented can be assessed.

While a great deal of empirical research has been done in the area of
attachment, less has been done in relation to shame, and a large proportion of
that has focused on the difference between shame and guilt. Narcissism has
remained largely in the domain of psychoanalysis, with the development of a rich
proliﬁc theoretical and case study literature. However, little or no empirical

research was done on narcissism until moderate interest was generated with the

 

26

inclusion of the narcissistic personality as a diagnostic category in DSM-lll
(1986), and the development of self-report measures of narcissism by Raskin 8
Hall (1979, 1981) and O'Brien (1987, 1988).

Although various theorists have discussed different aspects of the
relationships between attachment and/or object relations, certain narcissistic
characteristics, and shame dynamics, there is a relatively limited body of
empirical research addressing their interconnections. For example, Pistole
(1995), in her theoretical and review article, argued that insecure attachment
strategies reﬂects alternative ways of managing narcissistic vulnerability and
self-esteem problems. She brieﬂy recognizes this as a defensive action and
alludes to shame's role in a dynamic understanding of these patterns of
behavior.

Few studies have examined the relationship between narcissism and
shame. For example, Harder and Zalma (1990) in their study of two shame and
guilt adjective endorsement measures found a robust negative correlation
between shame and narcissism on one measure, but no correlation between
shame and narcissism with a second such measure, perhaps due to differences
in the speciﬁcation of affects to be endorsed. Neither of these shame measures
was used in the current study, but it will be interesting to discover whether the
level of endorsement of shame on the internalized shame measure is positively
associated with the various insecure attachment dimensions or with narcissism .

In a related study, using a limited measure of defense and self-report labeling of

 

 

27

shame, ﬁndings also suggested that, in general, highly defended individuals
reported little shame (Harder & Lewis, 1987). Consistent with these ﬁndings,
Wright et a1, (1989) found a modest negative correlation between narcissism and
shame, and a stronger correlation between these two variable when using only
the pathological exploitive component of narcissism.

In contrast, Gramzow and Tangney (1992), using only the pathological
exploitiveness factor residual of the same measure of narcissism and a shame
scale, the Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA) that measures shame more
indirectly by rating responses to brief scenarios, found a signiﬁcant positive
correlation between narcissism and shame. These ﬁndings, taken as a whole,
suggest that individuals with pathological narcissistic characteristics have strong
defenses against recognizing shame, or alternatively, that narcissism may itself
be understood as a defense against the painful affects, including speciﬁcally
shame.

The relationship between shame and defenses is an intimate one. Shame
is ﬁrst and foremost the emotion experienced when we feel uncovered, exposed,
or "seen". Wurmser (1987) wrote of three forms of shame: 1) shame anxiety, 2)
shame affect as a complex reaction pattern, and, 3) shame as a preventive
attitude. He viewed the latter as a defense, speciﬁcally a reaction formation, with
the urge to hide and dissemble (1987, p. 67-68).

Because of these conﬂicting ﬁndings, this study will examine the shame

response by including a direct measure of shame and by integrating pre- and

 

28

post measures of affect, with shame and shame-related affects, such as
embarrassment, humiliation, etc., imbedded in the measures. The complex
connections between attachment style, shame, and narcissism will be analyzed
in their more subtle interrelationships.

Waldo:

Narcissism is believed to be a problematic outcome of failures in the early
caregiver relationship (Symington, 1993), and is hypothesized to be associated
with the dismissing-avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment styles. Shame is
thought to be a basic affect instrumental in the socialization process (Schore,
1994), as well as a very painful affect ensuing from "a break in the interpersonal
bridge" (Kaufman, 1992, 1996). Since shame has also been hypothesized to be
either the "underside of narcissism" (Morrison, 1989), or sometimes predominant
in the more vulnerable, shame-ridden narcissistic individuals, it would seem likely
that shame may sometimes be defended against, and therefore might best
looked at in the context of the pattern of use of psychological defenses
mechanisms. Further, shame will be assessed using a direct measure of
internalized shame both at the beginning and at the end of testing. The patterns
thus discerned can help us learn more about the self's inner, phenomenological
experience. Perhaps, with the inclusion of measures of internalized shame and
the preferred defense mechanisms, something can be learned about aspects of
functioning in these areas of the psyche in relationship to attachment.

Some gender differences in both shame and narcissism are expected,

 

29

consistent with mixed ﬁndings in several other studies. For example, Wright et at
(1989) found women more prone to shame, while men were more prone to guilt.
They also found that for women, shame was inversely correlated with grandiosity
and leadership, while for men it was inversely correlated with expoitiveness. In
contrast, Schwartz (1991) did not ﬁnd gender differences in narcissism in a non-
clinical population. Speciﬁcally, her study focused on examining whether
grandiose-based and shame-based narcissism, as hypothesized by Broucek
(1982), Morrison (1989), and others was gender-related. Thus, gender
differences will be examined in all aspects of analysis of data in the current
study.
WWII

1a. Correlations of narcissism with both the dismissing-avoidant and
fearful-avoidant attachment dimensions will be positive and signiﬁcantly higher
than those of narcissism and either the preoccupied or secure attachment
dimensions.

1b. Correlations of narcissism with the preoccupied attachment dimension
will be positive and signiﬁcantly higher than those of narcissism and the secure
attachment dimension.

2. Scores on the lnternalized Shame Scale will correlate signiﬁcantly more
positively with fearful-avoidant attachment dimensions than with dismissing-
avoidant dimensions.

33. Scores on the dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension will be

 

 

30

positively correlated with scores on the use of "Turning Against Others" (TAO)
and "Projection" (PRO) defenses.

3b. Scores on the fearful-avoidant attachment dimension will be positively
correlated with scores on the use of "Turning Against Self" (TAS).

4. Those scoring higher on the three insecure attachment dimensions will
score lower on the positive affects, and higher on negative affects, on the
Positive and Negative Affects Schedule (PANAS) than those who are securely

aﬂached.

 

METHOD

W

Participants in the study included 538 students (345 females and 193
males) from undergraduate psychology and management classes at Michigan
State University. Ninety-ﬁve percent of the students (512) were under 25 years of
age, 17 were between 25 and 35 years of age, and 9 did not specify an age.
Participants received class credit by enlisting in the psychology subject pool. The
experiment which participants were asked to signed up for was labeled the “Self
Awareness Study”. The pencil and paper tests were administered in monitored
groups of 25 or fewer subjects.

Each participant was given a Consent Form (See Appendix A) attached to
a manilla envelop containing the measures they were to complete, along with
appropriate answer sheets. They were instructed to read the Consent Form, and
then remove the measures from the manilla envelop, taking care to keep the two
part test in the same order as they found it.

Participants were pre-instructed to place the completed surveys in the
unmarked manilla envelope in order to assure conﬁdentiality and anonyminity,
while also increasing feelings of privacy. Participants were also provided an

address and telephone number to reach the experimenter should questions,

31

 

 

32

concerns, or comments arise.
MaterialsiMeasuLes

WNW Items provided in the packet of
measures, which are discussed in more detail below, were included in the
following order: 1) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-general level feelings
(PANAS-1); 2) Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—feelings in the current
moment (PANAS-Z), (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988); 3) Relationship
Questionnaire (RQ); 4) Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ), (Bartholomew
& Horowitz, 1994; 5) Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), (Raskin & Hall,
1979); 6) O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissistic Inventory (OMNI), (O’Brien, 1987);
7)lnternalized Shame Scale (ISS), (Cook, 1994); 8) Defense Mechanisms
Inventory (DMI), (lhilevich & Gleser,1993); 9) Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule-feelings in the current moment (PANAS-3); and, 10) a Brief
Demographic Sheet. These were presented in one sequentially numbered set,
without reference to individual measures, but divided into two stapled sets
primarily to call attention to the change in answer marking strategy required for
the Defense Mechanism Inventory.

Because the DMI was the longest of the battery of tests, its instructions
were the most complicated, and it appeared that a number of participants were
either failing to complete this measure entirely or partially, or were clearly not
following instructions, 120 participants were given the DMI ﬁrst. This provided a

partial counterbalancing of test order, particularly in regards to the effect of test

 

 

33

length (Faulkner 8 Cogan, 1990).

Wm, Each subject was given a Consent Form (See
Appendix A), which informed them they would be participating in a study to
examine the accuracy with which people are able to label their feelings relative to
situational and relationship factors. To mitigate social desirability factors and
attempt to diminish the tendency of the narcissistically inclined to shy away from
more unpleasant feelings, the discussion of the research purpose in the Consent
Form was framed in a way to encourage and to communicate acceptance of all
feelings and emotions. The purpose was to make it more ego syntonic to
acknowledge negative or painful feelings, emotions, and thoughts. This was
thought to be particularly important because some ﬁndings suggest that there
may be a differential response to feelings for persons high and low in narcissism.
It is believed that this difference may sometimes be less related to the denial or
repression of painful feelings, than the divergence of meaning attributed to such
feelings and what participants may do as a result of experiencing such painful or
unpleasant feelings (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Kupper 1992; Nunberg, 1931).

Further, the Consent Form advises that because the ability to accurately
label feelings and emotions, especially the negative ones, is so important to
success in school, career, and relationships, it is important that we better
understand these characteristics. The goal was to encourage the accurate
labeling of participants' feelings, and to provide an atmosphere of acceptance

and safety whatever their response. The conﬁdential nature of their responses

34

was also stressed in an attempt to mitigate tendencies towards socially desirable
responses or other psychologically protective resistances and defenses.

AttachmentMeasuLes, Bartholomew 8 Horowitz's (1991) Relationship
Questionnaire (RQ) is a single item instrument where the individual ﬁrst selects
one of four categories, yielding a categorical measure of attachment style. Then,
using the four categories, he rates the degree to which each category applies to
himself on a 5-point Likert—type scale ranging from "not at all like me" to "very like
me", thus yielding a continuous and qualitative measure of attachment. This RQ
measure was adapted from Hazan And Shaver's (1987) three-item measure;
while the "secure" category remains, "insecure/ambivalent" becomes
"preoccupied", and "insecure/avoidant" is split into "fearful" and "dismissing"
categories.

Bartholomew 8 Horowitz (1991) designed two studies to determine the
validity of this four-category model. The ﬁrst study found that the results of self-
report ratings, a sixty-minutes attachment interview, and friend-report ratings
were consistent with the model. Measures of self-esteem, self-acceptance, and
sociability also supported the expected relationship of positive and negative
views of self and other to four category attachment measure. In the second
study, the researchers used the attachment interviews, completing one hour
interviews 1 to 2 weeks apart, with one interview related to their family and the
other regarding their friends. Participants also complete self-report attachment

measures. All attachment categories demonstrated divergence between the four

35

attachment styles and convergence of ratings between family and peer
attachment styles.

The Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ) (Grifﬁn 8 Bartholomew,
1994) is a 30-item measure with each item evaluated on a Likert-type 5-point
scale ranging from “not at all like me” to “very like me." This measure provides
a more indirect measure of attachment style. Subscales indicate attachment
patterns in the four-category model and also provide a continuous measure.

The RSQ measure showed convergence when the four categories were
compared with the attachment interview, with the corresponding categories
ranging from F 0.22 for "secure" to [= 0.50 for "fearful". In contrast,
correlations among all differing attachment categories were very low or negative.
Internal consistency for RSQ scores ranged from alpha =.41 for the secure style
to alpha =.70 for the dismissing style. The author attributes the sometimes
relatively low internal consistency to the fact that the two orthogonal dimensions
of self- and other-models are combined.

W. The Narcissistic Personality
Inventory (NPI), (Raskin 8 Hall, 1979, 1981), uses a forced-choice format that
requires choosing between two diametrically opposed statements. The 40-item
measure was developed by selecting statements that conformed with or
contradicted criteria from both DSM-lll characteristics for narcissistic personality
disorder and Kernberg's descriptive theory of narcissism (Raskin 8 Terry, 1988).

In this questionnaire, designed to measure individual differences in narcissism as

36

a personality trait (Emmons, 1987), the participant is asked to choose between
two contradictory choices, one of which is scored as narcissistic and the other as
non-narcissistic.

A number of studies support the validity and reliability of the NPI as a
measure of narcissism (Emmons 1984, 1987; Raskin, etal, 1991a, 1991b).
Emmons (1984, 1987) and Shulman 8 Ferguson (1988a, 1988b) have reviewed
many of these studies. Emmons (1987), in three studies using the NPI, found
signiﬁcant correlations with basic personality factors using conceptually related
measures as well as similar correlations with peer ratings of narcissism.

The NPI has shown internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's
coefﬁcient alpha (Cronbach, 1951), of .86 and a split-half reliability of .80. It had
an alternate form had stability of .72 over eight weeks (Raskin 8 Hall, 1981).

Emmons' (1984, 1987) factor analysis identiﬁed four major components,
including Leadership/Authority, Self-AbsorptionISelf-Admiration,
Superiority/Arrogance, and Exploitiveness/Entitlement. Emmons (1987)
assessed internal consistencies of full scale NPI and each subscale, obtaining
Cronbach's coefﬁcient's alpha of .87, .69, .81, .70, and .68 for the full scale and
the four scales in the order listed above.

WIN). The O'Brien
Multiphasic Narcissistic Inventory (OMNI), (O’Brien, 1987, 1988), is a 41-item
inventory where the participant is ask to respond to statements or questions with

either a "yes" or "no" answer (O'Brien, 1987). The items are derived from

37

narcissistic characteristics listed in DSM-Ill, taking into account both Kohut's and
Kernberg's description of narcissistic traits, but also drawing heavily on Alice
Miller's theory of the "Narcissistically Abused Personality" (Miller, 1981a, 1981b,
1984). The latter includes issues related to belonging, putting others before self,
and sometimes a rigid need to control others.

The OMNI has demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity in a
number of studies. For example, O'Brien (1987) found the OMNI self-report
responses to be correlated with reports by parents, spouses, and close friends,
and aspects of a widely used personality inventory. Factor analysis yielded three
factors labeled, 1) the Narcissistic Personality Dimension, consistent with DSM
and Kernberg's criteria (48% of variance); 2) the Poisonous Pedagogy
Dimension, consistent with Miller concepts (21% of variance); and, 3) the
Narcissistically Abused Personality Dimension, consistent Miller's concept of the
same (10.4% of variance).

W The lnternalized Shame Scale, (Cook,
1994), is a 30-item measure which uses a Likert—type scale with choices from
zero to four indicating never (0), seldom (1), sometimes (2), often (3), and
almost always (4), respectively. It contains statements related to feelings
surrounding a subjective sense of shame. The measure is based on the concept
of internalized shame that has become a part of the self representation and
integrated into the schema of the self, i.e., is internalized.

Cook (1994) has provided an extensive review of a wide range of

38

commonly used measures which show either a positive or inverse correlation
with the ISS, in accordance with theory and predictions. For example,
correlations in the predicted directions have been have been found using various
measures of depression, self-esteem, anxiety, anger, level of intimacy, and
personality attributes. Further evidence of its validity is suggested by its ability to
discriminate between clinical and non-clinical populations.

Cook (1994, p. 9) found that “item-total" correlations (based on each
item's correlation with the total score based on all the remaining items) for the
non-clinical group ranged from .56 to .73. He also found a parallel median
correlation of .63 in a non-clinical sample of college students. The coefﬁcient
alpha was .95 for this same sample .

WWW The Defense Mechanism Inventory
(DMI), (lhilevich 8 Gleser, 1993), is a pencil and paper self-report instrument
designed to measure the extent to which individuals use each of ﬁve different
defensive styles. It uses a quasi-projective story completion technique, with
stories carefully constructed to elicit defensive reactions. The structured
alternative responses are empirically derived. The measure consists of ten brief
vignettes, two with elements related each of the ﬁve defensive styles. Each of
the ten vignettes is followed by four questions regarding the participant's
1) actual behavior, 2) impulsive behavior (in fantasy), 3) thoughts, and
4) feelings related to the scenes and events described. For each of these four

types of questions, the person selects from ﬁve alternative responses-

39

representing the ﬁve defensive styles: aggressive, projective, intellectualizing,
intrapunitive, and repressive—indicating both the answer which [met represents
their reaction and the one which least represents their reaction.

These ﬁve defensive styles, and the ﬁve choices offered following each
question, make up the ﬁve subscales of the DMI. The speciﬁc defense
mechanism categories, or subscales, include: 1) the aggressive, Turning
Against Object (TAO); 2) projective, Projection (PRO); 3) intellectualizing,
Principalization (PRN); 4) intrapunitive, Turning Against Self (T AS); and,

5) repressive, Reversal (REV). Additionally, the ratings on these individual
scales are combined through a formula that yields an overall Maturity Scale,
providing a indication of the degree to which the person endorses mature versus
immature types of defenses.

The adult version of the DMI was constructed using an adult population,
20 to 50 years of age (lhilevich 8 Gleser, 1993, p. 22). The measure’s validity
has been supported in numerous studies, beginning with Ihilevich's development
of the measure and its relationship to ﬁeld dependence-independence, as a part
of his doctoral dissertation in 1968. Studies too numerous to mention have
found appropriate and predicted correlations between the DMI and its various
subscales and measures of self-esteem, locus of control, anxiety, addictive
behavior, MMPI scales, coping, and numerous other measures. Other studies
have also found theoretically expected correlations with several diagnoses,

including alcoholism, obesity, coronary disease, and the various psychiatric

4O

diagnoses. The reader is referred to lhilevich and Gleser (1993) for a detailed
and extensive review of such studies.

WAS). The Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), (Watson, Clark, 8 Tellegen, 1988), is a brief
20-item measure in which the person is presented with ten positive and ten
negative affect words, intermingled with each other. The person is asked to
describe the self on a Likert-type scale from one to ﬁve (very slightly or not at all,
a little, moderately, quite a bit, or extremely, respectively) in relation to a speciﬁc
time period.

While Watson, et et's (1988) scale contained twenty affect-related words,
the only word pertaining directly to shame is the word "ashamed". Since shame
was an important affect considered central to this study, a third set of ﬁve
additional words containing the shame-related words, "embarrassed", "shame",
"humiliated", "rage", and "revengeful", were added. In addition ﬁve positive affect
words, which are approximate antonyms to shame, were also integrated in order
to maintain the previous positive-negative word mix format. Further, the new
words were added as a separate third column so as to maintain intact the
original order and format. Thus, the measure as originally developed was scored
as a unit and compared with Watson's et el's (1988) validated results.
Comparison was also made between the original scale and the new component,
thus establishing a high degree of validity in relation to the original measure.

While Watson, Clark, 8 Tellegen (1988) developed the scale for its

41

possible use in referencing several alternative time periods, in this study
participants are ask to compete the measure separately for three instances. At
the beginning of the testing session the participant is asked to rate each feeling
stimulus word on how it describes the self for two time periods, ﬁrst , "on the
average", and then "at the present moment". At the end of the testing session,
after completing all other measures, the person is asked to rate the same words
again, relative to "the present moment" only. This gave a general a baseline, 3
beginning of session “in the moment”, and a ﬁnal “in the moment” measure of
the person's experience of a wide range affects, especially relative to optimism
versus negativity, including several speciﬁc shame-related affects.

The original scales were shown to exhibit a high degree of internal
consistency, to be largely uncorrelated with each other, and to be appropriately
stable over a two month period (Watson, Clark, 8 Tellegen, 1988). Evidence for
both discriminant and convergent validity was also found. The internal
consistency obtained ,using Cronbach coefﬁcient alpha, ranged from .86 to .90
for positive affects, and from .84 to .87 for negative affects. The test-retest
reliabilities over eight weeks were .54 and .45 for positive and negative affect
"in the moment", respectively, and, .68 and .71 "in general", respectively

(Watson, Clark, 8 Tellegen, 1988).

RESULTS
D I . D . I. [II S I

A total of 538 students completed this study.1 Participants included 193
men (36%) and 345 women (64%). Most (512, or 95%) were under 25 years of
age. The participants include 181 freshmen (34%), 102 sophomores (19%), 181
juniors (33%), 64 seniors (12%), and 10 nonresponders (2%).

The majority (447, or 83%) designated themselves as Caucasian, with the
remainder approximately evenly divided among Afro-American, Latinos, Asian,
and nonresponders. Most students reported being single (95%), with 246 (46%)
not in an exclusive relationship, 117 (22%) in an exclusive relationship less than
a year, 154 (29%) in an exclusive relationship more than a year, 11 (2%)
engaged to be married, and 10 (2%) not responding.

Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations on all
tests for all participants and separately for men and women, are displayed in
Table 1. Comparative analyses revealed signiﬁcant gender differences on the

fearful-avoidant attachment category, the NPI and 4 of its 7 subscales, and on

 

1Of the original 630 participants, 92 were not included
because they failed to complete, or incorrectly completed,
one or more of the measures, usually the DMI. These 92
participants were excluded from all data analyses.

42

43

Table 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
All(n=538) Men(n=1 93) Women(n=345)
Measure IL__$D_ M__$D_ _DIL__SD_
Attachment
Secure .00 (1.79) .02 (1 .63) -.01 (1 .87)
Fearful .00 (1.82) -.22 (1.62) ,12 (1 .91)
Preoccupied .00 (1.78) .08 (1 .79) -.05 (1 .78)
Dismissing .00 (1.60) .09 (1 .55) -.05 (1 .63)
W 18.33 (6.65) 19.55 (6.70) 1 7.71 (6.56)
Authority 4.78 (2.1 5) 5,10 (1 .99) 4.60 (2.21)
Exhibitionism 2.61 (1 .76) 2.47 (1.85) 2.69 (1 .71)
Superiority 2.47 (1.39) 2.50 (1.43) 2.45 (1 .37)
Entitlement 2.14 (1.48) 2,58 (1.46) 1 .95 (1.45)
Exploitiveness 2.10 (1.44) 2.55 (1.50) 1 .92 (1 .36)
Self-Sufﬁcient 2.84 (1.43) 3,952 (1.57) 2.72 (1.34)
Vanity 1.39 (1.10) 1.40 (1.06) 1 .38 (1 .12)
OMNI/Narcissism 17.06 (5.09) 1 6.72 (5.15) 1 7.25 (5.06)
1534511111191 28.29 (15.70) 26.71 (14.97) 29.18 (16.05)
QMLLDetensesl
PRINCIP 44.21 (6.22) 42.75 (6.31) 45.92 (6.03)
PROJECT 39.05 (5.76) 411.82 (5.44) 38.06 (5.70)
REVERSAL 37.02 (7.52) 36.68 (7.64) 37.21 (7.46)
TA_OTHER 42.1 9 (9.03) 55.95 (9.84) 41.1 3 (8.37)
TA_SELF 37.53 (7.46) 35.63 (6.89) 38.10 (7.56)
MATURITY -.01 (22.52) -5.47 (23.56) 3.15 (21.35)
E 'l' E [E I
In general 51.64 (8.65) 50.99 (9.67) 52.00 (8.02)
Beginning 38.13 (11.60) 38.30 (11.66) 38.03 (11 .59)
End 35.71 (12.00) 31.08 (1 2.41) 34.39 (11.58)
NegatixeAﬂeet
In general 29.56 (9.36) 29.86 (9.37) 29.38 (9.36)
Beginning 21.41 (7.64) 21.89 (7.36) 21.14 (7.79)
End 22.76 (7.78) 23.54 (8.39) 22.32 (7.39)

Netg; Underscored values significantly (p 5.05) exceeded
their cross-gender counterparts.

mu=mam

SD =

standard deviation.

44
4 of the 5 DMI scales. Therefore, separate analyses were performed by gender
on all measures and for all comparisons.

Speciﬁcally, women scored higher than men on the fearful-avoidant
attachment dimension (M=.12 vs. M= -.22, p 5=.05). In contrast, on the NPI,
men scored signiﬁcantly higher than women on overall narcissism (M=19.44 vs.
M=17.71, p 5:05), and on the narcissism subscales of authority (M=5.10 vs.
M=4.60, p 5.01), entitlement (M=2.48 vs. M=1.95, p 5.01), expoitativeness
(M=2.44 vs. M=1.92, p _<_.01), and self-sufﬁciency (M=3.05 vs. M=2.72, p 5.01).
Women in the current study were more likely than men to endorse the defensive
styles of Principalization (M=45.02 vs. M=42.75, p _<_=.01) and turning-against-
self (M=38.60 vs. M=35.63, p _<_.01), whereas men preferred the defensive styles
of projection (M=40.82 vs. 38.06, p 5.01) and tuming-against-others (M=44.08
vs. M=41.13, p 5.01) more often than did women. Likewise, women scored
higher on the maturity scale than did men (M= 3.05 vs. -5.47, p 5.01).
Additionally, men claimed feeling signiﬁcantly more positive affects at the end of
the testing period than did women (M=38.08 vs. M=34.39, p _<_.01). Thus,
because of these frequent gender differences, all analyses have been completed
on the data from each gender separately.

W

The single item Relationship Questionnaire (RQ), which asks the person
to choose from among four options the description of their relationships which
best describes how he or she feels, allows for assignment of each individual to a

discrete attachment category and provides a basis for comparison with other

4S

attachment study samples. In the current study, on this frequently used single
item, forced choice attachment measure, 41% of the students classiﬁed
themselves as secure, 17% as preoccupied, 25% as avoidant-fearful, and 16%
as avoidant-dismissing. These ﬁndings show a distribution pattern among the
attachment categories roughly consistent with prior studies, in that the latter
works have commonly found a somewhat higher percentage of securely
attached, a correspondingly lower percentage of avoidantly attached, and fewest
in the anxious/ambivalent (preoccupied) category. For example, various studies
have found about 55% securely attached, about 25% avoidantly attached, and
about 20% (preoccupied) ambivalently attached (Hazan 8 Shaver, 1987, 1990;
Mikulincer, Florian, 8 Tolmacz, 1990, Pistole, 1989; Shaver 8 Hazan, 1987). In
the current study, combining the avoidant-fearful and avoidant-dismissing
categories into a single avoidant category results in approximately equal
percentages of securely attached and avoidantly attached individuals in this
sample population, also with the smallest proportion endorsing the preoccupied
attachment style.

Participants in the current study scored higher on the NPI (M=18.33,
s_d=6.65) than did Raskin’s sample of 1018 college students on which the current
version of the NPI was normed (M=15.55, §d=6.67). The difference between
men’s and women's scores in the current sample (M= 19.44, $16.70 versus
17.71, 5d 6.56) is similar to the gender differences in Raskin's sample (M=16.50,
ed=6.86 versus M=14.72, sd=6.35) l

Cook’s lnternalized Shame Scale was also normed on college students,

46

with the mean for non-clinical males somewhat lower (M=30, §d=15) than the for
non-clinical females (M=33, ed=16). Similarly, male participants in the current
study obtained a mean score of 26.71, sd=14.97, while the females also obtain a
somewhat higher mean score of 29.18, sd=16.05.

On the Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI), scores for the ﬁve
dimensions of defensive style were similar to a sample of 958 male and 987
female college students used to norm the measure. Comparisons of the means
and standard deviations on the DMI for men and women are shown below in

Table 2.

Table 2

DMI Comparisons With Named Sample*

Herman Sample
M SD M SD

Melee (n=958) (n=193)
PRINCIP 44.9 6.3 42.7 6.3
PROJECT 40.0 5.8 40.8 5.4
REVERSAL 37.1 7.4 36.7 7.6
TA_OTHERS 41.6 9.2 44.8 9.8
TA_SELF 36.4 6.8 35.6 6.9

Eemales (n=987) (n=345)

PRINCIP 46.6 6.2 45.0 6.0
PROJECT 36.8 6.0 38.1 5.7
REVERSAL 38.0 8.0 37.2 7.5
TA_OTHERS 36.7 8.8 41.1 8.4
TA_SELF 42.0 7.2 38.6 7.6

*lhilevich (1968)

4 7
S! I E' I.

W Correlations of narcissism with both the dismissing-
avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment dimensions will be positive and
signiﬁcantly higher than those of narcissism and either the preoccupied or secure
attachment dimensions.

The correlations of the OMNI and NPI measures of narcissism with
attachment dimensions are shown in Table 3 separately for men and women.
Dismissing-avoidant attachment is positively correlated with NPI narcissism for
women as predicted but is negatively correlated with OMNI narcissism for men
(opposite the prediction). The other two correlations for dismissing-avoidant
attachment are essentially zero. Fearful-avoidant attachment is positively

correlated with OMNI narcissism for both sexes, as predicted, but not with NPI

narcissism.
Table 3
Attachment Correlations with the NPI and OMNI Measures
NEI OMNI

Melee: (n=193)
Secure .22” -.24**
Fearful -.13 .1 9**
Preoccupied .02 .35“
Dismissing .05 -.1 5*

Females; (n=345)
Secure .17** -.29**
Fearful -.09 .27**
Preoccupied -.15** .36”
Dismissing .19" -.02

 

N919; ”p < .01, * p < .05, two-tailed test.

48

Table 4 lists the t-tests for the predicted differences between correlations.
The correlation with dismissing-avoidant attachment is signiﬁcantly higher than
with preoccupied attachment for NPI narcissism for both men and women as
predicted, but it is signiﬁcantly lower for both men and women for OMNI
narcissism (opposite the prediction). The correlation with dismissing-avoidant
attachment is signiﬁcantly higher than with secure attachment for both sexes on
OMNI narcissism as predicted, but not for NPI narcissism. The correlation with

fearful-avoidant attachment is signiﬁcantly lower than for preoccupied

Table 4

t-test for Dependent Correlation Coefficients”:
Comparison of Correlations of Attachment and Narcissism
on the NPI and OMNI Measures

Men lllLemen Men ﬂemen

lemissing

DI < Preoccupied -5.0** -4.9** 2,5: 4,33

DI < SEcure 25: 3.5: -1.6‘ 0.3
EEarful

FE < PReoccupied -2.8* -1.5 -1.7 0.9

FE < SEcure 3.1:” 6_.Q*_* -2.8** -2.6*
EBeoccupied

PR < SEecure 8.9: 8,]: -1.8 -3.9**

 

Hetee **p < .01, * p < .05.

Hegel Underscored values are significant (p 5.05) end
support the study predictions.

***Glass 8 Hopkins (1984).

4 9
attachment for OMNI narcissism for the men only (opposite the prediction). The
correlation with fearful-avoidant is signiﬁcantly higher than with secure
attachment for OMNI narcissism for both sexes, as predicted, and signiﬁcantly
lower for NPI narcissism for both sexes (opposite the prediction).

It is clear that OMNI narcissism and NPI narcissism do not seem to be the
same, a ﬁnding which will hold throughout.

ljyeothesjeje; Correlations of narcissism with the preoccupied
attachment dimension will be positive and signiﬁcantly higher than those of
narcissism and the secure attachment dimension.

The correlation with preoccupied attachment is signiﬁcantly higher than
with secure attachment for OMNI narcissism for both men and women as
predicted, but it is lower for both men and women for NPI narcissism (opposite
the prediction).

11mm Scores on the Intemalized Shame Scale will correlate
signiﬁcantly more positively with fearful-avoidant attachment dimensions than
with dismissing-avoidant dimensions.

As shown in Table 6, correlations of Intemalized Shame Scales scores
correlate more positively with fearful-avoidant attachment (r=.41 and .39, p 5 .01)
for men and women, respectively) than with dismissing-avoidant attachment
(r= -.08 and -.01) for men and women, respectively) as predicted.

Hypetheeieae; Scores on the dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension
will be positively correlated with scores on the use of "Turning Against Others"

(TAO) and "Projection" (PRO) defenses.

5 0
Dismissing-avoidant attachment was negatively correlated with TAO and
PRO defenses for men, with the PRO correlation reaching signiﬁcance in the
direction opposite that predicted, while correlations for dismissing-avoidant
attachment for women revealed a barely positive and insigniﬁcant correlation

with TAO and PRO defenses. These ﬁndings are shown in Table 5.

Table 5
Attachment Correlations with the DMI
DMI
Males: (n=193) EBN BBQ BE! IAQ IA§ MAI
Secure .04 -.01 .08 -.03 -.07 .05
Fearful -.08 .13 -.09 .03 .03 -.10
Preoccupied -.07 .1 5* .00 .00 .1 6* .23**
Dismissing .06 -.14* .12 -02 -.05 -.10
Females: (n=345)
Secure .23” -.08 .22** -.19** -.12* .24**
Fearful -.20** .08 -.19** .20” .05 -.22**
Preoccupied -.25** .13* -.27** .09 .29” -.23**
Dismissing .07 .04 .03 .03 -.16** .01

 

Meta; "p < .01, * p < .05, two-tailed test.

Hypethesiejb; Scores on the fearful-avoidant attachment dimension will
be positively correlated with scores on the use of "Turning Against Self" (T AS).

This hypotheses was not supported as fearful-avoidant attachment
showed no correlation with the TAS defense for either men or women.

Hypetnesiﬂ; Those scoring higher on the three insecure attachment

dimensions will score lower on the positive affects, and higher on negative

51

affects, on the Positive and Negative Affects Schedule (PANAS) than those who
are securely attached.

As shown in Table 6, women scoring higher on fearful-avoidant
attachment scored lower on the positive affects, and higher on negative affects,
on the PANAS than those who are securely attached at all three time periods, as
predicted. However, men scoring higher on fearful-avoidant attachment scored
signiﬁcantly lower on the positive affects at time one only (PA1 = how they feel
“on the average”) , and higher on negative affects, on the PANAS, than those
who are securely attached at all three time periods, as predicted.

Women scoring higher on preoccupied attachment also consistently
scored lower on the positive affects, and higher on negative affects, on the
PANAS than securely attached women at all three time periods, as predicted.
However, men scoring higher on preoccupied attachment scored lower on the
positive affects at time one, as predicted, but achieved scores similar to the
securely attached at time two and time three.

Both men and women who scored higher on dismissing-avoidant
attachment scored lower on the positive affects, and higher on negative affects,
on the PANAS than those who are securely attached at all three time periods, as
predicted with the sole exception that dismissing-avoidant women scored
essentially the same on negative affects at time three (NA3 = “in the moment” at
the end of testing) as did the secure women. It is noteworthy that while those
endorsing the dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension do usually score lower

on the positive and higher on the negative affects than the securely attached,

52

they rarely show direct correlations with either the positive or negative affects

that differ from zero thus yielding ﬁndings that should be viewed with caution.

Table 6
Attachment Correlations with lnternalized Shame
and
Positive and Negative Affects

Maleetln-193) 15.5 EAl EAZ 2A3 NA1 NAZ NA3

Secure -.45** .40** .18** .22** -.21** -.17** -.16*
Fearful .41** -.24** -.05 -.08 .25** .22** .16*
Preoccupied .34** .00 .16* .23” .22** .16* .20“
Dismissing -.08 .01 .04 -.02 -.17* -.11 -.1 1
Eemalee: (n=345)

Secure -.45** .37” .22** .16** -.34** -.13* -.1 1*
Fearful .39“ -.25** -.20** -.15** .31** .14** .10*
Preoccupied .47** -.24** -.13* -.09 .38“ .26“ .27**
Dismissing -.01 .07 .08 .09 -.01 -.06 -.13*

 

Nets; ”p < .01, * p < .05, two-tailed test.

Netet PA1 8 NA1 = “on the average”; PA2 8 NA2 = “in the moment” at the
start of testing"; and PA3 8 NA3 = “in the moment” at the end of testing.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between
dimensions of adult attachment and narcissism, shame, preferred psychological
defenses, and the positive and negative affects. Generally, the study ﬁndings
regarding the predicted association of attachment dimensions with shame and
with the positive and negative affects consistently received the strongest
support, while the correlations between the dismissing-avoidant attachment
dimension and shame and with the positive and negative affects were either
near zero or occasionally opposite the predicted direction.

Three unpredicted and surprising ﬁndings emerged. First, one surprising
and important outcome of the study was the consistently divergent ﬁndings
between the two measures of narcissism, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory
(NPI) and the O’Brien Narcissistic Multiphasic Personality Inventory (OMNI),
which strongly suggests that these two widely used instruments may each be
measuring something quite different. Second, consistently across the various
measures those endorsing the dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension most
frequently showed at least lower or, more usually, absent or reverse ﬁndings in
relation to those expected. Third, various gender differences emerged that,

while not speciﬁcally predicted, may be understandable in relation to theories of

53

54

gender differences.
QMNLandNELNeLciselsm

Overall the ﬁndings for the hypotheses related to the four attachment
dimensions and narcissism yielded inconsistent and divergent correlations
between the NPI and OMNI measures of narcissism for both genders, as shown
in Tables 3 and 4. Because of these divergent patterns between the two
measures of narcissism and the unexpected nature of these results, several
further data checks were performed. It was veriﬁed that the narcissistic answer
choice received the higher score (1 versus 0) on both measures, assuring that
the scoring was parallel between the NPI and OMNI. Additionally, to examine
whether the divergence might be speciﬁc to correlations on the attachment
dimensions only and to help identify and understand the source(s) of this
divergence between the two measures, further analyses were performed,
including 1) correlations between scores from the NPI and OMNI measures
and each of their respective subscales as shown in Table 7, and, 2) correlations
between each of these measures of narcissism and the other study measures,
including the Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI), the lnternalized Shame Scale
(ISS), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedules (PANAS), each by
gender, as shown in Table 8.

Examination of the correlations between the NPI and its subscales and
the OMNI and its subscales, as shown in Table 7, reveal that all of the negative

associations fall within either the NPI Subscale labeled “Self-Sufﬁcient”

Table 7
Correlations Between NPI and OMNI Subscales

QMNIQMlNABlQMMEQlZQMNIABLIﬁ

Alllﬂﬁlz
NEILNereiseism .16** .11** .36“ -.18**
Authority .05 -.04 .25” 3161*
Exhibitionism .22** .26" .22** -.05
Superiority .081- .11** .20“ -.29**
Entitlement .26** .14** .38** -.06
Exploitiveness .1 7** .09* .25** .00
Self-Sufﬁcient 312: 3153: M 3222
Vanity .05 .09* .12** :45:
Menilall
mm .23” .20“ .31 ** -.07
Authority .07 -.02 .22** -.07
Exhibitionism .21** .29” .15" -.05
Superiority .24** .29“ .23” -.07
Entitlement .34" .22** .37** 3131
Exploitiveness .15* .11 .17** .02
Self-Sufﬁcient 31721 316: .04 -,21**
Vanity .14* .17” .14* -.04
Illlernen134§l
NEllNareieeiem .14" .09t .38** 2232
Authority .04 -.02 .26** -,19**
Exhibitionism .23” .24** .28** -.07
Superiority -.01 .01 .19** -.21**
Entitlement .23“ .13“ .38** -.05
Exploitiveness .19“ .10* .27** .02
Self-Sufﬁcient 3,19: 31$ _.0_9 -,21**
Vanity -.00 .05 .1 2* - **

 

Note: "p 5 .01, * p 5 .05, ’r p s .10, two-tailed test.

Nete; QM = Narcissistic Personality; QMNJEQIZ = Poisonous
Pedagogy; and QMNIABU3 = Narcissistically Abused Personality.

Note; Negative correlations are underlined.

55

56

(which is negatively correlated with the OMNI) or the OMNI Subscale labeled
the “Narcissistically Abused Personality“ (OMNIABUS3, which is negatively
correlated with the NPI).

Thus, to understand the discrepancies between these two measures of
narcissism it would be helpful to also look at the underlying meaning of these two
subscales. According to O'Brien (1987, p. 502-503) the person with the
Narcissistically Abused Personality attributes (OMNIABU3) places the needs of
others ﬁrst and has a tendency towards self~deprecation, martyrdom, and an
inordinate need for approval in order to have a sense of self-validation. On the
other hand, in writing about the narcissistic personality, Raskin and Terry (1988,
p. 891), citing Modell (1975), stated that, “This unconscious dependency on
external sources of love represents a signiﬁcant source of vulnerability that must
be defended against by narcissistic defenses aimed at creating the illusion of
self-sufﬁciency.”

By way of example from the subscales, the narcissistic response on one
item on the NPI Self-Sufﬁcient Subscale avers that “I like to take responsibility
for making decisions” whereas a corresponding narcissistic statement on the
OMNI Narcissistically Abused Subscale would be “ When confused, do you
think of your mother’s wishes to help you to resolve your conﬂicts?" (Yes).
Another example would be the NPI Self-Sufﬁcient Subscale items “I can live my
life any way I want to” and “I am more capable than other people” versus the

OMNI Narcissistically Abused Personality Subscale items, “Do you ﬁnd it easy

57

to relax in a group?" (No), “Would you rather try to please other than to have
your own way?” (Yes), and “Do you try avoid rejection at all costs?" (Yes).

Thus it appears likely that the Narcissistically Abused Personality Factor
of the OMNI, taps the vulnerable or the undefended aspects of narcissism,
whereas the Self-Sufﬁcient Subscale of the NPI captures the defensive or
defended side of narcissism. This results in these manifestly different and
diverging ﬁndings, depending on the person’s defensive style and perhaps which
questions are being asked or answered.

Further, the gender differences, as shown in Table 7, between the
correlations of the Narcissistically Abused Personality Subscale (OMNIABU3) of
the OMNI and ﬁve of the of the eight comparisons with the NPI are likely
reﬂective of the source of this OMNI Subscale which was derived from Miller’s
(1979, 1981; O’Brien, 1987, 1988) conception of the narcissistically abused
female. Speciﬁcally women showed a robust negative correlation between
OMNI narcissism and NPI narcissism, including the latter’s subscales of
Authority, Superiority, Self-sufﬁciency, and Vanity, in contrast to men who
showed no parallel associations other than a negative one with the Self-sufﬁcient
subscale.

Additional evidence of the underlying differences in these two measures
of narcissism can be seen in Table 8 where the more immature defenses,
shame, and negative affects are positively associated with OMNI narcissism,

whereas the positive affects, along with denial of shame, and less clarity or a

58

u ”demand £22325 388.88 32.8.8 u maniac .328... 3.3.8288 8.8.8.282 u go

 

5v.-

tum-(Izﬂd

“an.

no.-
no.-
SN ...-
an.
ac.
+3.

ma.

«9.-
«3..

.6.

ma.
3.
we.
iOuﬂc
tau.
2...”.
Han
ton.
r6.-
.5...-
COmNo
$2..-
an.

no.-

3.-
210 F.-
..nN.
:NN.
ccrN.

OO-
esNN o
No.
we.
8.
an _..

«V Ff
c v .-
ashN-r
._.v r.
ma.
«v P.
ooh” I
Fa.-
caWN-r
no.
no.
8.
ca.

00. so.
so. 3.
ac. mo.
no. .6.
nc. 3.
50. Pa.-
3: 3.
e F Ff at PN-I
a —. —.. acoN.
“O... «in P..-
.Q r. 3.-
mo.- Q0...
we. 2..
c r. N r.
co. +N r.
«m —.. ”a.
mo. cc.
0 v. mo.-
HNﬁu H3”.-
ncr mo...
mo... ma.-
No. ac.
56. O F.-
mc. Q9.
o rt 8.

.Dcuuwma no UGO 0:“ an gap—GEO:— 05 C... ﬂ "(2 ‘

nu.-

mo.-
.. FN-u
3m _..
tom.
«sou.
caNﬂ-u

0°.

CO

«3..
..Nv.
be.
2.3..

so.

no.

3.-
:RN.
:QN.
:nN.

CC

.Vw.
cc.-
2..-

.3...
mo.-

+3..

«<8 a... .8583 .8 es» 2.. a .8255 a... s. .-. «<2 8 «<8 rouse... 2.. .8. 88.2 2.882 a 822 2.3.88 u 22 a 28 .882 t

$526288 poosa< 2.3.53.2;

an r.
..N F.
90.
”6.
+3.
to r.
Maﬁa
new F-n
was...
2% r.
N w.-
3? r.
ma.-

.v...
3.
+2..
CC. F”.
:mN.
C. P”-
we.-
we.
no.-
mo.-
+2..
me.
me.-

me.-

.. —. ...-

32..-
ELF.
econ.
tan.

CC

3.
no.
3.
{On Po

ma.-
so...
0 F.-
..a —..
sum F-
ora F-
«CVMF
ha.-
em P.-
no.
mo.-
+N r.
8.

agggguﬁwuaﬂ

885 25882 a 26.88 E... 6&2..." .8238 5.; .250 a .82 8 22.2500

a sink

"8.835 .250 .P
8. ”<2
8.. «<2
.4...- 22
:2. «<8
.8". «<8
:8. .338
«can .- "ﬁg“
3.. E8352
.9...” 53:5
:2. 89.515
3.- n<m8m>m8
:3. 8.8388
8. 8.02.88.23
maﬁa-um
2. "<2
3. «<2
8.. .<2
:5. ”<8
:3. «<8
:8. 58
eemN I “5%
8. E55:
.2; .3er
8. 8816...:
8. ._<mmm>m8
3. 58388
S. 8.02.88 "Ed
an Haﬁz

59

heterogeneity of defensive patterns are associated with NPI narcissism. Another
piece of evidence suggestive of underlying differences in these two measures of
narcissism are the consistent and substantial negative correlation between the
use of the more mature defense of Reversal, a form of denial, and only OMNI
narcissism for both men and women. And, for women only, consistently
negatixe correlations between endorsement of NPI narcissism and the “Turning
Against Self” defense were found, further suggesting an effective defensive
denial of the more vulnerable aspects of the self by women high on NPI
narcissism. In contrast, for women, consistently Millie correlations between
endorsement of OMNI narcissism and the “Turning Against Self" defense were
found, again suggesting a more open stance with less defensive denial of the
more vulnerable aspects of self. Overall, these patterns suggest a greater
degree of openness to admission of vulnerability by those scoring higher on
OMNI narcissism and a more denying stance by those scoring higher on NPI
narcissism as a likely explanation for the divergent ﬁndings on these two
measures.

Further, this interpretation of the OMNI narcissistic vulnerability is
particularly suggested by the pgejtiye association between the OMNI
Narcissistically Abused Personality Subscale and Shame for both men and
women, which are among the highest correlations in the study (I = .49 and t =
.50, p 5.01, respectively), versus the negetjye correlations between the NPI Self-

Sufﬁcient Subscale and Shame for both genders which are also among the

6O

stronger associations for the NPI (I = -.37 and I = -.28, p 5.01, respectively).
Taken together, these patterns of ﬁndings provide strong supporting evidence
that these two measures, the OMNI and the NPI, tap two quite different facets of
narcissism and that both measures may be equally valid in measuring these
different aspects of narcissism. These ﬁndings and this explanation are
consistent with theories purporting that narcissism has two sides, the grandiose
and the vulnerable or shame-ridden aspects.

D' . . I II I I D' .

The second surprising result was the consistency with which those
endorsing the dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension frequently showed
lower or, more usually, absent or reverse ﬁndings in relation to what was
expected. These ﬁndings regarding the dismissing-avoidant attachment
dimension may be reﬂective of a defensive denial posture taken in order to ward
off feelings of connection and loss in object relations. It may be that such
detachment from emotions and from others results in a confused and
inconsistent pattern of responses.

Further, this general absence of signiﬁcant correlations, or ﬁndings that
are opposite the prediction, on most comparisons related to the dismissing-
avoidant attachment dimension for both men and women could also be
understood from another perspective. It may be that the dismissing-avoidant
category does not select for a discreet dimension or type but represents a

heterogenous group which adopts a variety of attachment and other

61

psychological strategies, yielding no relatively consistent patterns. This group’s
consistent absence of signiﬁcant patterns may also reﬂect a disorganized
attachment strategy, similar to Main’s observations of disorganized infants who
do not ﬁt any of the usual attachment categories and seem to have no consistent
strategy to deal with the vicissitudes of attachment and loss (Main, 1990; Main
and Hess, 1990).

The dismissing-avoidant attachment dimension may also represent a
group of individuals that are less self-aware or use denial relatively more often
or more intermittently and randomly, in a manner that leads to inconsistent and
conﬂicting thoughts about various relationship issues and affects which would
then tend to ﬂuctuate widely with the vicissitudes of internal and external stimuli
(Jacobson, 1994). This is an interesting group for future study.

The marked difference between the frequent failure of the data from the
men in the current sample to achieve signiﬁcant correlations between preferred
defense mechanisms and attachment dimensions, and the substantial and
theoretically consistent correlations from the women’s data on the same
measures is difﬁcult to explain fully. However, it may be that to the extent to
which measures of attachment and measures of the preferred defense
mechanisms capture relationship issues, and consistent with the general view of
the greater importance of social relationships to women (Franz 8 White, 1975;

Gilligan, 1982), the women’s data showing a substantial correlation of secure

62

attachment with mature defenses and insecure of attachment with more
immature defenses become more theoretically consistent and understandable.
For example, defense strategies as well as attachment strategies would likely be
more coordinated and consistent where relationship issues are of central
importance to the person. In this case, the endorsements relative to attachment
and defenses would also likely be more coordinated or integrated with each
other as an effective, or at least more consistent, strategy for dealing with the
vicissitudes of relationships.

As noted the apparent gender differences, shown in Table 7, reveal
negative correlations of the Narcissistically Abused Personality Subscale
(OMNIABU3) of the OMNI with ﬁve of the of the eight comparisons with the NPI
narcissism, likely reﬂecting the source the items on this OMNI Subscale, which
were largely taken from Miller’s (1979, 1981; O’Brien, 1987, 1988) conception of
the narcissistically abused female. In contrast, as shown in Table 1, men
tended to score signiﬁcantly higher than women on NPI narcissism where they
achieved an overall higher NPI score as well as higher scores on the subscales
Authority, Entitlement, Exploitiveness, and Self-Sufﬁciency. These ﬁndings
suggest different issues related to narcissism are important for men versus those
for women and would provide an important topic for further investigative
research.

This study has the weaknesses inherent in reliance on self-report

 

 

63

measures which are othenNise unsubstantiated, including shortcomings related
to restrictions in self-awareness or lack of insight as well as biased self-
presentation. However, to the extent we are interested in psychic reality or a
person’s own subjective experience, as opposed to external “objective” reality,
and aside from deliberate falsiﬁcation or massive denial, self-report measures do
provide a means to tap important dimensions an of the person’s way of being.
And, to the extent a person’s view of himself inﬂuences his actions and
behaviors, self-report is an important format for use in empirical research.
However, ﬁndings from the study should also be generalized only with
care and thoughtfulness because of the restricted age range and the limited
variability in socioeconomic status of this college subject pool sample. And,
although we would expect to see a variety of personality styles, degrees of
neuroticism, and some psychopathology, it should also be kept in mind that this
is primarily a non-clinical population. With these limitations in mind, the study
ﬁndings remain useful in relation to the various theories and for their implications

for further research.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between
attachment and narcissism, shame, psychological defenses, and the positive and
negative affects. Generally, ﬁndings related to the close connections between
security of attachment and shame and the positive and negative affects received
the strongest support, although other predicted relationships occasionally also
reached statistical signiﬁcance. For example, secure attachment was positively
correlated with positive affects and strongly negatively correlated with shame
and the negative affects, while fear-avoidant and preoccupied attachments
dimensions yielded substantial correlations in the opposite direction on these
same affects.

Interestingly, predicted correlations between attachment and narcissism
yielded opposite results for the O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissistic Inventory (OMNI)
and Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) on the various dimensions. The
ﬁndings strongly suggest that these two widely used measures of narcissism
measure very different things. Generally, with OMNI narcissism (O’Brien, 1987),
more secure forms of attachment showed a predicted negative correlation with
narcissism while fearful-avoidant and preoccupied attachment supported the

predicted positive correlations, unlike parallel predictions using the NPI

64

65

narcissism scale (Raskin, 1979) which more rarely supported predictions.

The predicted relationships between attachment and choice of
psychological defense mechanisms generally did not achieve signiﬁcance.
However, for women only, some clear and interesting patterns emerged, which
are consistent with theories related to psychopathology. For example, more
securely attached women endorsed a strong preference for mature versus more
primitive defenses, whereas the more insecurely attached tended to endorse the
immature defenses.

Further, it is interesting that in this study those endorsing the dismissing-
avoidant dimension of attachment generally showed lower or, more usually,
either absent or reverse ﬁndings in relation to what was expected. Other
interesting and robust, but unpredicted, ﬁndings emerged and are discussed.

Additional research is recommended to further explore and reﬁne
connections that are suggested by these ﬁndings, as well at to understand the
problems and issues of measurement in the obtained differences, especially
relative to the measures of narcissism and the use of preferred psychological
defenses. It would be useful to compare both the OMNI and NPI measures of
narcissism with other measures that would help tease out the differences and
commonalities in order to better understand the meaning of convergences and
divergences. This might include looking at the differences between clinical and
non-clinical populations. Including other than a self-report measure of

attachment status, such as Main’s Adult Attachment Interview, would likely

66

provide a more solid and certain measurement of an individual’s true attachment
status, adding to the conﬁdence we could place in the correlations as being true
to the concepts ostensibly measured. Because of hypothesized relationship
between narcissism and self-esteem, and shame and self-esteem, and affect
and self-esteem, it would have been helpful and informative to include a solid
measure of self-esteem. Thus, these ﬁndings suggest a number of avenues for

productive further study.

APPENDIX A

CONSENT FORM

This research concerns your responses to a range of written situations and
statements. These surveys are commonly used in psychological research. The study
examines the accuracy with which people are able to label their feelings in relation to
situational and relationship factors. There are no right or wrong, good or bad,
acceptable or unacceptable answers. The only "right" answer is what you ﬁnally think
or feel. Since the ability to accurately label feelings and emotions, especially the
negative ones, has been found to be related to success in school, career, and
relationships, it is important that we better understand these characteristics in people.
Your responses are entirely anonymous and conﬁdential.

Your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from participating at any
time without penalty. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to complete six
surveys and a brief demographic proﬁle. These surveys will take approximately one
and one half hours to complete.

Since you will receive research credit in return for participation, total anonymity
cannot be provided; however, all answers to these surveys are anonymous and
conﬁdential. Your name will not appear in the same place as any survey results. The
information you provide is strictly conﬁdential and you will not be identiﬁed in any
report of the ﬁndings.

Directions are included with the surveys, but please feel free to ask for
clariﬁcation when in doubt. If you have any further questions, concerns or comments,
please contact me:

Betty Feintuch, M.A.

c/o Room 5-C, Olds Hall
Michigan State University,
or at 349-6060

You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this research by
completing and returning these questionnaires.

67

APPENDIX B

Please select the one answer that best applies to you or your situation.

231. SEX:
1 = Female
2 = Male
232. EDUCATIONAL LEVEL:
1 = Freshman
2 = Sophomore
3 = Junior
4 = Senior

5 = Graduate Student

233. AGE:
1 = Under 20 years
2 = 20-24 years
3 = 25-29 years
4 = 30-34 years
5 = Over 30 years

234. MARITAL STATUS:

1 = Single

2 = Married
3 = Separated
4 = Divorced
5 = Widowed

235. RELATIONSHIP SITUATION:
1 = Not in an exclusive romantic relationship
2 = In an exclusive relationship less than 3 months
3 = In an exclusive relationship 3-12 months
4 = In an exclusive relationship more than 1 year
5 = One of the above AND engaged to be married

236. ETHNIC BACKGROUND:
1 = Caucasian
2 = Afro-American

3 = Latino
4 = Asian
5 = Other

********THE END********
Please scan the blue ‘bubble’ sheet to make sure items 1 thru 271 are complete, with one and
only one circle fulled in for each number; please do the same for the brown ‘bubble’ sheet for
items; 1 thru 236. I you’re sure all items are complete, please help you self to a treat.

Thank you for your participation.

68

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). W Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and
attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. thld

WAD. 969-1025-

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. Ameﬂean
WEI-4.4. 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., 8Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and
separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation.

W41. 40-67

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C. Waters, E, 8Walll, S. (1978). Eatteme
o —.i-. Ill 1'.0 tom -. -o_ 0 I 410,-. .-. Hillsdale NJ
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

American Psychiatric Association. (1986). Djagnestﬁandetetistjeal
menueLeLmeMalnleeLdetslltdedﬂWashington DC: American

Psychiatric Association.

Andreas-Salome, L. (1962). The dual orientation of narcissism.

WW 1-30.

Arend, R., Gove, F. L., 8 Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Continuity of individual
adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive study of ego-resiliency and

curiosity in preschoolers. Chlldﬁexelepmentjg, 950-959.

Bartholomew, K., 8 Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among

young adults: A test of a four-category model. Mmeletﬂemnaljtyendﬁgejel
Esxcbeloexﬁj. 226-244

Bartholomew, K. 8Perlman, D. (1994). Attachmentpreceesesjn
adultbeedtedxaneesjnnetsenelmlatlenebles. Bristol Pennsylvania Jessica
Kingsley.

69

70

Behrends, R. S., 8 Blatt, S. J. (1985). lntemalization and psychological

development throughout the life cycle. MW
40, 11 -.39

Benjamin L S (1993).n WW
peteeneljtyjjeQLdeie, New York: Guilford Press.

Berzoff, J. (1989). The role of attachments in female adolescent

development. WEN-.6. 115-125-

Bornstein, M. H. (1989). Maternal responsiveness: Characteristics and

consequences NenLDlLectiensJQLQbildDexeleemeMAL 1- 112

Bowlby, J. (1953). Some pathological processes set in train by early

mother-child separation. WW 265-272.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. lntematjenel
JeumeLeLEsyebeAnalyr-lsﬁ 350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1969). AhaehmentandJessALolumeii-ttaehment. London:

New York: Basic Books.

BowlbII. J. (1973). MW
a_n_d_anget, New York: Basic Books.

BowibY. J. (1979). Ibemeltineandhtealslneetetfeetienamends. London:
TavistocklRoutledge.

BOWIDY. J. (1980). AllaebmenlendlessielurneILLessﬁadne-seand
depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). Aeeeutebaeeiatentzeblldjttaehmentendheaﬂbx
LII-1W. New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A, 8 Shaver,.P R (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment
affect regulation, and romantic relationship functioning. WM

W267- 283

Bretherton, l. (1985). Attachment theory Retrospect and prospect. lnl.
Bretherton 8 E. Waters (Eds), pp. 3- 35, Growing points in attachment theory
andresearch. non-.9 .oi - i- - w - i- r I l - I ‘00“ l
50, [Serial No. 209].

71

Bretherton, I. (1990). Communication patterns, internal working models,
and intergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. LulanLMentaJ

HﬁaﬂhsLQumaLJL 237-252.

Bromberg, P. M. (1983). The mirror and the mask: On narcissism and

psychoanalytic growth. WW 359-387.

Bromberg, P. M. (1986). The mirror and the mask. On narcissism and

psychoanalytic growth. In A. P. Morrison (Ed. ), Wm,
5294538355, New York: New York University Press.

Broucek, F. J. (1982). Shame and its relationship to early narcissistic

develooments. WWW 369-378.
Broucek, F. J. (1991). W. New York: Guilford Press.

Bus, A. G., 8Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Attachment and early reading:
A longitudinal study W 199-210

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

Cassidy, J., 8 Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and is relation to other

defensive processes. In J. Belsky 8 T. Nezworski (Eds.,) ijnicaﬂmpljgatim
attachment (pp. 300- 323). New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, N. L., 8Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models,

and relationship quality in dating couples. W
W 644-663

Cook. D. R. (1994). WWW

Menomonie, Wisconsin: Channel Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefﬁcient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. WM 297-334.

Deutsch, H. (1942). Some forms of emotional disturbance and their

relation to schizophrenia. In W New York:

International Universities Press, 1965.

Emde, R. N. 8Harmon, R. J. (Eds..) (1982). W
attachmentandatﬁliatiyesxstems. New York: Plenum Press.

72

Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the

Narcissistic Personality Inventory. W43. 291-
300.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism. Theory and measurement. MM
WW2 11- 17

Faulkner, K. K. 8 Cogan, R. (1990). Measures of shame and conﬂict
tactics: Effects of questionnaire order. W33, 1217- 1218.

Fenney, J. A, 8 Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult

romantic relationships W 281-
291.

Feeney, J. A., 8 Noller, P. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B.
Sperling 8 W. H. Berrnan (Eds.), Anagmjgmjnjdsz (pp. 128-152). New York:
Guilford.

Fishler, P. H. Sperling, M. B., 8Carr, A. C. (1990). Assessment of adult
relatedness: A review of empirical ﬁndings from object relations and attachment

theories JoumaLQLEeLsQnaIityAssessmenLji 499-520

Fonaghy, P., Steele, H. 8 Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of
attachment during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother

attachment at one year. W 8981-905.

Frances, A., 8 Dunn, P. (1975). The attachment-autonomy conﬂict in

agoraphobia. W 435-439-

Franz, C. E., 8White, K. M. (1985). Individuation and attachment in

personality development: Extending Erikson’ s theory. MW
224-256.

Freud. A. (1937/1988). Was:

(Revised edition, Original publication 1966). Connecticut: International
Universities Press.

Freud, S. (19.14/1955) Narcissism: An introduction. InJ. Strachey (Ed)

1‘ ans-.0. -_ no 1‘ on.“ no“. A01. 0 on no ‘_0

New York: W. W. Norton.

73

Freud, S. (1926/1955). Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. In Strachey
(Ed.) 1‘ - u. 0. qlu f ‘ one ‘ ‘ ' h H. -| rk f on :0.
Jim New York: W. W. Norton.

Gilligan C (1982) MW
W Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Glass, G. V. 8 Hopkins, K. D. (1984). WHEN
Wham New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Gramzow, R. 8Tangney, J. P. (1992). Proneness to shame and the

narcissistic personality Eersonalityandﬁocialﬂycbolmauﬂeﬂnzlﬂ. 369- 376

Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., 8 Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and
importance of attachment relationships to parents and peer during adolescence.

WWW 373-386.

Griff n D. W., 8 Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of
measurement. The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew 8 D. Perlman

(Ede) pp 17- 50, W
W London: Jessica Langley Publishers.

Harder, D. H., 8 Lewis, S. J. (1987). The assessment of shame and guilt.

an N Butcher&C C Speilberger(EdS)Ad1ance§Jn_peLsonamy_a§§essmenL
Mglume3, (pp. 89-114). Hillsdale, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harder, D. H., 8 Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales:
A construct validity comparison. MW 729-745.

Hazan, C. 8Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an

attachment process JoumaLQLEeLsonamLandﬁociaLEsychologLﬂ 511 -524.

Hazan, C. 8Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work. An attachment-

theoretical perspective W 270-
280.

Hazan, C., 8 Shaver, P. R. (1994a). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Esmhglggjgaungum 1-22.

Hazan, C. 8Shaver, P. R. (1994b). Deeper into attachment theory
WWW-79

74

Horney, K. (1950). W
realization. New York: W. W. Norton 8 Company.

lhilevich, D. (1968). The relationship of defense mechanisms to field
dependence-independence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Cincinnati. (University Microﬁlm No. 6815163).

lhilevich, D., 8Gleser, G. C. (1993). W

1-010‘-‘ -nn _Ui‘fllllil""lll-..Ill

[gleam Odessa, Florida. Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Jacobson, J. G. (1994). Signal affects and our psychoanalytic confusion

of tongues W412. 1542

Joffe, W. G, 8 Sandler, J. (1968). Comments on the psychoanalytic
psychology of adaptation, and special reference to the role of affects and the

representational world lntemanonabloumaLoLEsycboAnalysisAa. 445-454

Kaufman, G. (1992). Wing, (3rd Ed.) Rochester,
VT: Schenkman Books.

Kaufman G (1996) W
W (2nd Ed.) New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Kenny, M. E. (1987a). The extent and function of parental attachment
among ﬁrst-year college students. W 17-29.

Kenny, M. E. (1987b). Family ties and leaving home for college: Recent
ﬁndings and implications. JoumaLoLQolleoeﬂudenLEersonneLZﬂ. 438-442.

Kenny, M. E. (Ed.). (1990). College seniors' perceptions of parental

attachments: The value of stability of family ties. W
W 39-46.

Kernberg, O. (1974). Further contributions to the treatment of narcissistic

personality lntemationaLJoumaLoLEsycboanalxsisjﬁ. 215-240

Kernberg. O. F. (1975). Bordeﬂinecondjtionsandoamologjcal
namissjsm, New Jersey: Jason Aronson.

Kernberg. 0. F. (1980).ln1emalworld_and_externaLLealitLije_oLLelatiQns
W New Jersey, Jason Aronson.

75

Kernberg. O. F. (1984). WWW
stategiss, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kestenbaum, C. J. (1984). Pathological attachments and their relationship

to affective disorders in adult life. MW 33-
49.

Kobak, R. R., 8 Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence:
Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child

W135-146.
Kohut H (1971) Insanahtsjmﬂhejeltmystematmppmcmome

. no I A -l - . n '. so: \ .' . .-.. Connecticut:
International Universities Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). W353i Connecticut: lntemational

Universities Press.

Krystal. H. (1988). mtegranonijeltbeahndAﬂecmLaummlexnbxmia.

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kumin l (1996) EmpiecLLelatednessLEarlunacbmemjndee
Wm New York: Guilford Press.

Kupper. D. S. (1992). Namssctmelfﬁsteemregulation. Doctoral

Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California.

LaFeniere, P. J., 8 Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Proﬁles of peer competence in
the preschool: lnterrelations between measures, inﬂuence of social ecology, and

relation to attachment history. WM 56-69.

Lax, R. F. (1975). Some comments of the narcissistic aspects of self-
righteousness. Defensive and structural considerations. W

W 283-292
Lewis, H. B. (1971). W New York: International

Universities Press.

Lewis, H. B. (1987). MW Hillsdale,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

76

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

strategies. W 48-61.

Main, M, 8 Hess, E. (1990). Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences
are related to infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or
frightening parental behavior the link mechanism? In M. T. Greenberg, D.

Cicchetti 8'5 M Cummin98(EdS)AttacbmemJn_tbe_pLesctiooLy_eaLs;lbeory.
wmp. 161- 182). Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

Masterson, JP. (1981). The Narcissistic and bordeﬂine disorders. New
York: Brunner/Mazelk.

Melges, F. T., 8Swartz, M. S. (1989). Oscillations of attachment in

borderline personality disorder. WW 1115-
1 120.

Mikulincer, M. Florian, V., 8 Tomacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and
fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. JgumaLQLEsLsQnaﬂty

andﬁociaLEsxcbology 58 273-280

Miller, A. (1979). The drama of the gifted child and the psycho-analyst’ s p.
narcissistic disturbance WW 47- 58

Miller, A. (1981a). Depression and grandiosity as related forms of

narcissistic disturbances. W 61-76.
Miller, A. (1981 b). Ihsﬁmmagﬂhggiﬂsdghﬂd, New York: Basic Books.
Miller, A. (1984). W New York: Farrar, Straus 8

Giroux.

Miller, S. (1985). Wage, Hillsdale, New Jersey: The

Analytic Press.

Modell, A. H. (1975). A narcissistic defense against affects and the illusion

of self-sufﬁciency WW 275-282

Modell, A. H. (1986). A narcissistic defense against affects and the illusion

of self-sufﬁciency. In A. P. Morrison (Ed. ), W
33233331, New York: New York University Press.

77

Morrison. A. P. (1989). W New Jersey:
The Analytic Press.

Morrison, A. P. (1996). W New York: Ballantine
Books.

Mullins, L. S., 8 Kopelman, R. E. (1988). Toward an assessment of the
construct validity of four measures of narcissism. Wain!
Assessmentﬂ 610-625.

Munro, A. (1969). Parent-child separation: Is it really a cause of

psychiatric illness in adult life? MW 598-603.

Nathanson, D. L. (Ed.). (1987). Ihimanmsssmnams, New York:
The Guilford Press.

Nathanson, 0- L- (1992). W
my. New York: W. W. Norton 8 Company.

Nunberg, H. (1931). The synthetic function of the ego. Intsmaﬁgnsl
MW 123-140.

O' Brien, M. L. (1987). Examining the dimensionality of pathological
narcissism. Factor analysis and construct validity of the O' Brien Multiphasic

Narcissism Inventory. W 499- 510.

O'Brien, M. L. (1988). Further evidence of the validity of the O'Brien
Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory. WM 879- 882.

Parkes, C. M. (1991). Attachment, bonding, and psychiatric problems after
bereavement in adult life. In Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J., 8 Marris, P.

(Eds). Attachmentacrossjneliiemle (pp. 269-291) New York:
TavistocklRoutledge.

Pistole, M. C. (1995). Adult attachment style and narcissistic vulnerability.
WW 12. 115- 126.

Raskin, R. N., 8Hall, C. S. (1979). Anarcissistic personalityinventory.
W590

Raskin, R., 8 Hall, C. C. (1981). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory:
Alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. 10.1.1an

W159 -162

78

Raskin, R., Novacek, J., 8 Hogan, R. (1991a). Narcissism, self-esteem,

and defensive self-enhancement. W 19-38.

Raskin, R., Novacek, J., 8 Hogan, P. (1991b). Narcissistic self-esteem

management JoumaLoLEeLsonalmLandﬁociaLEwbolongg. 911 -.918

Raskin, R., 8 Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the
narcissistic personality inventory and further evidence of its construct validity.

MW 890- 902.

Ricks, M. H. (1985). The social transmission of parental behavior.
Attachment across generations. Inl. Bretherton 8 E. Waters (Eds.,) gaming

'9 ' A!- Ill 1' h .1-1'. A ‘-. I “'1” -‘l ' l‘ ° \

W No. 209: Vol. 50. 211-227.
Rogers, C. (1961), WW], Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin

Company.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors

and resistance to psychiatric disorder. W451, 598-
61 1.

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

W 340- 356

Sandler, J., Person, E. S., 8 Fonaghy, P. (1991). W
AantLQdustjgriL New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sandler, J., 8 Rosenblatt, B. (1962). The concept of the representational
world WM 128-145

Schore. A. N. (1994). AﬂecLLeguIationandeeongincﬂnejelt.

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schwartz, C. S. (1991). Gender differences in narcissism: Shame,
grandiosity, object relations and measurement. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University. (University Microﬁlm).

Shaver, P, 8Hazan, C. (1987). Being lonely, falling in love
Perspectives from attachment theory. MW
Eensonalimzz. 105-124

79

Shaver, P. 8 Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love.
JourilamLSQQIaLailiEsLsonaLleatisnsbipsi 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.), W (pp. 68-99).| New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Shulman, D. G., 8 Ferguson, G. R. (1988a).An experimental investigation

of Kernberg's and Kohut's theories of narcissism. JgungjﬂjniQaLEsychglggy,
4_4_, 445-451.

Shulman, D. G, 8Ferguson, G. R. (1988b). Two methods of assessing

narcissism: Comparison of the N- P and the NPI.J_o_umsLQLQ[1msaLEsysLi_o_QQy,
44, 857- 866.

Simpson, J. R. (1990). Inﬂuence of attachment styles on romantic

relationships JoumatstﬂerssnaﬂﬂandﬁosjaLEsxcmlsngs. 971 -980

Sperling, M. B. 8 Berrnan, W. H. (1994). WWW
andﬁsyslopmsntalpsrspscmes. New York: Guilford Press.

Sperling, M. B. Foelsch, P, 8Grace, C. (in press). Measuring adult
attachment: Are self-report instruments congruent? WWW
Assessment.

Sroufe, S. L, 8 Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. an. W. Hartup8Z. Rubin (Eds.,) leatjmshinsand

Desslopmsnt. (pp 51-71)

Sroufe, L. A., 8 Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational
construct. W 1 184-1 199.

Steele, H. 8 Steele, M. (1994). lntergenerational patterns of attachment.

In K. Bartholomew8 D. Perlman (Eds), pp. 93-120, mm

WMMWMW London: Jessica
Langley Publishers.

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

Stern D (1985) Ibsmtsmsmnalmldoﬁbsintanmm
mmmummsmmmmNew York Basic Books lnc

80

Stem, D. (1989). Developmental prerequisites for the sense of a narrated
self. In A. M. Cooper, 0. F. Kernberg, 8 E. S. Person (Eds.),Bsy_c_llgsnslysis;

MW (pp. 168-178). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sullivan. H. S. (1953). Ibsmtsmsrssnaubsonmtpsxchjatry New York:
W. W. Norton 8 Company.

Symington, N. (1993). Wham, London: Karnac

Books.

Tomkins S S (1962) Aﬁsctjmagenmonscjousnessiolumeilbs
pgsnjmﬂsgjs, New York. Springer Publishing Company.

Tomkins S S (1963) Attecﬂmagsmssnssjousnsssslolumsulbs
nsgatmsaﬂscjs, New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Tomkins S S (1991) Aﬂectimagsnmonscjsusnsssgﬂuimsmlbe
W New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Tomkins S S (1892) Wisdom

H‘!-. ‘ I '1 - I 0 0| -_I-. -.l OIII-. 0] o I Olll- cI NewYork:
Springer Publishing Company.

Vaillant, G. E. (1985). Loss as metaphor for attachment. W31
sLEsxcboanalxsisAi. 59-67.

Vaillant, G. E. (1993). mm Cambridge: Harvard

University Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation
of brief measures of positive and negative affect. The PANAS Scales. mm

WW 1063- 1070.

Vlﬁlson, E. (1987). Shame and the other: Reﬂections on the theme of
shame in french psychoanalysis. In Nathanson, D.L. (Ed.), 1mm
sbsms (pp. 162-193). New York: Guilford Press.

Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. MW
SgsiaLEslcbolongL 590-597.

‘Ml‘nlCOttI D-W- (1965). Ibsmaturaﬂsnamecessssanthsiasiﬂtaﬂng
smimnmsm. Connecticut: lntemational Universities Press.

81

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Elsyingjngusaﬂty, New York: Rutledge.

Wright, F. O'Leary, J., 8 Balkin, J. (1989). Shame, guilt, narcissism, and

depression: Correlates and sex differences. WW3 217-
230.

Wurmser, L. (1987). Shame: The Veiled companion of narcissism. In

Nathanson, D. L. (Ed.), Wham (pp. 64-92). New York:

Guilford Press.

Wurmser, L. (1994). Ihgmsskgjsbsms, New Jersey: Jason Aronson.
(Original work published 1981).

nICHIGpN sran UNIV. LIBRARIES
IlliiWWilliIll“WWI“"NIHlilliiiliililllliiiiill
31293016883625