...
I. 9 Lit. I. b
I. . In!
3. .1. a.
t.

 

u. ”$.31”.—
.Ilmmwumulmrmvnodh
‘ .. . . .
.1434: . .JNr

51a.

‘17..
l:
Iv. v.

y in. be}... ..
_ 5.1.1.3.}..47Jn \.
z . “an... Littyral

. x. 399..

VULvl
. J. of.
. a“! t:
. {9|
. .1. .r ,5
3.5.1 1.!

n...
X: 2 ,
V J I}
.I. n? 11‘} ‘t.
3:15.313.
Nil." ’ 1"-
Ir . I.
.5 ‘ ‘
.0. {xv I
E: It»
Ilium;

big ‘
A ‘\l 5 11..

‘2 . ‘ ..
JAE». st... .l. .15,

‘v \! ilfﬂ. it.“
1.! ,1 2’1: . 1
r 33 v . 5.?

e Fungi-{C5

WWz,‘

(u
i

5‘1. "‘
ark. 1.. :3. .

gain...
! hvuwltnu

4:01“. . . ‘
3R .311..de .130
11,..Aunmrfu“ . A
is. ‘ .

53-2552!

.1 ,
33!.) .. Ilu

 

1. .
Jun“.
L....Ir.y.
.2: ‘

a in! v ‘
{NI-1r!

n

 

{1.54.1.1

K J thurﬂer... . .H :-
5”.st ....|? .34...) .

. Q. [(1.1 p
In . I . .‘1 .
.5. I: A

A
gal: ‘

THE

SIS

IIIIIHIIIWllllHINHUIHlllllllllllllllllHIIIIIIHIIHIW

93 02060404

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlversity

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

woo chlRC/DataDmpBS—p.“

 

 

DIMENSIONS OF ADULT ATTACHMENT, DEFENSIVE FUNCTIONING, AND
RECALLED CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
By

John H. Bergeron

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1 999

Relatim
as recall
the char
adults. l
QUESllOn
10 dcfcn:
maltreau
“'Ollld TC
defenseg'
allachmc:
RCSUIIS ft
beihcen l
immature

when.

ABSTRACT

DIMENSIONS OF ADULT ATTACHMENT, DEFENSIVE FUNCTIONING, AND
RECALLED CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS
By

John H. Bergeron

Relationships between dimensions of adult attachment and defense mechanisms as well
as recalled experiences from childhood were explored as a means of further delineating
the characteristics that are associated with the dimensions of avoidance and anxiety in
adults. Receiving credit for research participation, 164 college students responded to
questionnaires regarding their attitudes toward romantic relationships, behaviors related
to defensive functioning, perceptions of parenting styles, and experience of severe child
maltreatment. It was hypothesized that those students lower in avoidance and anxiety
would recall more positive experiences with care-givers, and would exhibit more mature
defenses. For the relationships between childhood environmental variables and
attachment dimensions, results were generally as expected although modest in size.
Results for attachment dimensions and defenses demonstrated the expected relationship
between lower avoidance/anxiety and more mature defenses. In addition, use of certain
immature defenses could be differentiated by their degree of engaging or distancing

others.

their a
the tic
methu
IO tran
this pr

fecdba

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Gary Stollak, Dr. Joel Aronoff, and Dr. Fred Lopez for
their assistance in completing this work. Dr. Lopez provided great assistance regarding
the ﬁelds of attachment and defenses. Dr. Aronoff was very helpful with my
methodology and encouraged me to critically analyze my results. Dr. Stollak helped me
to transform my original ideas into a workable thesis and provided support throughout
this project. I would also like to thank Sally for her encouragement, support, critical

feedback, and generous help.

iii

h—v—q p—q A _. _. __ .

METHO

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Defensive Processes ................................................................................................. 4
Attachment in Adults ............................................................................................... 6
Defenses and Attachment ......................................................................................... 8
Parental Nurturance and Dimensions of Adult Attachment ..................................... 9
Parenting Style and Dimensions of Adult Attachment .......................................... lO
Inter-parental Conﬂict and Dimensions of Adult Attachment ............................... 12

Child Maltreatment and Dimensions of Adult Attachment ................................... 13
Dimensions of Adult Attachment and Defensive Styles ........................................ 16
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 20
Parental nurturance predicting adult attachment dimensions. ................... 21

Parenting style predicting adult attachment dimensions. ........................... 21

Inter-parental conﬂict predicting adult attachment dimensions ................. 21

Child maltreatment predicting adult attachment dimensions ..................... 22

Adult attachment dimensions predicting defensive styles. ........................ 22

METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 24
Participants ............................................................................................................. 24
Measures ................................................................................................................ 24
Parental nurturance. ................................................................................... 24

Parental authority. ...................................................................................... 25

Childhood maltreatment ............................................................................. 25

Inter-parental conﬂict ................................................................................. 26

Adult attachment. ....................................................................................... 27

Defensive processes. .................................................................................. 27

Procedure ............................................................................................................... 28
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 3O
Demographics ........................................................................................................ 30

Main Analyses ....................................................................................................... 33
Childhood Environment and Adult Attachment .................................................... 33
Parental nurturance. ................................................................................... 33

Parenting style ............................................................................................ 34

Inter-parental conﬂict ................................................................................. 35

ll

IMSCL'

. 4 . L

APPENI

.. ‘1
dz. in. \u. 3.4. KW. ..

REFERE

Childhood maltreatment ............................................................................. 36

Attachment Dimensions and Defensive Styles ...................................................... 37
Defensive maturity. .................................................................................... 37

Speciﬁc defenses differing on avoidance ................................................... 39

Supplemental Analyses .......................................................................................... 41
Childhood Environment and Adult Attachment .................................................... 41
Childhood environment variables predicting avoidance ............................ 43

Childhood environment variables predicting anxiety. ............................... 45

Attachment Dimensions and Defensive Styles ...................................................... 46
Defensive maturity. .................................................................................... 46
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 50
Parental Nurturance and Adult Attachment ........................................................... 53
Parenting Styles and Adult Attachment ................................................................. 54
Inter-Parental Conﬂict and Adult Attachment ....................................................... 58

Child Maltreatment and Adult Attachment ............................................................ 60
Supplemental Childhood Analyses ........................................................................ 61

Adult Attachment and Defensive Functioning ...................................................... 63
Summary ................................................................................................................ 69
Limitations and Future Directions ......................................................................... 7O
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 73
Appendix A: Parental Nurturance Scale ................................................................ 74
Appendix B: Parental Authority Questionnaire ..................................................... 75
Appendix C: Children's Perceptions of Inter-parental Conﬂict ............................. 77
Appendix D: Childhood Trauma Questionnaire .................................................... 79
Appendix E: Experiences in Close Relationships .................................................. 82
Appendix F: Relationships Questionnaire ............................................................. 84
Appendix G: Defense Style Questionnaire- 40 item version ................................. 85
Appendix H: Tables ............................................................................................... 87
Appendix 1: Figures ............................................................................................. 117
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 1 19

 

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6;

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

 

Table 1 :

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

LIST OF TABLES

Sample Sizes for Age, Ethnicity. and Gender ............................. 88

Correlations between Demographic Variables and
Attachment and Defensive Maturity ........................................... 89

Correlations between Demographic Variables and
Childhood Environmental Variables ........................................... 90

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance with
Childhood Environmental Variables as the Dependent
Variables and Minority Status as the Independent Variable ....... 91

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance with
Attachment and Defensive Maturity as the Dependent
Variables and Minority Status as the Independent Variable ....... 92

Summary of Multivariate Analysis Of Variance with
Childhood Environmental Variables as the Dependent
Variables and Gender as the Independent Variable .................... 93

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance with
Attachment and Defensive Maturity as the Dependent
Variables and Gender as the Independent Variable .................... 94

Descriptive Statistics for Childhood Environmental
Variables, Attachment, and Defensive Functioning .................... 95

Correlations between Childhood Environmental
Variables and Adult Attachment ................................................. 96

vi

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 13’

Table 19

 

 

 

Table 10:

Table 1 1:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Correlations between Adult Attachment and Defensive
Functioning ................................................................................. 97

Intercorrelations between Childhood Environment Variables 98

Intercorrelations of Recomputed Child Environment Variables. 99

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 100

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 101

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 102

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 103

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 104

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Avoidance .................................................................. 105

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for
Age, Anxiety, and Positive Parenting Predicting Avoidance ..... 106

vii

Table 3

Table 3

Table I

Table 33

Table 24

Table 25

Table 26.

T9b27

Table 28

Tab1629

 

Table 20:

Table 21:

Table 22:

Table 23:

Table 24:

Table 25:

Table 26:

Table 27:

Table 28:

Table 29:

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... 107

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... 108

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... 109

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... 110

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... l 1 1

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Childhood Environment variables
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... 1 12

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Physical/Emotional Maltreatment
Predicting Anxiety ...................................................................... l 13

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Anxiety Predicting Mature Defenses ................ 114

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Anxiety Predicting Neurotic Defenses .............. 1 15

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age,
Avoidance, and Anxiety Predicting Immature Defenses ............ 116

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Defense Maturity by Attachment controlling for Age ................ 118

Introduction

The goal of this study was to examine characteristics of college undergraduates'
memories Of the early family environment that were hypothesized to be associated with
the different types Of adult attachment, as well as to identify characteristics of defensive
functioning utilized among those with different attachment styles. The characteristics of
the childhood familial environment examined included memories of parental warmth and
parental authority style, existence and degree of conﬂict between parents, and occurrence
of child maltreatment.

The present study attempted to identify characteristics Of the early familial
environment that may be associated with speciﬁc attachment patterns in young adults. If
a child develops an insecure attachment style because of his or her experience with a
poorly attuned caregiver, then that caregiver/infant relationship may exhibit other
negative characteristics that pervade the child's family environment. Knowledge of these
characteristics, and how they may be associated with speciﬁc patterns of attachment,
would be useful in expanding the scope of attachment theory and understanding the
active components of these negative characteristics.

Research on attachment theory has demonstrated a link between being securely
attached as infants and better mental health from infancy into childhood (Main &
Cassidy, 1988) with similar ﬁndings in adulthood. Those who possess an insecure
attachment style are more likely to report emotional distress, physiological reactivity
(Spangler & Grossman, 1993) or exhibit psychopathology (Brennan & Shaver, 1998;

Fonagy et al., 1996; Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Simpson, 1990; Stalker & Davies, 1995).

The development of attachment styles is thought to be a direct result of the
interactions of infants with their primary caregivers (Bowlby, 1969). This interaction
may be affected by infant and parent temperament as well as other personal
characteristics, but it is believed that the actual care-giving experience greatly determines
the style of attachment a child will develop. A caregiver who is less attuned to infant
needs, or is inconsistent in responding to those needs, is assumed to contribute to a
greater likelihood of his/her child developing an insecure attachment. Bowlby suggests
that the infant who is not consistently attended to learns to defensively exclude from
awareness its needs for the caregiver. Much work has demonstrated this link between a
poorly attuned caregiver infant bond and the development Of maladaptive attachment
styles (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Crittenden, 1992; Lyons-Ruth &
Block, 1996).

Since the development of maladaptive attachment patterns is presumably due to
the characteristics of the infant's relationship to caregiver, other familial characteristics
should be associated with the different patterns Of attachment. Research on adult
attachment need not make the assumption that adults maintain the same attachment styles
from infancy into adulthood (Grifﬁn & Bartholomew, 1994); however, this is a point of
interest and one that highlights the need to broaden the scope of work that assesses the
family of origin variables in relation to adult attachment. Examination of childhood
environment variables in relation to adult attachment may indicate any lasting impact
they have on development into adulthood. Further, because one's attachment style to the
caregiver and types of defense mechanisms are both responses to potentially

unmanageable conﬂict, (i.e., activation Of an attachment organizational strategy can in

itself inv
common

Familx' l?

caregiver
inter-pare
recurrent
attachme:

(‘.
emotiona '
almost 8f ’
Statistical,
large natty
"mince i
Pembﬁnb.‘

0:
times;
health~ bl.”
Parenting

demOHStr-L;

$3165 Ion,
I

[1169100 or

Maj-[m2 .

 

 

itself involve defensive exclusion) it seems plausible that both would develop along
common pathways.
F_amilv Environment Variakbles

Certain familial characteristics may be of interest in homes where infant and
caregiver are not attuned. These characteristics may include existence and degree of
inter-parental conﬂict, variations in parental warmth, parental authority style, and
occurrence of abuse. This study measured these variables in relation to measures of
attachment patterns and to each other.

Conﬂict between parents has been studied with respect to its impact on the
emotional health of children who are exposed to this conﬂict. A recent review found that
almost 80% of studies measuring marital conﬂict and child behavior problems found
statistically signiﬁcant relations between the two (Grych & Fincham, 1990). A recent
large national study (N =900) found that inter-parental conﬂict accounted for 20% of the
variance in child behavior problems (Buehler, Krishnakumar, Stone, Anthony,
Pemberton, & Gerard, 1998).

Other research (Buri, 1989; Buri, Murphy, Richtsmeier & Komar, 1992) has
hypothesized that it is not marital conﬂict, per se, that inﬂuences children's emotional
health, but what the presence of marital conﬂict may suggest about the quality of
parenting. Speciﬁcally, parents with a high degree of marital conﬂict are hypothesized to
demonstrate less parental warmth or nurturance, and possess more authoritarian parenting
styles toward their children than parents who do not experience marital conﬂict. This
method of assessing care-giving style is in line with Baumrind's (1971) typology of

parenting which suggests that authoritative care-giving, in which the parent is involved,

not domineering, and allows input from children into family issues, is associated with
better adjustment in children than care-giving styles which are authoritarian or
permissive. There is some support for the idea that parental qualities may determine
marital conﬂict, care-giving style, and degree of warmth expressed toward children
(Pawlak & Klein, 1997).

The impact of child abuse (sexual, physical, and neglect) has been well
docmnented in the literature. While some research demonstrates that a majority Of
victims may not exhibit lasting effects of the abuse, there does appear to be a relationship
between the experience of abuse and poorer mental health (Kendall-Tackett, Williams, &
Finkelhor, 1993; Weaver & Clum, 1993). For example, a recent meta-analysis Of 59
studies (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998) using college samples revealed that
students who reported a history of childhood sexual abuse were slightly less well adjusted
than controls. However, the authors attributed this to poorer family environments which
were confounded with child sexual abuse. Further, family environment accounted for
more variance in student adjustment than did the recalled experience of childhood sexual
abuse. Given that parental warmth, parenting style, conﬂict between parents and
experiences of child abuse have been suggested to impact later view of self and emotional
adjustment, it may be beneﬁcial to assess them together in relation to adult attachment.
Defensive Processes

Defensive functioning has been associated with psychological health (Cramer,
1997; Erickson, Feldman, & Steiner, 1997; Vaillant, 1977) and psychopathology (Steiner
& Feldman, 1995; Tuulio-Henrikson, Poikolainen, Aalto—Setala, & Lonnqvist, 1997).

While exact deﬁnitions of speciﬁc defenses differ among theorists and empirical

assessment of defenses follows many different classiﬁcation systems (Guldberg,
Hoglend, & Perry, 1993), research has suggested that people who utilize more mature
defense mechanisms (e.g. suppression, humor, altruism) are more likely to be emotionally
healthy, whereas those who use less mature defenses (e.g. projection, acting out,
hypochondriasis) are more likely to experience emotional distress and pathology
(Brennan, Andrews, Morris-Yates, & Pollock, 1990; Vaillant, 1977). Speciﬁc types of
defenses have been associated with speciﬁc types of disorders (Smith, Thienemann, &
Steiner, 1992; Tauschke, Merskey, & Helmes, 1990), and an increased use of immature
defenses such as dissociation in undergraduates has been associated with a history of
child abuse (DiTomasso & Routh, 1993). Immature defenses (of expectant mothers and
their partners assessed prenatally) predicted marital dissatisfaction in the ﬁrst postpartum
year (Ungerer, Waters, Barnett, & Dolby, 1997).

However, there is little, if any, empirical data that comprehensively examines
relationships among maturity of defensive functioning, speciﬁc types of defenses, and
patterns of attachment. In the present study, it was hypothesized that the characteristic
types of defenses that one uses should be associated with different patterns of attachment
because both develop from an early age, are both mostly out of conscious control of the
user, are determined in part with the conﬂicts the infant, child, and adult face, and are
ways of managing interpersonal and intrapersonal conﬂict. For example, while the
dismissing child may not consciously disavow the importance of relationships with others
to protect a fragile ego, this could be done automatically so that the ego is unaware of a
need for intimate contact with others. Similarly, defenses, theoretically, are utilized to

protect the ego from the awareness of intrapsychic conﬂict (Freud, 1946).

Attachment in Adults

Some attachment theory and research, as applied to adults, suggests that current
romantic relationships, and relationships to parents, usually reﬂect the same attachment
tendencies that the infant ﬁrst displayed (Grifﬁn & Bartholomew, 1994). Other work has
demonstrated that this child's attachment style remains relatively stable into mid-
childhood (Main & Cassidy, 1988; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Unfortunately
longitudinal research does not yet exist to conﬁrm the hypothesis that these same children
will maintain their same attachment style into adulthood.

Recently, research on adult attachment has focused on alternate three category and
four category models that parallel similar measurement systems for children as well as
dimensions that underlie these categories. The four-fold categorical model has the
advantage that each category may be mapped onto the two dimensions of approach
toward others and anxiety over abandonment. The two dimensions, which underlie the
four category model, concern the view of self and view of others (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). Alternatively, they may be viewed along the dimensions Of anxiety
concerning abandonment by others and style Of interacting with others, through approach
or avoidance. In adults, the four-category model is conceptualized as the secure
attachment style and three insecure styles (dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful). The
secure attachment style is demonstrated in people who approach relationships with
positive expectations about the value of being in a close relationship. They expect that
they can trust their partner and can gain enjoyment and ﬁilﬁllment from relationships.
People are seen as caring and trustworthy. That is, the securely attached person holds a

positive view of self and others, and trusts relationships rather than fear abandonment and

proat
charaet
jealous
relatior
meeting
attachrr
high ap'
negatin
others a
potentia
appears
idealize
Viewing
dismissi
is. the di
Similarli
abandom
l
POSSessj
PTEOCCII
dim-cm:
Others' .

Olherg' ‘

 

approach rather than avoid intimacy (Simpson, 1990). The preoccupied style is
characterized by the adult who is described as confused, anxious, clinging, dependent,
jealous and highly expressive of emotions (Alexander, 1992). They are preoccupied with
relationships, always wary Of abandonment and concerned with the degree that others are
meeting their relationship needs. In the alternative two-dimensional approaches to
attachment, they possess high anxiety with regard to abandonment and low avoidance (or
high approach) of others; alternatively they possess a positive view of others and a
negative view of self (Grifﬁn & Bartholomew, 1994). This drives their approach of
others as well as their eventual dissatisfaction with relationships. They see others as
potentially satisfying, but not dependable. The dismissing avoidant relationship pattern
appears in people who do not value, and avoid, emotional closeness. They tend to
idealize their parents but cannot recall much of their childhood experience. When
viewing the adult dismissing attachment style along the two dimensional approaches, the
dismissing is seen as possessing a positive view of self and negative view of others. That
is, the dismissing adult does not look to others as a source of emotional security.
Similarly, the dismissing is seen as possessing a low degree of anxiety over
abandonment, and a high avoidance coping behavior.

The fearful adult is characterized as unassertive and socially inhibited and while
possessing no systematic strategy to attain attachment goals, exhibits a combination of
preoccupied and avoidant behaviors (Grifﬁn & Bartholomew, 1994). Along the two
dimensional approaches to attachment, they possess a negative view of self as worthy of
others' support and thus high anxiety regarding abandonment, and a negative view of

others' ability to provide support resulting in avoidance of others. Some research on adult

attachment that uses the three-category system may demonstrate more illuminating
results when viewed in four categories with their dimensional advantage.

Similarly, as performed in this study, by statistically assessing attachment
dimensions, continuous information is maintained that would be lost when lumping
participants into categories. Further, analysis of the dimensions Of avoidance and anxiety
may provide more information as to the speciﬁc internal working models and behaviors
in relationships that researchers allude to when they refer to styles of attachment.
Defenses and Attachment

With regard to the relationship between defenses and attachment styles, two
questions need to be addressed: do the different patterns of attachment exhibit differential
maturity and use of speciﬁc defenses, and do defenses enact or protect against the
attachment model of self and other? Vaillant's ( l 993) categorization Of defenses
classiﬁes them from pathological to adaptive, via the categories Psychotic, Immature,
Neurotic, and Mature. Vaillant distinguishes Psychotic defenses as those which deal with
distortions Of external reality, Immature defenses focus on the distortion Of relationships
with others and Neurotic defenses distort internal perception. Mature defenses don't
distort or cutoff the source of conﬂict as much as they channel the source of conﬂict into
positive outcomes. Therefore Immature defenses, focusing on the distortion of
relationships, are experienced negatively by others. In the present study it was
hypothesized that a determining factor in the level of defense use is the view of self. A
negative view of self and attendant high fear of abandonment promotes the use of
defenses that engage others in the user's psychic conﬂict, the Immature defenses. A

positive view of self and low fear of abandonment is reﬂected in the use of defenses that

do not negatively impact others. Similarly, it was hypothesized that whether defenses
enact or protect against the user's attachment model of self and other is dependent on
one's view of self. A negative view of self must be defended against, however, a positive
view Of self need only defenses that consciously maintain that view.

The question that follows is: What impact does one's view Of others have on
defense utilization? It was hypothesized, in the present study, that the attachment model
of others is characterized as positive if others are seen as capable Of providing emotional
support and negative if they are not. Thus one's mode of approaching or avoiding others
is reﬂected in defenses that promote contact and recognition by others versus those that
promote distance or do not involve others. This is separate from the distinction that
Immature defenses punish others. Defenses of any maturity can approach or distance
other people.

Parental Nurturance and Dimensions of Adult Attachment

The experience of frequent nurturing interactions with caregivers is expected to
produce the sense that approaching others results in emotional soothing. The caregiver
who adequately attends to infant's attachment needs is expected to have a positive view of
relating toward their children and takes an active encouraging role in raising their
children (Alexander, 1992). Parental nurturance, or warmth expressed towards children,
has been found to be related to elementary school aged children's self-esteem (R2 > 50%)
and to a lesser degree (but still large) to high school students and undergraduates (n=365)
(R2 < 40%) (Buri et al., 1992). Parents who do not attend to their infants' emotional
crises should exhibit other characteristics that dismiss emotional experiences as they

parent their children. Parental responses which reject children's bids for emotional

comfort are consistent with the experience of low parental warmth. This lack Of succor
from others would promote an internal working model that others are not emotionally
helpful or reliable. Therefore, parental nurturance was expected to correlate negatively
with avoidance, and no speciﬁc hypothesis is made regarding abandonment anxiety.

Viewing this from the categorical perspective suggests that those styles high in
avoidance, dismissings and fearfuls experienced less parental warmth than preoccupieds
and secures. Since the preoccupied is concerned with receiving adequate warmth from
intimate others, it would seem reasonable that they experienced more warmth from
parents, than their dismissing and fearful counterparts, albeit inconsistently. While
preoccupied parents are inconsistently psychologically unavailable, they at times would
be expected to have expressed more warmth than dismissing parents who are more
consistent in the rejection and denial of parental support. Parents of the preoccupied
would have to express some amount of warmth to their child in order for that child to
expect, albeit unreliably, emotional comfort in and from others.
Parenting Sgle and Dimensions Of Adult Attachment

Authoritative parenting was hypothesized to correlate negatively with both
avoidance and anxiety. The ﬁrm but fair parental authority produces conﬁdence in the
parent’s care-giving, and the verbal give and take allowing for the child’s input fosters a
positive model of self. Thus, it may be most related to the development of a secure adult
instead of the insecure styles. Buri (1989) demonstrated that both care-giving style and
parental nurturance (measured via student self-report) were related to self-esteem in a
sample of 128 undergraduates. Authoritative care-giving was positively related to self-

esteem, while authoritarian care-giving was inversely related to undergraduates' self-

10

esteem. However, in regression analyses on a sample of 64 undergraduates, Buri,
Kirchner, and Walsh (1987) demonstrated that perceptions of parental nurturance may in
fact be more predictive of self-esteem than perceptions of care-giving, or parental
authority, style.

Authoritarian parenting was hypothesized to be positively correlated with
avoidance and negatively correlated with anxiety. Caregivers of avoidantly attached
children have been described as controlling and insensitively intrusive during the child's
free play (Lyons—Ruth & Block, 1996). This is consistent with a more authoritarian
parenting approach, which involves a high level of control and the negation of input from
children. As deﬁned by Batunrind (1971), authoritarian parents value obedience to set
standards Of conduct, do not believe in verbal give and take with children, and dismiss the
impact of their rules on children's emotional experience. Just as the authoritarian parent
dismisses the concerns of their child’s input to parenting matters, the dismissing adult is
most likely to have suppressed anxiety regarding conﬂicts with their parent and learned to
avoid their rule enforcing parent. Authoritarian parenting then may be more likely to
foster a dismissing attachment than other categorical styles.

Permissive parenting was expected to be positively correlated with abandonment
anxiety. It is suggested that adults who fear that others may leave them, experienced as
children, fear at not knowing if their parent was a real protector and caregiver, given the
lack of direction and instruction offered by the permissive parent. The permissive style is
a less controlling care-giving style than either authoritative or authoritarian care—giving.
While permissive parents do not exert ﬁrm control over their children, Baumrind (1971)

Observed that these parents do experience anger over the loss Of parental control.

Permissive parents demonstrate warmth toward their children but operate under the
assumption that they are not responsible for actively instructing and guiding their child
(Baumrind). This may leave the child wishing for such guidance and care. Whether the
child of a permissive parent learns to approach or avoid others may be determined by
other variables such as amount of parental warmth. A very highly nurturant permissive
parent may produce a preoccupied adult, whereas, if nurturance is low, then the child may
tend toward avoiding the parent, producing a fearful adult.
Inter-omega] Conﬂict and Dimensions of Adult Attachment

Inter-parental conﬂict in general was expected to be positively correlated with
both avoidance and anxiety. If the mother or father is able to successfully attend to infant
needs, then they are more apt to be able to act similarly in their marriage. Some research
has suggested that securely attached parents tend to select securely attached mates
(Crittenden, Partridge, & Claussen, 1991). Meanwhile, they may be more likely to be
married to someone who is also successful at managing inter-parental conﬂict. However,
recent research by Pawlak and Klein (1997) on 122 college students suggests that
parenting style and existence or absence of parental warmth may in fact be more central
to a child's later mental health than presence of inter-parental conﬂict. The various
components Of inter-parental conﬂict, however, are expected to differentially inﬂuence
the dimensions of avoidance and anxiety. The frequency and intensity of the conﬂict was
expected to produce a tendency Of avoidance of others, ﬁrst parents. Because the child is
in a rather helpless position in face of conﬂict between parents, a high degree of parental
conﬂict is thought to produce an avoidance strategy in the child, or categorically, the

dismissing or fearful adults.

Conﬂict between parents that results in child’s self-blame was expected to
produce abandonment anxiety. Any anger the child feels when parents ﬁght, is put back
on the self, resulting in a model of the bad self, and maintaining a positive view Of others.
Therefore, self blame should be positively correlated with anxiety.

Inter-parental conﬂict that produces threat to the child was expected to result in
both increased avoidance and anxiety. The child views the self as bad, thus justifying the
threat. Among a group of 215 undergraduates, assessed by Grych, Seid, and Fincham's
(1992) Children's Perceptions of Inter-parental Conﬂict scale (which identiﬁes three
factors Conﬂict Properties, Perceived Threat, and Self-Blame that have demonstrated
differential impact in predicting behavioral adjustment problems), threat was found to be
related to self-esteem, competence, and identity integration whereas the properties of
conﬂict were only related to competence (Bickham & Fiese, 1997). Thus, threat to the
self seems to have a negative impact on one's model of self. Bowlby (1973) saw parental
quarrels as episodes that imply the threat of abandonment by a caretaker as a possible
result of quarrels and that this contributes to anxious attachments. Further, if the child
feels threatened as a result of conﬂict between parents, they are unlikely to view parents
as emotionally supportive during these times. Rather, the child would tend to avoid
parents.

Child Maltreatment and Dimensions of Adult Attachment

Different forms of extreme child maltreatment can have differential impact on the
child’s sense of self and others. Physical abuse was hypothesized to be positively
correlated with avoidance and negatively correlated with anxiety. Just as with the

authoritarian parenting style, the child in this home learns to avoid the physical abuser

l3

and dismisses the importance of their own attachment needs toward this parent. In the
home of the dismissingly attached child, conﬂict goes ignored but unresolved. However,
any transgressions of these rules are more likely to be punished than in other homes.
Therefore dismissing young adults are expected to be more likely to recall having
experienced physical maltreatment than neglect or sexual abuse. Gauthier, Stollak,
Messé, and Aronoff (1996) reported an association between college students who recalled
experiencing physical abuse as children and dismissing attachments.

Neglect was expected to produce the opposite pattern, with high anxiety and low
avoidance. The child is left wanting more from others and seeks out attachment needs
from the parent who does not demonstrate enough interest in the child. The neglected
child’s model of the self is negative; they justify the lack of parental attention by viewing
the self as unworthy, allowing their parent to remain good. Neglect is more consistent
with a psychologically unavailable, but not overtly rejecting parent, preoccupied with
their own attachment issues, than direct physical or sexual abuse. The inconsistent
subtlety of psychological unavailability activates the preoccupied's concern with wanting
caregiver's love but alternately hating it or experiencing it as unpredictable. In a sample
of 512 college students, Gauthier et a1. (1996) reported more severe psychological
problems and resistant (preoccupied) attachments among students who recalled
occurrence of neglect than those students who reported experiencing physical abuse as
children. In parallel stepwise regression they found neglect (F=12.96, p<.001, R2 change
= .14) to be a stronger predictor than physical abuse (F = 3.96, p<.05, R2 change = .02) of
resistant (anxious-ambivalent or preoccupied) attachment. However, neglect (F=11.56,

p<.001, R2 change = .15) also predicted avoidant attachment more strongly than physical

l4

abuse (F =6.76, p<.01, R2 change = .03). Based on these results it appears that neglect
was as likely to predict avoidant attachment as it was resistant attachment. It may be
useful to view this data using the dimensions of avoidance and anxiety, which parallels
the four category model of adult attachment, in order to further differentiate the common
characteristics demonstrated in this sample between avoidant and resistant attachments.

While these two attachment styles are regarded as representing opposing
strategies for relating to important others (F raley & Shaver, 1997), the overlap seen in
this sample may be illuminated when those subjects who may be more appropriately
categorized as fearful are removed from the two other insecure attachment groups. The
three-category attachment model may map onto the attachment dimensions or the four-
category model with some rotation involved (Fuendeling, 1996; Grifﬁn & Bartholomew,
1994) and therefore may account for some ﬁndings where avoidants and preoccupieds
show some overlap, which in the dimensional model may be better accounted for by
those high in both avoidance and anxiety. The addition of sexual abuse as a predictor
may also further differentiate the characteristics Of child maltreatment that may impact
attachment styles into adulthood.

Sexual abuse, however, is such an invasive threat to the child, that it was expected
to result in both avoidance and anxiety. This child seeks to avoid the offender, and
usually cannot resulting in a profound sense of helplessness. But this child’s model of
self should also be negative. As the object of both hatred and attention, the sexually
abused child may be left very unsure about their own worthiness, or merely valued as an
object. It is hypothesized that the fearful child, higher in both avoidance and anxiety, in

is more likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse rather than other forms of

15

child abuse. This form of child abuse is potentially most damaging to the view of self as
the conﬂicting signals may be sent to the child during abuse, that of simultaneous
approval and hatred or indifference. Stalker and Davies (1995) measured attachment
styles among a group of 40 inpatient women who reported experiencing childhood sexual
abuse. When looking at their attachment patterns in the original three category model
(secure, avoidant, and preoccupied), 68% of these women demonstrated a preoccupied
attachment style; when the four category model (secure, avoidant, preoccupied, and
unresolved (fearful)) was assessed 80% of the women were classiﬁed as unresolved
(fearful) with respect to trauma or attachment. This highlights not only the high
likelihood of children who experience sexual abuse to exhibit a fearful attachment, but
also the commonalties between the preoccupied and fearful attachment styles. However,
this sample was comprised of women with Borderline Personality Disorder and therefore
it is quite possible that women who were sexually abused but possessed either an
avoidant or secure attachment pattern would be less likely to be found in this psychiatric
inpatient sample.
Dimensions of Adult Attachment and Defensive Styles

Those college students lower in avoidance and anxiety were expected to utilize
the most mature defense mechanisms. Their positive model of self and others allows for
defenses that protect the self in adaptive ways. Thus, avoidance and anxiety should be
negatively correlated with the use of mature defenses. These defenses can be considered
more adaptive than pathological and turn the user's internal conﬂict into beneﬁt for user
and observer alike (V aillant, 1993). Examples of mature defenses in Vaillant's

classiﬁcation include suppression, humor, anticipation, and sublimation. For example,

16

one who uses suppression is aware of an impulse that causes conﬂict but postpones acting
to gratify the impulse, choosing to ignore it while maintaining awareness Of this conﬂict.
From the user's perspective the attachment model of positive self and other are met;
likewise from the perspective of external reality, the same outcome is true. It was
hypothesized that the positive view Of self vitiates the need to punish others; there is no
fear of abandonment, thus no need to reproach others. Further, it was hypothesized that
the positive view of others allows the use of defenses that engage with and beneﬁt others.
The user’s humor is appreciated by both the user and observer.

Neurotic defenses were expected to be correlated positively with avoidance and
negatively with abandonment anxiety. These college students’ positive view of self
vitiates the need for more immature defenses that relate to one’s relationships with others.
That is, their ego-syntonic positive view Of self and low fear of abandonment eliminates
the need to engage or punish others in their psychic struggle. Their defenses should be
more related to maintaining their dismissal of the importance of others, and restate their
own achievement oriented, non-affective self view (Mikulincer, 1998). Fraley and
Shaver (1997) demonstrated that dismissing avoidant college students, when asked to
suppress thoughts of their romantic partner leaving them for someone else, were
successfully able to deactivate their attachment system as compared to preoccupied
students. Neurotic defenses deal more with internal conﬂict than with signiﬁcant others
and therefore do not negatively affect others who observe them such as undoing,
idealization, and reaction formation. This is consistent with the fourfold typology of
attachment, where the dismissing avoidant style has a positive view of self and therefore

need not distort self perception, but removes the feeling of needing others, who cannot be

17

depended upon. Adults possessing dismissing attachments are described as being unable
to recall many speciﬁc details from childhood yet they idealize their parents (Alexander,
1992). Further, the very renunciation of the importance of support from others by the
dismissing is an example of reaction formation. It is the transformation from "I need
others' support" to "I don't need others' support." While a positive view of self and low
fear of abandonment free the dismissing from utilizing defenses which punish others,
their negative view of others' ability to provide support determines the withdrawing
quality of these defenses. Others are not hurt by these defenses, and these defenses do
not encourage others to engage the user. From the dismissing user's point Of view, these
defenses maintain the attachment model of self and other. While these students,
possessing a dismissing attachment style, have made an early compromise that others are
not valued, and the self is positive, their conﬂict is essentially resolved when compared to
the other insecure styles. They do not need to seek out others, only maintain their
defensively positive self view.

Those college students higher in abandonment anxiety were expected to utilize
immature defenses. These defenses are relationship oriented. It was hypothesized that
this high anxiety over abandonment, in part, is demonstrated by defenses which involve
others. In Vaillant's (1993) categorization of defenses the category of Immature defenses
focuses on the distortion of relationships with others. Because these students possess a
negative self-view, they experience greater emotional stress in relationships requiring less
mature defensive styles. Given that the core self is negative, they must use defenses that
protect this damaged self in relation to others. The preoccupied adult must seek care of

their negative self in the sustenance of others, thus using immature defenses that approach

18

or engage others in their conﬂict. This conﬂict, over others' hold on the preoccupied self,
engages those with whom the user is at fear of losing. An Immature defense's effect may
annoy or punish the other but it otherwise engages others in the user's psychic conﬂict.
For example Lopez, F uendeling, Thomas, and Sagula (1997) found that preoccupied and
fearful college students reported higher levels of splitting than did avoidants and secures.
Therefore, immature defenses that approach others such as acting out, dissociation, and
somatization, were expected to be positively correlated with anxiety and negatively
correlated with avoidance. For example, in acting out the user feels omnipotent and
others devalued, yet in effect this is self destructive behavior generalized toward anyone
or thing perceived to be of value and therefore in need of destroying. The true object of
hatred usually goes unpunished (Vaillant, 1993). These speciﬁc immature defenses
promote the active intervention of others and, as immature defenses, others are affected
negatively by them. Someone who is acting out is often punished or otherwise
encouraged to change their behavior. Other's attention and sympathy toward but rejected
by persons who are frequently and intensely concerned with physical symptoms are an
integral part of the defense's enactment. While the effect in objective reality punishes
both self and other, from the user's point Of view, the self is seen as good, defending
against unacceptable feelings of abandonment and the attachment model of self as bad.
Conversely, the fearful adult must protect the damaged self from the rejection of
others, thereby utilizing immature defenses that isolate the self from others. Therefore,
the immature defenses that isolate the self from others, such as fantasy, passive
aggression, and projection, were expected to be positively correlated with both avoidance

and anxiety. Fearful young adults, designated by a negative view of self and attendant

l9

high fear of abandonment, are more likely than dismissing and secure attachments to
exhibit immature defenses, which in part express resentment regarding feelings of
abandonment. Immature defenses negatively affect others, and in so doing, they actualize
the user's resentment over not receiving support from others. These defenses include
fantasy, passive aggression, and projection. For example, in passive aggression, the user
denies any signiﬁcance to the action other than as a joke, even though both user and the
target are punished. In fantasy, the user withdraws bringing the world inward and enacts
plays of omnipotence. Again, however, the people co-opted into this fantasy feel the
absence of the user. While from the user's perspective these defenses defend against an
attachment model of self as bad, their model of others as incapable of providing
emotional support determines the withdrawing quality of these speciﬁc immature
defenses. Users of projection avoid their imagined persecutors.
Hymtheses

Attachment styles, characteristics of the familial environment, and defensive
functioning have all demonstrated relationships with emotional health and
psychopathology. However, these three areas require more exploration in regard to their
relationships to each other in order to expand understanding of the characteristics of the
speciﬁc dimensions of attachment. Assessing these constructs at the point of young
adulthood should potentially indicate which of the previous familial experiences

demonstrate a lasting inﬂuence on attachment dimensions and defensive functioning.

20

 

Parental nurturance predicting adult attachment dimensions.
Hypothesis 1:
Parental nurturance would be negatively correlated with avoidance.
Parenting style predictinﬂdult attachment dimensions.
Hypothesis 2a:
Authoritative parenting would be negatively correlated with avoidance and
anxiety.
Hypothesis 2b:
Authoritarian parenting would be positively correlated with avoidance and
negatively correlated with anxiety.
Hypothesis 20:
Permissive parenting would be positively correlated with anxiety.
Inter-parental conﬂict predicting adult attachment dimensions.
Hypothesis 3a:
Conﬂict properties such as frequency and intensity would be positively correlated
with avoidance.
Hypothesis 3b:
Conﬂict that produces self-blame would be positively correlated with anxiety.
Hypothesis 3c:
Conﬂict that produces threat to the self would be positively correlated with

avoidance and anxiety.

2|

Child maltreatment predicting adult attachment dimensions.
Hypothesis 4a:

Physical abuse would be positively correlated with avoidance and negatively
correlated with anxiety.
Hypothesis 4b:

Neglect would be negatively correlated with avoidance and positively correlated
with anxiety.

Hypothesis 4c:
Sexual abuse would be positively correlated with avoidance and anxiety.
Adult attachment dimensions predicting defensive styles.

Hypothesis 5a:

Mature defenses would be negatively correlated with avoidance and anxiety.
Hypothesis 5b:

Neurotic defenses would be positively correlated with avoidance and negatively
correlated with anxiety.

Hypothesis 5c:

Immature defenses would be positively correlated with anxiety.
Hypothesis 5d:

The Immature defenses acting out, dissociation, and somatization would be
positively correlated with anxiety and negatively correlated with avoidance.
Hypothesis 5c:

The Immature defenses fantasy, passive aggression, and projection would be

positively correlated with avoidance and anxiety.

22

While maturity level of defenses is thought to increase with age, most of these
young adults may demonstrate more mature or neurotic defenses than immature defenses.
However, the above hypotheses related to defense do not address which levels of defense
will be utilized most. Rather they address, within a given defense maturity level, which
students, based on their attachment dimensions, will utilize that level’s defenses the most.

Similarly, while differences are expected between mother’s and father’s assessed
parenting characteristics and this may impact participants attachment styles or defensive

functioning, no speciﬁc hypotheses were made with regard to these possible differences.

23

Method

Participants

Participants were 164 undergraduates at Michigan State University who
completed study questionnaires in order to fulﬁll their research participation requirement.
There were 39 males and 125 females. 60 percent of participants were either 19 or 20
years old. 84.1% of participants were Caucasian, 6.7% African-American, 2.4% were
Hispanic/Latino, 3.7% Asian-American, and the ﬁnal 1.8% classiﬁed themselves among
other ethnicities. 70.1% of participants reported that their parents were married to each
other, and the remaining participants’ parents were either divorced or separated.
Measures

Parental nurturance.

Parental nurturance or warmth was assessed using the Parental Nurturance Scale
(PNS) (Buri, Louiselle, Misukanis, & Mueller, 1988). The PNS is a 24 item Likert type
(1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) self-report scale that administered to subjects
who evaluate the warmth of either parent. Sample questions include “My mother
expressed her warmth and affection for me” measuring warmth, and “My mother does not
understand me” assessing lack of warmth or empathy. Coefﬁcient alpha, on 156 college
students were .95 and .93 for mother's nurturance and father's nurturance respectively
(Buri, 1989). Two week test-retest reliabilities on 85 college students were .95 and .94
respectively (Buri, 1989). Internal consistency for the current sample was alpha = .97.
Scores were obtained by averaging all items. A higher score indicates subject report of

more parental nurturance. See Appendix A for a copy of this measure.

24

Parental authority.

Parental care-giving style was measured using the Parental Authority
Questionnaire (PAQ) (Buri, 1991). The PAQ is a 30 item Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) self-report measure that can be answered with regard to
mother's or father's patterns of parenting. Buri developed the PAQ to identify care-giving
styles based on Baumrind's three main parenting styles of authoritative, authoritarian, and
permissive parenting. Each statement represents a characteristic of one of the three
authority styles (e. g. authoritative: “As I was growing up, my mother gave me clear
direction for my behaviors and activities, but she was also understanding when I
disagreed with her”). The PAQ was norm tested on 108 high school juniors and seniors
and 171 college students. Coefﬁcient alphas, on 185 college students ranged from .74 to
.87. Test-retest reliability on 61 undergraduates ranged from .77 to .92 (Buri, 1991). The
Internal Consistency for the current sample subscales were alpha = .92, .88, and .80.
Each parenting style is created by averaging 10 items. Higher scores indicate parenting
that was perceived as being more like that authority style. See Appendix B for a copy of
this measure.

Childhood maltreatment.

Self reported recall of instances of Child Maltreatment was measured using the
Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) (Bernstein et al., 1993). The CTQ is a 70 item
Likert type (1 = Never True, 5 = Often True) self-report measure that inquires about
instances of emotional abuse, emotional neglect, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and
physical neglect during childhood and adolescence. Sample questions include: “When I

was growing up, people in my family hit me so hard that it left bruises and marks,” and

25

“When I was growing up, Someone molested me.” Coefﬁcient alphas ranged from .79 to
.95 (N=286) and two week test-retest reliabilities (N = 40) ranged from .80 to .88 in a
sample of substance dependent adult psychiatric patients. Internal consistencies for the
current sample were alpha = .90, .92, .91 , .85, and .78. Scores for each subscale were
obtained by averaging relevant items. Higher scores indicate recalling more instances of
childhood maltreatment. See Appendix C for a copy of this measure.

Inter-parental conﬂict.

Inter-parental Conﬂict was measured using Grych et al.'s (1992) Children's
Perceptions of Inter-parental Conﬂict scale (CPIC). This 49 item Likert scale (1 = True,
3 = False) self-report instrument was developed to identify the salient aspects of inter-
parental conﬂict that contribute to the adverse impacts of conﬂict between parents on
children, beyond merely existence and frequency of conﬂict. Three factors were
identiﬁed from the ten subscales: conﬂict properties (including frequency, intensity and
resolution), perceived threat to the child, and degree of self blame felt by the child
regarding the conﬂict. Example questions include “They may not think I know it, but my
parents argue or disagree a lot” (assessing frequency), and “I get scared when my parents
argue” (assessing perceived threat). The CPIC was validated for use by young adults
(Bickham & Fiese, 1997) in a sample using 215 college students. Coefﬁcient alphas for
the three factors in the college sample ranged from .85 to .95. Internal consistencies for
the current sample were alpha = .95, .86, and .82. Scores for each scale were obtained by
averaging relevant items. Higher scores indicate more instances of self-blame, reporting
experiences of feeling threatened more, or report of more frequent or intense conﬂict

between parents. See Appendix D for a copy of this measure.

26

Adultjattachment.

Adult Attachment was measured using the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ;
Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The RQ is a modiﬁcation of Hazan and Shaver's
(1987) prototype measure and produces a categorical attachment classiﬁcation based on
subject's response to four paragraphs that describe the four attachment styles. For
example the paragraph for the dismissing prototype is “I am comfortable without close
relationships. It is very important for me to feel independent and self-sufﬁcient, and I
prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.” Attachment category was
determined exactly by participant’s choice, as this is a forced choice measure where
respondents can only select one category that best represents them. The RQ was used to
get an approximate measure of number of respondents for each attachment category, in
order to determine the necessary sample size for this study. See Appendix E for a copy of
this measure.

The Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver,
1998) is a 36 item Likert type (1 = Disagree Strongly, 5 = Agree Strongly) scale that
maps responses onto the adult attachment dimensions of avoidance and abandonment
anxiety. Coefﬁcient alphas from a sample of 1,086 undergraduates were .94 and .91.
The internal consistencies for the current sample were alpha = .94 and .91. Scale scores
were created by averaging relevant items. Higher scores on each scale indicate more
avoidance or more abandonment anxiety. See Appendix F for a copy of this measure.

Defensive processes.

Defensive functioning was measured using the Defense Style Questionnaire

(DSQ; Bond, Gardner, Christian, & Sigal, 1983; Andrews, Singh, & Bond, 1993). The

27

DSQ is a 40 item Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) self report
measure that presents items which represent examples of the utilization of different types
of psychoanalytic defenses. The DSQ produces 3 factors based on maturity level of
defenses represented by the items in each factor (Immature, Neurotic, & Mature).
Sample items include: “I get satisfaction from helping others and if this were taken away
from me, I would get depressed” representing pseudo-altruism and “People tend to
mistreat me” representing projection. Coefﬁcient alphas for the three factors of the 40
item DSQ were .68, .58, and .80, based on data from 388 normal controls, 225 anxiety
patients and 32 child abusing parents. Four-week test-retest reliabilities from 89 normal
controls were .75, .78 and .85. The internal consistencies for the current sample were
alpha = .55, .49, and .78. The authors of the 40 item version (Andrews et al., 1993) also
reported alphas lower than desired, and they explained this as resulting from more
heterogeneous constructs than typical of many measures in personality research. Scales
were computed by averaging relevant items. Higher scores on the scales indicate more
usage of mature, neurotic, or immature defenses. See Appendix G for a copy of this
measure.
Procedure

The battery of questionnaires was administered to 164 participants between
December 1998 and April 1999. Prior to the start of testing, participants were asked to
read the consent statement, while the experimenter read the statement aloud. Participants
indicated their consent by signing the consent form and turning it in to the experimenter,
prior to the administration of any other materials. Participants ﬁnished all measures in

approximately 80 minutes. Participants recorded their answers on Scantrons sheets.

28

Reminders were placed on the measures to reduce errors when ﬁlling out the Scantrons.
The experimenter was present at all administrations to ensure standardization of
administration and answer questions. No negative effects on participants were observed
or reported from the completion of this battery.

As a part of this administration, participants also wrote stories in response to two
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) cards, before completing the rest of the
questionnaires, and also answered questions from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory
(WAI; Weinberger, 1989). Neither of these instruments was included in the hypotheses

for this study.

29

Results

An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. Although many analyses
were performed, a more stringent criterion such as alpha = .01 was not used due to the
increased likelihood of Type 11 error that would result. Power analyses indicated that a
sample size of 85 was necessary to ﬁnd statistically signiﬁcant one-tailed correlations at
alpha = .05, with power at .80 and a medium effect size.
Demoggphics

The potential impact of the demographic variables gender, age, and ethnicity (see
Table 1) on hypotheses was assessed by two-tailed correlations with attachment
dimensions and defense maturity variables (see Table 2). When a speciﬁc demographic
variable is signiﬁcantly correlated with both a dependent and independent variable, then
that demographic variable needs to be partialled out of correlational analyses involving
the independent and dependent variables. The nominal ethnicity variable was coded into
dichotomous variables representing Asian-American, Aﬁican-American, Caucasian,
Hispanic/Latino, and other (0=no, 1=yes) for this analysis. The correlation between age
and avoidance (_r_ = -.16, p < .05) and the correlation between age and anxiety (r = -.25, p
< .05) were both statistically signiﬁcant such that older participants were less anxious and
less avoidant. The correlations between age and the defense styles, mature (r = .21 , p <
.01), neurotic (r = -.18, p < .05), and immature (r = -.25, p < .01) indicated that older
college students used statistically signiﬁcantly more mature defenses and fewer neurotic
and immature defenses. The correlation between gender and anxiety (r = .21, p < .05) was
statistically signiﬁcant such that males were less anxious. Hispanic/Latino (r = -. l 6, p <

.05) ethnicity had a statistically signiﬁcant correlation with neurotic defenses indicating

30

that they endorsed using fewer neurotic defenses.

Based on the statistically signiﬁcant correlations above, two-tailed correlations
were then performed on the childhood environment variables with demographic variables
(see Table 3). Gender had a statistically signiﬁcant correlation with physical neglect (r =
-.20, p < .05) suggesting that male students recalled more experiences of physical neglect.
Age had statistically signiﬁcant correlations with authoritarian parenting (r = -.21, p <
.05) and self-blame regarding inter-parental conﬂict (5 = -.21, p < .05) suggesting that
younger students recalled parenting as more authoritarian and experienced more self-
blame when their parents argued. Therefore, analyses speciﬁc to these variables
controlled for the appropriate demographic variable as detailed below.

Because the demographic variables for gender and ethnicity are dichotomous and
are not evenly distributed, correlations with these types of variables may underestimate
any potential relationships with other variables. Therefore, multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA) were performed to assess the overall relationship of gender and
ethnicity (separately) on ﬁrst, childhood environmental variables, and second, adult
attachment and defensive maturity. For this analysis, subject’s ethnicity was determined
by majority group or minority group membership to more evenly distribute this variable.
That is, the ethnicity variable used in the MANOVA’s utilized the Caucasian
dichotomous variable thereby comparing minority group membership versus majority
group membership.

A MANOVA was performed with parental nurturance, authoritative parenting,
authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, conﬂict properties, self-blame, threat to the

self, physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, and sexual

3l

abuse as the dependent variables, and Caucasian (majority versus minority group) as the
independent variable. The overall F was not signiﬁcant (E(12, 147) = 0.76, _n_s_).
Univariate F’s were also non-signiﬁcant (See Table 4). Results were consistent with the
above correlations.

A MAN OVA was performed with avoidance, anxiety, mature defenses, neurotic
defenses, and immature defenses as the dependent variables, and Caucasian (majority
versus minority group) as the independent variable. The overall F was not signiﬁcant
(E(5, 158) = 1.38, g). Univariate F’s were also non-signiﬁcant (See Table 5). Results
suggest that overall being a minority group member was not related to adult attachment
or maturity of endorsed defenses.

A MAN OVA was performed with parental nurturance, authoritative parenting,
authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, conﬂict properties, self-blame, threat to the
self, physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, and sexual
abuse as the dependent variables, and gender as the independent variable. The overall F
was signiﬁcant (E(12, 147) = 1.93, p < .05). The univariate F for physical neglect was
signiﬁcant (See Table 6) suggesting that male subjects reported more experiences of
physical neglect. All other univariate F’s were non-signiﬁcant. Results were consistent
with the above correlations.

A MANOVA was performed with avoidance, anxiety, mature defenses, neurotic
defenses, and immature defenses as the dependent variables, and gender as the
independent variable. The overall F was signiﬁcant (E(5, 158) = 3.36, p <.01). The
univariate F for anxiety was signiﬁcant (_E(1,162) = 7.26, p_ < .01) suggesting that female

college students endorsed more abandonment anxiety. All other univariate F’s were non-

32

signiﬁcant (See Table 7). Results were consistent with the above correlations.

While dimensional attachment ratings are utilized in analyses below because of
their improved statistical clarity when compared to categorical attachment classiﬁcations,
subjects were asked to rate themselves by categorical attachment classiﬁcations in order
to determine the necessary sample size. In this study, 39.6% (n = 65) participants
endorsed a secure attachment style, 8.5% (n = 14) endorsed a dismissing attachment style,
22.0% (n = 36) endorsed a preoccupied attachment style, and 29.9% (n = 49) endorsed a
fearful attachment style.

Main Analyses

Analyses related to speciﬁc hypotheses were performed using one-tailed Pearson
correlations. Analyses for related variables without speciﬁc hypotheses were performed
using Pearson two-tailed correlations. Often, the dimensional approach to understanding
adult attachment assumes orthogonal dimensions but this is not always the case in actual
research on speciﬁc sample populations. The correlation between avoidance and anxiety
in this study was statistically signiﬁcant (r = .27, p < .01); therefore, analyses involving
one attachment dimension will control for this signiﬁcant correlation with the other
attachment dimension. Descriptive statistics for variables related to hypotheses are
provided in Table 8.

Childhood Environment and Adult Attachment

Parental nurturance.

A one-tailed partial correlation was performed to test the hypothesis that recall of
parental nurturance was negatively correlated with the adult attachment dimension of

avoidance. This correlation was statistically signiﬁcant (r = -.26, p < .01) when

33

controlling for the effect of anxiety suggesting that students who recalled more parental
nurturance were less avoidant in adult romantic relationships. Although there was no
speciﬁc hypothesis regarding parental nurturance and the adult attachment dimension of
anxiety, this two-tailed partial correlation was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = -.11, 3)
when controlling for the effect of avoidance (see Table 9).

Parenting style.

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that parenting
recalled as authoritative would be negatively correlated with avoidance and also with
anxiety. The correlations with avoidance (r = -. 19, p_< .01), while controlling for anxiety,
and the correlation with anxiety (r = -. 16, p < .05), while controlling for avoidance, were
both statistically signiﬁcant. Results suggest that students who recalled more
authoritative parenting were less avoidant and had less abandonment anxiety (see Table
9).

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that parenting
recalled as authoritarian would be positively correlated with avoidance and anxiety. The
partial correlation with avoidance (r = .01, pg), controlling for anxiety and age, was not
statistically signiﬁcant but the correlation with anxiety (5 = .16, p < .05), controlling for
avoidance and age, was statistically signiﬁcant. Because analysis of demographics
indicated that age was signiﬁcantly correlated with authoritarian parenting as well as
avoidance and anxiety, both of the above correlations controlled for the effect of age by
partial correlation. Results suggest that students who recalled more authoritarian
parenting experienced more abandonment anxiety in adult romantic relationships (see

Table 9).

34

A one-tailed partial correlation was performed to test the hypothesis that parenting
recalled as permissive would be positively correlated with anxiety; the correlation was
not statistically signiﬁcant (r = .01, pg), while controlling for avoidance. Although there
was no speciﬁc hypothesis regarding permissive parenting and the adult attachment
dimension of avoidance, this two-tailed correlation was not statistically signiﬁcant (r =
.12, gs), while controlling for anxiety (see Table 9).

Inter-parental conﬂict.

A one-tailed partial correlation was performed to test the hypothesis that recall of
inter-parental conﬂict properties, such as frequency and intensity, would be positively
correlated with avoidance. The correlation was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = .13, p =
.05), while controlling for anxiety, although there was a trend suggesting that conﬂict
properties may be positively related to avoidance. Although there was no speciﬁc
hypothesis regarding conﬂict properties and anxiety, this two-tailed partial correlation
was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = .12, n_s), while controlling for avoidance (see Table
9).

A one-tailed partial correlation was performed to test the hypothesis that recalled
self-blame regarding inter-parental conﬂict would be positively correlated with anxiety.
The partial correlation was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = .12, p = .07) when controlling
for the effects of avoidance and age, although there was a trend suggesting that self-blame
may be positively related to anxiety. While there was no speciﬁc hypothesis regarding
self-blame and avoidance, this two-tailed partial correlation (r = .07, n_s) did not reach
statistical signiﬁcance when controlling for anxiety and age. These analyses partialled

out the effect of age because analysis of demographics indicated that age was

35

signiﬁcantly correlated with both avoidance and anxiety as well as self-blame (see Table
9).

One-tailed correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that recalled threat
to the self would be positively correlated with avoidance and with anxiety. The
correlation with avoidance (_r_ = .18, p < .05), while controlling for anxiety, and the
correlation with anxiety (r = .21, p < .01), while controlling for avoidance were both
statistically signiﬁcant. Results suggest that students who recalled more perceived threat
resulting from parental arguments were more avoidant and had more abandonment
anxiety in adult romantic relationships (see Table 9).

Childhood maltreatment.

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that recall of
physical abuse would be positively correlated with avoidance and negatively correlated
with anxiety. The correlation between physical abuse and avoidance while controlling
for anxiety (5 = .12, p = .06), and the correlation between physical abuse and anxiety
while controlling for avoidance (r = .12, p = .06) were both not signiﬁcant. However,
there were trends suggesting that physical abuse may be positively related to both
avoidance and anxiety (see Table 9).

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that recall of
physical or emotional neglect would be positively correlated with avoidance and
negatively correlated with anxiety. The correlation between physical neglect and
avoidance while controlling for anxiety was statistically signiﬁcant (1' = .17, p < .05). The
partial correlation between physical neglect and anxiety was not statistically signiﬁcant (r

= .04, n_s), when controlling for the effect of gender and avoidance. The effect of gender

36

was controlled for because analysis of demographics indicated that gender was
signiﬁcantly correlated with both anxiety and physical neglect. The correlations between
emotional neglect and avoidance (r = .23, p < .01) while controlling for anxiety and
between emotional neglect and anxiety (5 = .13, p < .05) while controlling for avoidance
were both statistically signiﬁcant. However, the correlation for anxiety was not in the
expected direction. Results suggest that students who recalled more physical or
emotional neglect were more avoidant in adult relationships. Further, students who
recalled more emotional neglect experienced more abandonment anxiety in adult
relationships (see Table 9).

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that recall of
sexual abuse would be positively correlated with avoidance and anxiety. Both the
correlation between sexual abuse and avoidance while controlling for anxiety (1 = .08, ns)
and the correlation between sexual abuse and anxiety while controlling for avoidance (r =
.08, gs) were not signiﬁcant (see Table 9).

Attachment Dimensions and Defensive Sty/E

Defensive maturitv.

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that the adult
attachment dimensions of avoidance and anxiety would be negatively correlated with a
mature defensive style. The partial correlation with avoidance (r = -.18, p < .05) while
controlling for anxiety and age and the partial correlation with anxiety (5 = -.21, p < .01)
while controlling for avoidance and age were both statistically signiﬁcant. Age was
controlled for because analysis of demographics indicated that age was signiﬁcantly

correlated with mature defenses as well as avoidance and anxiety. Results suggest that

37

students who endorsed using more mature defensive styles were less avoidant and less
anxious in adult romantic relationships (see Table 10).

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that
avoidance would be positively correlated with the use of neurotic defenses and anxiety
would be negatively correlated with neurotic defenses. The partial correlation with
avoidance, while controlling for anxiety and age was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = -.06,
Q). The partial correlation with anxiety (r = .16, p < .05) while controlling for avoidance
and age was statistically signiﬁcant, but not in the expected direction. Both correlations
controlled for the effect of age because analysis of demographics indicated that age was
signiﬁcantly correlated with neurotic defenses as well as avoidance and anxiety. Results
suggest that students who endorsed more neurotic defenses experienced more
abandonment anxiety in adult relationships. It is important to note that the low alpha for
the neurotic scale makes non-signiﬁcant results difﬁcult to interpret (see Table 10).

A one-tailed partial correlation was performed to test the hypothesis that anxiety
would be positively correlated with the use of immature defenses. The partial correlation
(r = .36, p < .01) was statistically signiﬁcant when controlling for avoidance and age.
Although no speciﬁc hypothesis was made regarding the relationship between avoidance
and the use of immature defenses, the two-tailed partial correlation was statistically
signiﬁcant (r = .36, p < .01) when controlling for avoidance and age. Age was controlled
for because analysis of demographics indicated that age was signiﬁcantly correlated with
immature defenses as well as avoidance and anxiety. Results suggest that students who
endorsed using more immature defenses were more avoidant and had more abandonment

anxiety in adult relationships (see Table 10).

38

Speciﬁc defenses differﬂ on avoidance.

To test the hypothesis that speciﬁc immature defenses may be differentially
utilized depending on the degree of approaching or avoiding others that may be a
characteristic of each defense, one-tailed partial correlations were performed between
speciﬁc immature defenses and the attachment dimensions while controlling for the
inﬂuence of age.

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that acting
out, dissociation, and somatization would be negatively correlated with avoidance and
positively correlated with anxiety. The partial correlations for acting out (1 = .25, p < .01)
and somatization (r = .33, p < .01) with anxiety were both statistically signiﬁcant, while
controlling for the effects of avoidance and age. The partial correlation between
dissociation and anxiety (r = -.14, p < .05) was also statistically signiﬁcant, while
controlling for the effects of avoidance and age, but not in the expected direction. The
partial correlations for acting out (r = .01. IE), dissociation (r = .07, ns), and somatization
(r = -.01, ns) with avoidance were not statistically signiﬁcant, while controlling for the
effects of age and anxiety. Age was controlled for because analysis of demographics
indicated that age was signiﬁcantly correlated with defensive maturity as well as
avoidance and anxiety. Results suggest that students who endorsed using acting out or
somatization defenses experienced more abandonment anxiety in adult relationships. In
contrast, those students who endorsed using dissociative defenses were less anxious in
adult romantic relationships (see Table 10).

One-tailed partial correlations were performed to test the hypothesis that fantasy,

passive aggression, and projection would be positively correlated with avoidance and

39

anxiety. The correlations for fantasy (r = .28, p < .01) and passive aggression (r = .25, p
< .01) with avoidance were both statistically signiﬁcant and the correlation for projection
was not statistically signiﬁcant (r = .10, n_s), while controlling for the effects of anxiety
and age. The correlations for fantasy (_r_ = .32, p < .01) and projection (_r_ = .37, p < .01)
with anxiety were statistically signiﬁcant, while controlling for the effects of avoidance
and age. There was a trend (r = .12, p = .06) suggesting that passive aggression may be
positively related to anxiety while controlling for avoidance and age. Age was controlled
for because analysis of demographics indicated that age was signiﬁcantly correlated with
defensive maturity as well as avoidance and anxiety. Results suggest that students who
endorsed using more fantasy were more avoidant and had more abandonment anxiety,
students who endorsed more projection had more abandonment anxiety, and students who
endorsed more passive aggression were more avoidant and possibly had more

abandonment anxiety (see Table 10).

40

Supplemental Analyses

The above analyses related to speciﬁc hypotheses offer detailed information
between childhood environmental variables and adult attachment, as well as defensive
functioning and adult attachment. However, because the sample size in this study
precluded the use of factor analysis to reﬁne the relationships between predictors, a series
of multiple regressions was performed to both address the commonalties between
predictors and attempt to determine which of these predictors, when considered
simultaneously, offer discrete information regarding the dimensions of adult attachment.
Because there are many predictors related to recall of childhood experiences, constructs
which may overlap, for these supplemental analyses the variables related to parental
nurturance, parenting style, inter-parental conﬂict, and childhood maltreatment were
assessed for their intercorrelations (see Table 11). Predictors that shared high correlations
(approximately .60 or above) were combined as long as it made conceptual sense to do
so. Reliability analyses were then performed on these new predictors, and individual
items were deleted when doing so increased the internal consistency of the new predictor.
Analyses were then performed using multiple regression with childhood environmental
variables predicting dimensions of adult attachment and then multiple regressions were
performed with defensive maturity predicting adult attachment.

Childhood Environment and Adult Attachment

Parental nurturance and authoritative parenting were signiﬁcantly correlated at .63
and were combined into one scale that represents positive parenting characteristics (see
Table 12). Emotional abuse correlated with emotional neglect at .75 and with physical

abuse at .70; thus these 3 predictors were combined. Physical neglect correlated with

4]

physical abuse at .59, and with emotional neglect at .67 (and with emotional abuse at .46)
and therefore was combined with the above 3 predictors. The only remaining childhood
maltreatment variable, sexual abuse, correlated with physical neglect at .51 but its
correlations with the other childhood maltreatment variables ranged from .37 to .43 and
therefore was not combined with the above childhood maltreatment predictors. This new
predictor represents emotional and physical maltreatment, excluding sexual abuse. The
properties of conﬂict between parents correlated with threat to the self at .59 and these
two predictors were combined to represent traumatic exposure to parental arguments and
perceived threat. Emotional abuse was correlated with inter-parental conﬂict properties
at .61, however these predictors were not combined because they did not seem
sufﬁciently conceptually related. While exposure to parental arguments may have an
indirectly emotionally abusive impact on children, this is different than abuse directed at
children. Further, conﬂict properties did not share such high correlations with the other
maltreatment variables (see Table 11).

The predictor representing positive parenting characteristics, composed of
parental nurturance and authoritative parenting, after removing 2 items, had a reliability
of alpha = .97. The predictor representing physical and emotional maltreatment,
composed of physical abuse and neglect, and emotional abuse and neglect, after removing
3 items had a reliability of alpha = .95. The predictor representing inter-parental conﬂict
exposure and threat, composed of conﬂict properties and threat to the self, after removing
5 items had a reliability of alpha = .96. The correlations between these new predictors
and the remaining original uncombined childhood environment predictors were then

assessed (see Table 12). The correlation between positive parenting and

42

physical/emotional maltreatment was -.71. All other correlations were below .60.
Positive parenting and physical/emotional maltreatment predictors were not combined,
despite their high correlation, because absence of positive parenting characteristics does
not necessarily imply the presence of child maltreatment.

Childhood environment va_r;i_ables predicting avoidance.

Then, hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed, predicting
avoidance. Age was included as a predictor because it was correlated with some
childhood environmental variables and with avoidance. Anxiety was included as a
predictor because of its correlation with avoidance. Age was entered in step 1, anxiety
was entered in step 2, followed by childhood environment predictors in step 3. These
predictors were positive parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting,
exposure/threat to inter-parental conﬂict, self-blame due to inter-parental conﬂict,
physical/emotional maltreatment, and sexual abuse. While the overall F was signiﬁcant
(£(9,152) = 3.36, p < .01, _R_2 = .17) no childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant
(see Table 13).

Further regression analyses were performed removing predictors with the smallest
Beta’s until only statistically signiﬁcant predictors remained. The above hierarchical
regression was repeated with self-blame excluded because it had the smallest Beta in the
previous regression. While the overall F was signiﬁcant (F (8,153) = 3.81, p < .01, _R_2 =
.17) no childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 14). Then the
previous hierarchical regression was repeated with exposure/threat also excluded because

it had the smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F (_E(7,155) = 4.43, p <

43

.01, E = .17) and the Beta for positive parenting ( ﬂ = -.21, p < .05) were both
signiﬁcant. No other childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 15).
Then the previous hierarchical regression was repeated with authoritarian parenting also
excluded because it had the smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F
(E(6,156) = 5.09, p < .01, Rf = .16) was signiﬁcant, while no childhood environment
predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 16). Then the previous hierarchical regression was
repeated with sexual abuse also excluded because it had the smallest Beta in the previous
regression. The overall F (£6,157) = 6.04, p < .01, Rf = .16) was signiﬁcant, while no
childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 17). Then the previous
regression was repeated with physical/emotional maltreatment also excluded because it
had the smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F (E(4,158) = 7.41, p < .01,
E = .16) and the Beta for positive parenting ( ,8 = -.26, p < .05) were both signiﬁcant,
while the only other childhood environment predictor included, permissive parenting,
was not signiﬁcant (see Table 18). A ﬁnal hierarchical regression was performed as
above (age entered in step 1, anxiety entered in step 2, positive parenting entered in step
3). The overall F (£0,160) = 9.02, p < .01, R: = .15) and the Beta for positive parenting
( ,6 = -.25, p < .01, ARE = .06) were both signiﬁcant. Anxiety remained statistically
signiﬁcant ( ﬂ = .20, p < .05, AB: = .06) in the full model while age was not signiﬁcant
(see Table 19). Results suggest that students who recalled fewer experiences of positive

parenting and endorsed more abandonment anxiety were more avoidant in relationships.

44

Childhood environment variables predicting anxiety.

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses then were performed predicting anxiety.
Age and gender were included as predictors because they were correlated with some
childhood predictors and with anxiety. Avoidance was also included as a predictor
because of its correlation with anxiety. Age and gender were entered in step 1, avoidance
was entered in step 2, followed by childhood environment predictors in step 3. These
predictors were positive parenting, authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting,
exposure/threat to inter-parental conﬂict, self-blame due to inter-parental conﬂict,
physical/emotional maltreatment, and sexual abuse. While the overall F was signiﬁcant
(£(10,151) = 4.35, p < .01, £3 = .22) no childhood environment predictors were
signiﬁcant (see Table 20).

Further regression analyses were performed removing predictors with the smallest
Beta’s until only statistically signiﬁcant predictors remained. The above hierarchical
regression was repeated with exposure/threat excluded because it had the smallest Beta in
the previous regression. While the overall F was signiﬁcant (£(9,152) = 4.86, p < .01, _R_2
= .22) no childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 21). The previous
hierarchical regression was repeated with positive parenting excluded because it had the
smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F (£(8,153) = 5.50, p < .01, E =
.22) was signiﬁcant, while no childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see
Table 22). The previous hierarchical regression was repeated with sexual abuse excluded
because it had the smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F (£(7,154) =
6.29, p < .01, R: = .22) was signiﬁcant, while no childhood environment predictors were

signiﬁcant (see Table 23). The previous hierarchical regression was repeated with self-

45

blame excluded because it had the smallest Beta in the previous regression. The overall F
(£(6,156) = 6.59, p < .01, E = .20) was signiﬁcant, while no childhood environment
predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 24). The previous hierarchical regression was
repeated with permissive parenting excluded because it had the smallest Beta in the
previous regression. The overall F (£(5,157) = 7.65, p < .01, E = .20) was signiﬁcant,
while no childhood environment predictors were signiﬁcant (see Table 25). A ﬁnal
hierarchical regression was performed as above (age and gender entered in step 1,
avoidance entered in step 2, physical/emotional maltreatment entered in step 3). The
overall F (£(4,159) = 8.86, p < .01, R"; = .18) and the Beta for physical/emotional
maltreatment ( ,B = .16, p < .05 AK = .02) were both signiﬁcant. Avoidance ( ,6 = .20, p
< .01, AB: = .06), gender and age (,6 = .21, p < .01; ﬂ = -.19, p < .05 respectively, 33 =
.10) remained statistically signiﬁcant in the full model (see Table 26). Results suggest
that older students, female students, those who endorsed more avoidant tendencies in
relationships, and those students who recalled more experiences of physical or emotional
maltreatment, experienced more abandonment anxiety in relationships.

Mhment Dimensiowd Defensive Styles

Defensive m_a:turity.

While the above correlations between attachment dimensions and defensive
maturity styles offer information regarding the relationships between the individual
dimensions of avoidance and anxiety as they relate to defensive maturity, both attachment
dimensions contribute to our understanding of how adults approach relationships.

Therefore it may be useful to understand how these dimensions taken together relate to

46

defensive maturity. That is, if we know a student’s scores on avoidance and anxiety
together, what may that suggest regarding their defensive maturity and how much does
knowledge of their attachment patterns contribute to prediction of defensive styles.
Therefore, three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed with
age entered ﬁrst, followed by avoidance and anxiety simultaneously as predictors of the
three defensive maturity levels. Age was entered ﬁrst because it was signiﬁcantly
correlated with both defensive maturity and anxiety. In the ﬁrst regression, age was
entered in step 1 (AK = .04), followed by avoidance and anxiety in step 2 (AK = .09)
predicting mature defenses (overall £(3, 160) = 8.36, p < .01, K = .14). Anxiety ( ,6 = -
.21, p < .01) and avoidance ( ,6 = -.18, p < .05) signiﬁcantly predicted endorsement of
mature defenses suggesting that those students who had less abandonment anxiety and
were less avoidant endorsed more mature defenses. Age was non-signiﬁcant in the full
model (see Table 27). Knowledge of students’ attachment patterns contributed toward
9% of the variance in the use of mature defenses beyond that information offered by age.
In the second regression, age was entered in step 1 (AK = .03), followed by
avoidance and anxiety in step 2 (AK = .03) predicting neurotic defenses (overall £(3,
160) = 3.34, p < .05, K = .06). Anxiety (,6 = .17, p < .05) signiﬁcantly predicted
endorsement of neurotic defenses suggesting that those students higher in abandonment
anxiety endorsed more neurotic defenses. Age and avoidance were not statistically
signiﬁcant in the full model (see Table 28). Knowledge of students’ attachment patterns
contributed toward 3% of the variance in the use of neurotic defenses after accounting for

age.

47

In the third regression, age was entered in step 1 (AK = .06), followed by
avoidance and anxiety in step 2 (AK = .27), predicting immature defenses (overall £(3,
160) = 26.32, p < .01, K = .33). Avoidance (,6 = .34, p < .01) and anxiety (,8 = .34, p <
.01) signiﬁcantly predicted endorsement of immature defenses suggesting that students
higher in avoidance and higher in anxiety endorsed more immature defenses. Age was
not statistically signiﬁcant in the full model (see Table 29). Knowledge of students’
attachment patterns contributed toward 27% of the variance in the use of immature
defenses after accounting for age.

Analyzing this data from a categorical attachment perspective has been avoided
due to the loss of information that occurs by classifying subjects into groups. For
example, once someone is classiﬁed as preoccupied, it is no longer known to what degree
that subject is preoccupied when compared to other preoccupied subjects. However,
visual inspection can highlight the potential relationships between adult attachment and
defensive maturity. Therefore, subjects were grouped into the adult attachment categories
so that attachment groups could be plotted against their mean scores on endorsement of
the 3 defense maturity levels. By classifying students into groups based on their
avoidance and anxiety scores, these 2 variables could be plotted in the same graph, while
controlling for the effect of age. Grouping was accomplished via cluster analyses. First,
a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed requesting 4 groups, using Ward’s method
and squared Euclidian distances. This produced group means that were then used to seed
a k-means cluster analysis, allowing group centroid means to vary as 4 groups were

created. K-means clustering allows members to change groups as group means change

48

but this method is improved when initial cluster centers are reliable. Thus, using a
hierarchical method ﬁrst provides necessary cluster centers to seed the k-means analysis.
These 4 groups were plotted against scores for secure, neurotic, and immature defense
means scores for the 4 groups (see Figure 1). The ﬁgures are ordered by the hypothesized
ordering where securely attached students were expected to utilize the most mature
defenses, followed by dismissings, preoccupieds and fearfuls. Inspection of the ﬁgures
demonstrates a general trend that suggests this hypothesized ordering may be valid in this
sample. While visual inspection may demonstrate trends between attachment groups and
between defense levels, no statistical differences are implied by this visual inspection.
For example, despite apparent differences between groups on the use of neurotic
defenses, prior statistical analyses reﬂected no signiﬁcant differences for avoidance

scores and neurotic defenses.

49

Discussion

The main goals of this study were to identify recalled formative experiences with
others in the childhoods of college students that may be related to their current
attachments to others, and to further reﬁne understanding of what it means in adulthood
to approach/avoid others or fear abandonment. Speciﬁcally, what can be learned about
someone’s defensive functioning in general, if the attachment dimensions of avoidance
and anxiety are known. If one fears abandonment, for example, are there defense
mechanisms that this person may be more likely to utilize than others?

Work that has addressed correlates of adult attachment from childhood has
typically been restricted to constructs such as parental care and protection, or events such
as parental divorce or death (Brennan & Shaver, 1998). This study attempts to expand
the range of childhood contributors to adult attachment. Similarly, Bowlby (1973)
viewed attachment as a form of defensive operation, yet he focused little on attachment as
it relates to conceptualizations of defensive processes. Others have also neglected the
place of attachment within research related to defenses (exceptions include Diehl, Elnick,
Bourbeau, & Labouvie-Vief, 1998; Lopez et al., 1997).

In general, results for hypotheses between recalled childhood
environmental variables and the dimensions of attachment suggest that these
environmental variables may act as protective or risk factors for either avoidance or
anxiety and sometimes both (not necessarily as true predictors given the cross sectional
retrospective data collection). That is, no hypotheses that involved predicting a positive

correlation with one attachment dimension and a negative correlation with the other, were

50

supported. For example, if emotional abuse was correlated positively with avoidance,
then given the overall pattern of results obtained, emotional abuse would not be expected
to correlate negatively with anxiety.

Further, all statistically signiﬁcant correlations between recalled environmental
variables from childhood and the adult attachment dimensions were small to moderate in
size. It makes conceptual sense that any one experience from childhood should not have
a larger correlation, and potential predictive power, with a construct in adulthood that is
thought to have been shaped by many varied experiences from birth to adulthood.
Inspection of predictors did not suggest that restriction of range could account for the
relatively low correlations and exploratory transformations of predictors with positive
skew did not change any statistical results and therefore were not included in analyses.
Other research that has explored relationships between adult attachment styles and
retrospective family of origin variables in a broad based adult age range has demonstrated
similarly modest correlation sizes (Diehl et al., 1998). Research by Brennan and Shaver
(1998) on adult attachment and recall by college students of parental care-giving
characteristics also demonstrated similarly modest effect sizes for any one care-giving
attribute; effect sizes, ranged between .03 and .06 (etaz) for characteristics such as
acceptance by parent and parent fostering independence. However, as would be
expected, in this study higher inter-correlations among predictors, across childhood
environmental variable domains, were observed. For example, note the correlations
between authoritative parenting and the following: nurturance, r=.63, emotional neglect,
_r= -.64, and threat to the self, r: -.38.

Yet it was hoped that when statistically combining via multiple regression a range

51

of experiences from childhood via the supplemental analyses, many of which happened in
the same environments which attachment dimensions are expected to form, that greater
variance could be accounted for than was found. After controlling for relevant
demographic variables, signiﬁcant childhood predictors accounted for between 2% and
6% of the variance in dimensions of adult attachment. However, simultaneous multiple
regression involving conceptually related predictors is a conservative approach that
reduces each variable’s predictive power to the extent that it is correlated with other
predictors. Thus, the unique variance offered by each predictor is emphasized with the
potential risk of ignoring potentially important, but not necessarily unique, contributors to
variance in avoidance or anxiety.

Conversely, multiple regression is useful in this study because the scales in the
present sample could not be factor analyzed. To the extent that childhood environmental
constructs considered here may measure similar latent variables, multiple regression de-
emphasizes these commonalties. Despite the caution that must be used when interpreting
these non-factored scales it is important to note that of the 5 multi-factor scales used in
the study, 2 were previously factor analyzed on undergraduate samples. Two more were
previously factor analyzed on adolescent and adult psychiatric samples. The ﬁfth and
only scale to not be factor analyzed previously utilized clinician inter-rater agreement in
scale construction as well as concurrent and criterion validity testing on undergraduate
samples.

Despite data collection that is retrospective regarding childhood environments and
cross-sectional, results related to childhood environmental variables will be considered as

potential predictors of adult attachment with the understanding that at best, these

52

relationships can suggest only correlates and only offer potential avenues for further
longitudinal study rather than as true predictors. Results will be considered below for
each of the major domains of childhood environmental variables and defensive processes
hypotheses assessed in the context of existing research.

Parenth Nurturance and Adult Attpchment

It was hypothesized that parental nurturance would be negatively related to
avoidance because nurturance by parents was expected to encourage the tendency to
approach others, rather than avoid others, under stressful circumstances. Results
supported this hypothesis. Positive nurturing experiences with parents may promote a
tendency to approach others during stressful situations into adulthood. Alternatively,
those college students, who as children already approached others may be more able to
experience positive nurturant interactions with caregivers. That is, a child who avoids
others during stressﬁil times may preclude the possibility of nurturant interactions with
caregivers.

No hypothesis was made regarding the relationship between nurturance and
anxiety and results which demonstrated no signiﬁcant correlation between the two,
suggest that in fact, nurturance is more related to one’s model of others than one’s model
of self. Some research suggests a possible link between nurturance and the attachment
self model which comes from the hypothesized relationship between self-esteem and the
attachment self model. There has been speculation (Grifﬁn & Bartholomew, 1994) that
the constructs of self-esteem and the attachment model of self share considerable overlap.
Research which assessed women’s coping responses to ﬁrst trimester abortions found that

women’s model of self directly contributed to their successful response to this stressful

53

situation, yet when self-esteem was also entered as a predictor, much of the self model’s
contributions were eliminated or largely decreased in magnitude (Cozzarelli, Sumer, &
Major, 1998). While there appears to be considerable commonalties between these two
constructs, it is less clear where they diverge. But if self-esteem and the self model are
rather similar, then Buri’s (Buri, Kirchner, & Walsh, 1987; Buri, 1989) work
demonstrating the relationship between nurturance and self-esteem can be extended to
hypothesize that nurturance should impact one’s attachment self model. Instead however,
even though there is this potential overlap, in the current study nurturance was unrelated
to abandonment anxiety. Perhaps the presence of frequent nurturant interactions
communicates to the child that others are actively helpful but its absence does not impact
the child’s model of self when it could impact their self-esteem. This may be one point
of divergence between self-esteem and the attachment self-model.
Parenting Styles and Adult Attachment

As hypothesized, participants who recalled parenting as more authoritative
endorsed being less avoidant of others and less anxious regarding abandonment. This
care-giving style appears to be a potential generalized protective factor at least against
insecure attachments. Authoritative parenting, as deﬁned by the PAQ questions, involves
active ﬁrm parenting rules applied toward a child’s behaviors. This may communicate
that parents are caring authorities thus enhancing the child’s sense that others can be
depended on and positively impacting the child’s attachment model of others (and
increasing the approach of others). In addition, authoritative parenting involves active
interest in the child’s perspective on how they are parented perhaps validating the child’s

sense of worth and promoting a positive attachment self-model (decreasing abandonment

54

anxiety).

These same results can be interpreted from the categorical attachment perspective.
For example, students’ recall of authoritative parenting having negative correlations with
both avoidance and anxiety suggests that secure students (who by deﬁnition are low in
avoidance and anxiety) were most likely to recall authoritative parenting and fearful
students (who by deﬁnition are high in avoidance and anxiety) were most likely to recall
parenting that was not authoritative. This current ﬁnding is generally consistent with that
found in a large sample with a much greater adult age range (mean age 48.6) where
secure adults were associated with recall of a more positive farnily-of-origin climate and
fearful adults reporting a more negative family-of-origin climate (Diehl et al., 1998).
While they did not ﬁnd signiﬁcant relationships between dismissing or preoccupied
adults and recalled family climate, this absence when compared to the signiﬁcant ﬁndings
for secures and fearfuls highlights the extreme attachment qualities possessed by both
secure and fearful adults. That is, secures are both low in avoidance and anxiety while
fearfuls are high in avoidance and anxiety. Together these results highlight the potential
stability of this ﬁnding from young through middle adulthood, from a narrower college
sample, whose members may have evolving perceptions of parents, to a wider range
sample, whose members could be expected to possess more stable views of their parents.

In contrast to the hypothesis that authoritarian parenting would be positively
correlated with avoidance and negatively correlated with anxiety, participants who
recalled experiencing authoritarian parenting were more likely to have higher
abandonment anxiety but not higher avoidance. Authoritarian parenting may

communicate to the child that they are not lovable rather than parents are not dependable

55

or understanding. That is, the child’s perspective on how they are parented is not valued
by the authoritarian parent. Thus, the child is not valued. It may be more difﬁcult for this
child to test out their own perceptions against their parents’ and thereby struggle to
develop trust in an internal sense of control and safety. The child in the authoritarian
home may learn to rely solely on external control, never sufﬁciently forming their own
sense of what seems right. This is quite similar to learning that one is not valued by
others, but perhaps also, one’s judgments do not have value. As this child grows up he or
she may maintain a view that their own perceptions or judgments are not valid. The
external authority knows what is right and the child must maintain proximity to these
parents and work toward pleasing them. In this case, the positive self view may only be
possible when receiving praise and avoiding criticism of the authoritarian parent thereby
increasing the child’s abandonment anxiety. Considering categorical attachment styles
high in anxiety, the preoccupied may seek out others for this external control or guidance,
and the fearful may wish to but fears rejection. Mikulincer (1998) has suggested that
anxious-ambivalent adults inﬂate their sense of personal unworthiness, akin to the
negative self model, when under stress as a method of receiving help from perceived
stronger others. This type of response may be fostered in relationships with parents that
are perceived as authoritarian; the child’s opinion has no value. Thus, a devalued
attachment self model may be encouraged by authoritarian parenting.

Interestingly, while it was hypothesized that recall of permissive parenting would
contribute to abandonment anxiety, it was found to be unrelated to either of the
dimensions of adult attachment. It was expected that permissive parenting as deﬁned by

the PAQ items, with its lack of parental guidance, would be associated with higher

56

abandonment anxiety as that would be perceived by the child as not having a dependable
other to rely on. In retrospect, this hypothesis may have confused attributes of the
attachment self and other models. Speciﬁcally, the active component thought to matter in
permissive parenting was a lack of parental guidance, which as suggested above for the
authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles, seems most related to the attachment
model of others. But it was expected that this lack of guidance would make the child fear
abandonment, which deﬁnes one’s attachment self model. Thus in hindsight, a better
hypothesis would be to expect that a lack of parental guidance would be associated with a
negative model of others; others are not helpful. Regardless, results suggest that
permissive parenting is not statistically signiﬁcantly related to either attachment
dimension.

To help understand how the different parenting styles may differentially
relate/impact dimensions of adult attachment it might be useful to compare these
correlations across parenting styles even though some may be non-signiﬁcant. To
review, authoritative parenting is described as a parenting style involving both ﬁrm
parental control and acceptance of the child’s input, authoritarian parenting involves
parental control with abnegation of input from the child, and permissive parenting
involves support of child’s input at the expense of parental control. Results showed
authoritative to be negatively correlated with both avoidance and anxiety, authoritarians’
correlation with avoidance was .01 (gs) and with anxiety was .16, while permissives’
correlation with avoidance was .12 (gs) and with anxiety .01 (g). Thus it appears that
authoritarian and permissive parenting could affect attachment dimensions in an opposite

manner although this was not supported statistically. Nonetheless, perhaps the presence

57

of parental control and the absence of child’s input contributes to a negative self model
(higher abandonment anxiety) while the presence of child’s input and absence of parental
control contributes to a negative model of others (higher avoidance). Yet, the presence of
both contributes to both positive self and other models. Perhaps there is an interaction
between parental control and input from the child that impacts the attachment
dimensions.

This ﬁnding is consistent with Buri’s work in which he found signiﬁcant
relationships between parental authoritativeness, authoritarianism and adolescent self-
esteem, but not between permissiveness and self-esteem (1989). Pawlak and Klein
(1997) found both recall of authoritative parenting and nurturance to be related to self-
esteem in college students but permissive and authoritarian parenting styles were not
related to students’ self-esteem. However, in regression analyses, which included
parents’ nurturance, they found that mother’s permissiveness marginally (2% of
variance), and negatively, contributed to student’s self-esteem. Perhaps permissive
parenting communicates parental conﬁdence in the child’s ability to make decisions,
which may enhance self-esteem, at the expense of the withholding of parental guidance,
which could reduce self-esteem.

Inter-Parental Conﬂict and Adult Attachment

All correlational results between inter-parental conﬂict and adult attachment were
as hypothesized; yet, some of these were only trends in the hypothesized direction. The
properties of conﬂict between parents such as the frequency and intensity of conﬂict and
whether conﬂict goes unresolved, as recalled by these college students, was hypothesized

to contribute toward avoidance and there was a trend suggesting it could be positively

58

related to avoidance. These factors, which may generally reﬂect the amount of overt
conﬂict and perhaps chaos in the home, appear to contribute to a preoccupied or fearﬁil
attachment style.

Similarly, self blame was expected to be positively related to anxiety yet there
was only a trend suggesting this. Again, this may be interpreted as the child who blames
him or herself for parental conﬂict views the self as bad, not the parents. Thus, self
blame may lead to the perception that the self is unlovable and may be abandoned. Self-
blame during and after parent’s arguments may be a precursor to fearful and preoccupied
attachments. Preoccupied and fearful adults have been described as prone to self-doubt
and guilt (Feeney & Noller, 1996) and research has demonstrated that preoccupied and
fearful college students are more prone to shame (Lopez, Gover, Leskela, Sauer,
Schirmer, & Wyssmann, 1997) all constructs which share similarities to self-blame.
When a child perceives the self as the cause of parental arguments, parents are removed
from blame. Thus, the self is viewed as bad (higher anxiety) but avoidance of others may
not need to occur because the child has placed blame on him/her self. Children place the
blame for parental arguments on themselves.

Bickham and Fiese (1997) used the CPIC with late adolescents and compared the
results of their factor analyses with those of Grych et al. (1992) who originally used the
CPIC with primary school children. Bickham and Fiese noted that in their late adolescent
sample, self-blame had a ﬂoor effect, being endorsed less so than the other constructs.
They suggested that self-blame may be a tendency of younger children and that late
adolescents may be better able to assess parental conﬂict and not blame themselves as

children might. In this study, self-blame was also endorsed less frequently than threat

59

and conﬂict properties. Further, there was a statistically signiﬁcant correlation between
self-blame and age such that younger college students were more likely than older
students to blame themselves for conﬂict between parents.

As expected, results suggest that threat to the self is positively related to both
avoidance and anxiety. Further, this is the only inter-parental conﬂict predictor to easily
reach statistical signiﬁcance. This may be the most globally detrimental aspect of
parental quarrels as it may capture both fear of others (negative model of others) if one
feels personally threatened by parents’ arguments plus self-blame (negative self model)
resulting from the sense that the child may be the cause of parental arguments.

Child Maltreatment and Adult Attachment

Many hypotheses for the relationships between recall of severe child maltreatment
and adult attachment included negative correlations. None of these negative correlational
relationships were found. The childhood maltreatment variables, especially sexual abuse,
were the only predictors to notably suffer from restriction of range in this college sample.
Despite this, statistically signiﬁcant correlations with avoidance and anxiety were found.
Recalled emotional neglect was positively correlated with avoidance and anxiety, while
physical neglect was positively correlated with avoidance. Further, there were trends
suggesting that physical abuse may be positively related to avoidance and anxiety. These
are interesting ﬁndings in light of the hypotheses. It suggests that any form of
maltreatment cannot produce a positive view of self or others. That is, perhaps even a
dismissing adult would not have developed a positive view of self (low abandonment
anxiety) as a result, in any part, by physical abuse or a preoccupied adult would not

maintain a positive view of others (low avoidance) as a result of neglect. Instead, these

60

forms of child maltreatment may act in face valid ways contributing to a negative view of
self or others but not cause them to approach others or defensively maintain a positive
view of self.

Results suggest that physical abuse may be related to both increased avoidance
and anxiety (yet these were merely trends). Physical neglect was positively related to
avoidance and emotional neglect was positively related to both avoidance and anxiety.
Sexual abuse, possibly compromised by restriction of range, demonstrated no
relationships with either attachment dimension. Overt physical abuse was expected to be
positively related to avoidance while neglect was expected to be positively related to
anxiety. If there are differences here, they suggest that neglect seems more associated
with avoidance. Physical abuse may communicate to the child that the self is bad (higher
anxiety) and others should be avoided (higher avoidance). It is interesting to consider the
differences between physical and emotional neglect. Perhaps while neglect generally
may suggest to a child that others cannot be relied upon, emotional neglect may also
impact one’s view of self because the child’s self, what they think and feel, are ignored.

Within the insecure categorical attachment styles, while it appears that physical
abuse and emotional neglect may contribute to both avoidance and anxiety, or a fearful
attachment, it is possible to suggest for example, that physical neglect contributes to
dismissing and fearful attachments, and does not contribute to a preoccupied attachment.
Supplemeﬂ Childhood Analyses

To review, characteristics termed positive parenting, deﬁned by parental
nurturance and authoritative parenting, accounted for 6% of variance in avoidance after

controlling for anxiety and age. Childhood experiences deﬁned by physical and

61

emotional maltreatment accounted for 2% of the variance in anxiety after controlling for
age, gender, and avoidance. While these variances are meager especially for anxiety,
what is important is the fact that when considering which characteristics of childhood
experiences contribute most to the dimensions of adult attachment, these constructs
remained signiﬁcant while others did not. That is, positive parenting experiences best
determined whether one would describe oneself as avoidant and was more important that
inter-parental conﬂict or instances of child maltreatment. Whereas active negative
childhood experiences deﬁned best whether one would fear abandonment in adult
relationships and was more important than positive parenting experiences and inter-
parental conﬂict.

While there may be considerable overlap between these constructs of positive
parenting and physical/emotional maltreatment, one was more predictive of avoidance
and the other of anxiety. Where these constructs most likely diverge is at their extreme
ends. Positive parenting at one end of its spectrum involves nurturant authoritative
parenting, and at the other end, parenting which is low in warmth and authoritativeness.
It is likely that this end is deﬁned by other parenting styles and possibly correlates
positively with physical/emotional maltreatment. Similarly, one end of the
physical/emotional maltreatment dimension is obviously characterized by abuse and/or
neglect. But the other end, in the absence of abuse and neglect, is less clearly deﬁned and
certainly may be positively correlated with positive parenting. Thus, it is likely that the
reason that each construct is a better predictor of either avoidance or anxiety is due to
nurturant authoritative care-giving being a protective factor against avoidance, and

instances of child maltreatment (thereby internalizing a negative self-view) contributing

62

to greater anxiety in relationships. Importantly, this does not mean for example that
positive parenting is unrelated to anxiety, merely that instances of child maltreatment
account for more variance in anxiety than does positive parenting.

In this study, nurturance appeared as the sole signiﬁcant predictor of avoidance in
multiple regressions; however, it was not the strongest predictor of anxiety. Other
research has suggested that most of the variance that parenting styles (authoritative,
authoritarian, and permissive) contribute toward self-esteem may be accounted for instead
by parental nurturance (Buri, 1989), which itself has been shown to account for 40% of
the variance in college students’ self-esteem. That is, each of the parental authority styles
may provide information regarding the amount of nurturance a child received. This
demonstrates the higher potential predictive power of parental nurturance.

Adult Attachment and Defensive Functioning

Moderate support was demonstrated for hypotheses between defensive
functioning and dimensions of adult attachment. Like hypotheses for childhood
environmental variables, these relationships demonstrate generalized positive or negative
relationships with the dimensions of adult attachment. However, also like childhood
environmental hypotheses, those that suggested negative correlational relationships
between less mature defensive functioning and avoidance or anxiety, were not supported.
As above, this can be understood that a psychological variable representing poorer
psychological health, such as a less mature defense style, is not as likely to be associated
with another variable representing worse psychological health, such as a negative view of
self (high anxiety) in a negative direction as it is in a positive direction. Thus, an adult

high in abandonment anxiety is more likely to demonstrate less mature defenses than

63

more mature defenses.

Caution must used when interpreting results regarding defensive functioning due
to the poor scale reliability demonstrated in this sample on the neurotic scale (alpha=.49).
While it is reasonable to be somewhat conﬁdent regarding signiﬁcant correlations
between the neurotic scale and the adult attachment dimensions despite this poor
reliability, non-signiﬁcant correlations cannot be interpreted as implicit support for the
null hypothesis. Low alphas attenuate relationships between hypothesized variables.
Despite these varied reliabilities (.55, .49, and .78), these scales demonstrated a similar
pattern to the alphas reported in previous published research using the DSQ. While the
Diehl et al. (1998) study did not report alphas, Ungerer et al. (1997) reported alphas for
the immature factor of .79 and .74 (female and male) and the alphas for the neurotic and
mature factors ranged from .47 to .61. Similarly, Andrews et al. (1993) reported alphas
of .80 for the immature factor, .58 for the neurotic factor, and .68 for the mature factor.
While these reliabilities are somewhat higher than those for the present sample, note the
similar ordering of reliabilities with immature defenses being the most robust and
neurotic defenses having the lowest reliability. The authors of the DSQ suggest that the
DSQ factors attempt to measure more heterogeneous sets of behaviors than is common
and this reduces internal consistency. However, that does not aid understanding of why
the neurotic scale seems to consistently be the least reliable.

Regarding the three main categories of defensive maturity, hypotheses were as
expected in terms of the relative ordering of defense maturity that different adult
attachment styles should utilize; however, the defensive maturity of these college

students, based on correlations with the attachment dimensions, was higher than

64

hypotheses predicted. From a categorical attachment perspective, hypotheses suggested
that secure adults would use the most mature defenses, dismissing adults would use the
most neurotic defenses, while preoccupied adults and fearful adults would use the most
immature defenses. This was intended to reﬂect in some way a relative measure of
distress regarding relationships and perhaps emotional health.

Results suggest that endorsement of more mature defenses is associated with
lower avoidance and anxiety (secure), use of neurotic defenses may be associated with
greater anxiety (fearful and preoccupied), and use of more immature defenses is
associated with greater avoidance and anxiety (fearful). Thus, the order between which
attachment styles should demonstrate the most mature defenses was mostly conﬁrmed,
for example fearful students utilizing the most immature defenses, fearfuls and possibly
preoccupieds using the most neurotic defenses, and secures using the most mature
defenses. But, the level of defensive maturity, across attachment styles, was higher than
expected. This in part, makes sense given the DSQ’s intended use for assessing not only
normal populations but for people with severe emotional problems. This highlights a
beneﬁt of the DSQ’s having three different continuously measured factors. Even with
college students’ relative emotional health compared to other populations, correlational
analyses are able to highlight that students higher in anxiety and/or avoidance still
endorsed less mature defensive functioning overall. These results are consistent with
Diehl et al.’s (1998) study that included a wider range of adult participants and utilized
the DSQ to assess defenses. They found signiﬁcant correlations between fearful
attachment and more neurotic defenses, preoccupied and fearful attachments and more

immature defenses, and secure attachment and fewer immature defenses. Here too, the

65

general hierarchy of attachment-defense maturity pairings is evident.

Yet it is here when interpreting no correlation between neurotic defenses and
avoidance and a positive correlation between neurotic defenses and anxiety that the
neurotic scale’s low reliability produces results which may be suspect. It is possible that
a signiifcant correlation between avoidance and neurotic defenses could be found given a
higher reliability on the neurotic scale. Supporting the current results is Vaillant’s (1993)
description of the differences between mature, neurotic, and immature defenses. He
states that mature defenses are the closest one comes to turning water into wine, using a
defense with no glaring expense. Neurotic defenses in his view mostly hurt oneself,
while immature defenses also negatively impact others. These results follow this
thinking in that neurotic defenses were only associated with a negative self model and
immature defenses were related to both negative self and other models. Perhaps, a
negative view of self but not others results in defenses that punish only the self, while a
negative view of self and others punish both the self and others.

An advantage to viewing attachment styles categorically, as seen in Figure 1, is to
highlight the potential conceptual difference between the dismissing and preoccupied
styles. While they are both high on one attachment scale and low on the other, it is not
likely that they will both be at a similar level regarding maturity of defenses or other
psychological constructs. That is, there may be a greater negative impact caused by a
negative self model than by a negative model of others.

Immature defenses were expected to be utilized differentially depending on
whether those defenses engaged or distanced others as measured by the adult attachment

dimension of avoidance. Anxiety was considered because both types of immature

66

 

 

 

defenses were expected to correlated positively with anxiety. Fantasy, passive
aggression, and projection, chosen as representative immature defenses which distance
the self from others, were hypothesized to be positively correlated with avoidance.
Results demonstrated that fantasy and passive aggression did have positive correlations
with avoidance while projection was not related to avoidance. Potential support was
demonstrated for the hypothesis that the defenses that engage others would be negatively
correlated with avoidance. The three immature defenses chosen as those which approach
others (acting out, somatization, and dissociation) were not related to avoidance. While
they were not negatively correlated with avoidance as hypothesized, a common ﬁnding
across hypotheses, they differed from two of three of those which distance others by not
having a positive relationship with avoidance. Four of these six defenses did have
positive correlations with anxiety and a ﬁfth demonstrated a trend in that direction.
Surprisingly, there was a negative correlation between dissociation and anxiety. In other
words, it is possible that those lower in abandonment anxiety, such as secures and
dismissings may be more likely to utilize dissociation. While this result is exactly
opposite to what was hypothesized and should be interpreted with caution, interestingly,
Vaillant (1993) has suggested that dissociation is the one immature defense that is more
closely related to the next more mature level of defenses, the neurotic defenses. He
alternately terms dissociation, neurotic denial, stating that dissociation distorts feelings
more than relationships and it attracts others rather than annoys or frustrates others.

It is also of note that in this college sample, which relative to other populations
should be rather psychologically healthy, many students endorsed some use of immature

defenses. For example, on scales that ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly

67

agree,” 36% of students agreed (ranging between mildly and strongly) behaviors that
represent acting out and 30% endorsed behaviors representing fantasy.

The unexpected lack of correlation between projection and avoidance is worth
consideration. Speciﬁcally, how might this defense differ from the other two suggested
as distancing others. Fantasy clearly has a tone suggesting interpersonal disengagement
and passive aggression does not involve explicit expression of hostility to its object, but
projection implies the placement of internal conﬂict onto others. Perhaps what is most
salient here is a negative self model, or abandonment anxiety. If one has a positive view
of self, there is less need to project fault onto others. Thus projection may speak more
about a negative self model rather than suggest avoidant tendencies. Even so, it still
seems plausible that the hostility engendered in projection directed at others could
increase avoidance of others.

Schorre (1996) has theorized that anxious-ambivalent infants’ autonomic nervous
systems are likely to be sympathetically dominant, resulting in higher energy and activity
levels while avoidant infants are parasympathetically dominant, resulting in a withdrawal
response and lower activity levels. Although he has not differentiated between
dismissing and fearful styles, this lower arousal withdrawal state in the avoidant infant
shares qualities seen in the above defenses of passive aggression, fantasy, and projection.
That is, these defenses, favored in this study by college students whose avoidance and
anxiety scores suggest they possess a fearful attachment style, possess more of a

withdrawal response than acting out and hypochondriasis.

 

68

Summgy

The above ﬁndings suggest that both avoidance and anxiety are associated with
negative experiences in childhood. Further, they indicate that more adaptive attachment
functioning is associated with the use of more adaptive defensive styles in adulthood.
Notably, students who utilized immature defenses that either approached or rejected
others could be differentiated from each other, based on their dimensional attachment
ratings.

Because a primary goal of this study was to reﬁne descriptive knowledge
regarding the characteristics or correlates of the dimensions of adult attachment, a
summary of correlates of dimensional attachment patterns is provided. Those college
students higher in the dimension of avoidance were more likely to report less parental
nurturance and authoritative parenting; they were more likely to report inter-parental
conﬂict that was higher in threat to the self, childhood maltreatment such as physical
abuse (trend) or physical neglect. College students higher in avoidance were also less
likely to report the use of mature defenses, and more likely to endorse the use of
immature defenses. These immature defenses were speciﬁc to those that were suggested
as distancing others, namely fantasy, and passive aggression. Those college students
higher in the dimension of anxiety were more likely to report less authoritative parenting;
they were more likely to report parenting that was authoritarian, inter-parental conﬂict
that was higher in threat to the self, childhood maltreatment such as emotional neglect or
physical abuse (trend). College students higher in anxiety were also less likely to report
the use of mature defenses, and more likely to endorse the use of neurotic and immature

defenses. They were more likely to endorse using immature defenses, both those that

69

 

enlist/approach others (acting out and somatization) and those that distance/avoid others
(fantasy and projection). Surprisingly however, dissociation was negatively correlated
with anxiety.

Positive parenting characteristics such as authoritative parenting and nurturance
was the childhood environmental construct best able to account for variance in the adult
attachment dimension of avoidance while instances of physical/emotional child
maltreatment was the childhood environmental construct best able to account for variance
in the adult attachment dimension of anxiety. Defensive maturity levels did generally
follow the hypothesized order of “emotional health” as measured by attachment styles. In
other words, students higher in avoidance and/or anxiety used less mature defenses than
those lower on the attachment dimensions. The dimensions of adult attachment
accounted for much greater variance in the immature defenses than for either neurotic or
mature defenses.

Limitations and Future Directions

In this cross-sectional study of young adults, true predictors of adult attachment
dimensions cannot be found, but correlates allow future exploration of potential
contributors to the dimensions of adult attachment. Further, this study is limited by data
collection in which all data is reported by one person. Nothing is known regarding how
parents may view these same experiences from childhood or how peers would evaluate
current defensive functioning and attitudes toward relationships in these college students.
Observation of college students’ self reported attachment classiﬁcation, which was used
in this study to assess the necessary sample size, suggests that there were a higher number

of both preoccupied and fearful subjects and fewer dismissing subjects than is often

70

reported in more age stratiﬁed adult samples (Diehl et a1, 1998). This suggests that
attachment styles may undergo some developmental adaptation over many years, and that
younger college students in particular may be more concerned about their own worthiness
in relationships than older college aged persons. Romantic relationships are newer
experiences for college students and the development of successful identities in romantic
relationships, similar to ego identity (foreclosed etc.) may take time to develop that only
experience in successive relationships can provide. Further, Diehl et al.’s study reported
statistically signiﬁcantly more fearful participants among young adults (ages 20 - 40)
when compared to older adults (ages 60-875), and more dismissings among the older
adults when compared to the young adults. They proposed that older adults, confronted
with the loss of longtime signiﬁcant relationships, may adopt the more self-reliant
dismissing approach toward relationships.

Results of the relationships between parenting styles and dimensions of
attachment suggest the possibility that these parenting styles may differ based on an
interaction between parental control and acceptance of input from the child regarding
parenting. For example, acceptance of child’s input may have differing effects if that
input is accepted in the context of ﬁrm parenting guidelines (as in the authoritative style)
versus the absence of parental guidelines for child’s behavior (as in the permissive style).
Thus it could be illuminating to view attachment differences predicted by the interaction
between parental control and input from the child not readily available from the PAQ
scaling at present.

While attachment styles have been characterized as defensive processes (Bowlby,

1973; Mikulincer, 1998) relatively little work has addressed this overlap between

71

attachment and the large body of work on defenses in general. Mikulincer suggested that,
under stress, anxious-ambivalent adults experience a hyperarousal of affect while
avoidants exhibit a suppression of affect and this accomplished by defensive processes.
Similarly, Schorre (1996) stated that these same attachment styles in infants exhibit high
or low levels of arousal respectively. Given that the dimensions of adult attachment are
consistent with at least four primary attachment styles, it seems necessary to expand the
above work to help explain how fearful adults may respond to stress. Would they have
high or low arousal levels and would they suppress affect, and how would these
responses relate to their defensive functioning in general. While this study indicates that
those high in both avoidance and anxiety seem most prone to endorsing behaviors
consistent with the least adaptive defenses it would be helpful to demonstrate these
unconscious intrapsychic processes in a manner that does not rely on participants’ self

report.

72

APPENDICES

73

Apgandix A: Parental Nurturance Scale

OO\IO\IJi-§UJNF-‘

NNNNNr—tu—tu—dr—II—Ir—Ib—It—dh—Ap—I
ALANHOOOOQ¢UIAWN~OO

Instructions: The following questions ask about your relationships with your
parents. Please use the scale below and put your answers on the scoring sheet.

Strongly Disagree neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4

My mother seldom says nice things about me.

I am an important person in my mother’s eyes

My mother oﬁen acts as if as if she doesn't care about me.
My mother enjoys spending time with me.

My mother expresses her warmth and affection for me.
My mother is easy for me to talk to.

I am tense and uneasy when my mother and I are together.

I feel that my mother ﬁnds fault with me more often than I deserve.

My mother takes an active interest in my affairs.

I feel very close to my mother.

My mother does not understand me.

My mother believes in me.

I don't feel like my mother enjoys being with me.

My mother doesn't really know what kind of person I am.
My mother is a warm and caring individual.

My mother does not feel that I am important and interesting.
My mother is very interested in those things that concern me.

My mother is often critical of me and nothing I do ever seems to please her.

My mother seldom shows me any affection.

My mother consoles me and helps me when I am unhappy or in trouble

My mother is generally cold and removed when I am with her.
I receive a lot of afﬁrmation from my mother.

My mother is very understanding and sympathetic.

My mother does not really care much what happens to me.

***Duplicate for father

74

5

 

Apgndix B: Parental Authority Questionnaire

Strongly Disagree neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5
1 While I was growing up, my mother felt that in a well run home the children should
have their way in the family as often as the parents do.
Even if her children didn't agree with her, my mother felt that it was for our own
good if we were forced to conform to what she thought was right.
3 Whenever my mother told me to do something as I was growing up, she expected
me to do it immediately without asking any questions.
4 As I was growing up, once family policy had been established, my mother
discussed the reasoning behind the policy with the children in the family.
My mother has always encouraged verbal give-and-take whenever I have felt that
family rules and restrictions were unreasonable.
6 My mother has always felt that what children need is to be free to make up their
own minds and to do what they want to do, even if this does not agree with what
their parents might want.
As I was growing up, my mother did not allow me to question any decision that she
had made.
As I was growing up, my mother directed the activities and decisions of the
children in the family through reasoning and discipline.
9 My mother has always felt that more force should be used by parents in order to get
their children to behave the way that they are supposed to.
10 As I was growing up, my mother did not feel that I needed to obey rules and
regulations of behavior simply because someone in authority had established them.
1 1 As I was growing up, I knew what my mother expected of me in my family but I
also felt free to discuss those expectations with my mother when I felt that they
were unreasonable.
12 My mother felt that wise parents should teach their children early just who is boss
in the family.
13 As I was growing up, my mother seldom gave me expectations and guidelines for
my behavior.
14 Most of the time as I was growing up, my mother did what the children in the
family wanted when making family decisions.
15 As the children in my family were growing up, my mother consistently gave us
direction and guidance in rational and objective ways.
16 As I was growing up my mother would get very upset if I tried to disagree with her.
17 My mother feels that most problems in society would be solved if parents would
not restrict their children's activities, decisions, and desires as they are growing up.
18 As I was growing up, my mother let me know what behaviors she expected of me,
and if I didn't meet those expectations, she punished me.
19 As I was growing up my mother allowed me to decide most things by myself
without a lot of direction from her.

N

kl!

\l

00

75

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

As I was growing up my mother took the children's opinions into consideration
when making family decisions, but she would not decide to do something simply
because the children wanted it.

My mother did not view herself as responsible for directing and guiding my
behavior as I was growing up.

My mother had clear standards of behavior for the children in our home as I was
growing up, but she was willing to adjust those standards to the needs of each of
the individual children in the family.

My mother gave me direction for my behavior and activities as I was growing up,
and she expected me to follow her direction, but she was always willing to listen to
my concerns and discuss that direction with me.

As I was growing up my mother allowed me to form my own point of view on
family matters and she generally allowed me to decide for myself what I was going
to do.

My mother has always felt that most problems in society would be solved if we
could get parents to strictly and forcibly deal with their children when they don't do
what they are supposed to as they are growing up.

As I was growing up my mother often told me exactly what she wanted me to do
and how she expected me to do it.

As I was growing up my mother gave me clear direction for my behavior and
activities, but she was also understanding when I disagreed with her.

As I was growing up my mother did not direct the behavior, activities or desires of
the children in the family.

As I was growing up I knew what my mother expected of me in the family and she
insisted that I conform to those expectations simply out of respect for her authority.
As I was growing up if my mother made a decision in the family that hurt me, she
was willing to discuss that decision with me and to admit if she had made a
mistake.

***Duplicate for father

76

Appendix C: Children's Perceptions of Inter-parental Conﬂict

OOQQM-hWN—e

MNNNNNNNNNNtd—o—thd—npd—t—I—d—i
OCOOQO\M-§UJN—‘O\OW\IO\MAUJNHO\O

Instructions: In every family there are times when the parents don't get along.
When their parents argue or disagree, children can feel a lot of different ways. We
would like to know what kind of feelings you have when your parents have
arguments or disagreements. If your parents don't live together in the same house
with you, think about times that they are together when they don't agree or about
times when both of your parents lived in the same house, when you answer these
questions.

True sort of True False
1 2 3

I never see my parents arguing or disagreeing.
When my parents have an argument they usually work it out.
My parents often get into arguments about things I do at school.
My parents get really mad when they argue.
When my parents argue 1 can do something to make myself feel better.
I get scared when my parents argue.
I feel caught in the middle when my parents argue.
I'm not to blame when my parents have arguments.
They may not think I know it, but my parents argue or disagree a lot.
Even after my parents stop arguing they stay mad at each other.
My parents have arguments because they are not happy together.
When my parents have a disagreement they discuss it quietly.
I don't know what to do when my parents have arguments.
My parents are often mean to each other even when I'm around.
When my parents argue I worry about what will happen to me.
I don't feel like I have to take sides when my parents have a disagreement.
It's usually my fault when my parents argue.
I often see my parents arguing.
When my parents disagree about something they usually come up with something.
My parents' arguments are usually about something I did.
The reasons my parents argue never change.
When my parents have an argument they say mean things to each other.
When my parents argue or disagree I can usually help make things better.
When my parents argue I'm afraid that something bad will happen.
My mom wants me to be on her side when she and my dad argue.
Even if they don't say it, I know I'm to blame when my parents argue.
My parents hardly ever argue.
When my parents argue they usually make up right away.
My parents usually argue or disagree because of the things I do.
My parents argue because they don't really love each other.

77

31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44

45
46
47
48
49

When my parents have an argument they yell a lot.

When my parents argue there's nothing I can do to stop them.

When my parents argue I worry that one of them will get hurt.

I feel like I have to take sides when my parents have a disagreement.
My parents often nag and complain about each other around the house.
My parents hardly ever yell when they have a disagreement.

My parents often get into arguments when I do something wrong.

My parents have broken or thrown things during an argument.

After my parents stop arguing, they are ﬁiendly toward each other.
When my parents argue I'm afraid that they will yell at me too.

My parents blame me when they have arguments.

My dad wants me to be on his side when he and my mom argue.

My parents have pushed or shoved each other during an argument.
When my parents argue or disagree there's nothing I can do to make myself feel
better.

When my parents argue I'm afraid that they will get a divorce.

My parents still act mean after they have had an argument.

My parents have arguments because they don't know how to get along.
Usually its not my fault when my parents have arguments.

When my parents argue they don't listen to anything I say.

78

Appendix D: Childhood Traurga Ouestionnﬂ

b.)

LII

00

10

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23

Instructions: These questions ask some of your experiences growing up as a child

and a teenager. For each question, please ﬁll in the number on the scoring sheet

that best describes how you feel. Although some of these questions are of a

personal nature, please try to answer as honestly as you can.

Never True Rarely True Sometimes True Often True Very Often True
1 2 3 4 5

When I was growing up, there was someone in my family whom I could talk to

about my problems.

When I was growing up, people in my family criticized me.

When I was growing up, I didn't have enough to eat

When I was growing up, people in my family showed conﬁdence in me, and

encouraged me to achieve.

When I was growing up, someone in my family hit me or beat me.

When I was growing up, I felt that I better take care of myself, because no one else

would.

When I was growing up, people in my family argued or fought with each other.

When I was growing up, I lived in a group home or a foster home.

When I was growing up, I knew that there was someone to take care of me and

protect me.

When I was growing up, there was someone outside of my family (like a teacher

or a neighbor) who was like a parent to me.

When I was growing up, someone in my family yelled and screamed at me.

When I was growing up, I saw my mother or one of my brothers or sisters get hit

or beaten.

When I was growing up, someone in my family made sure that I went to school

unless I was sick.

When I was growing up, someone in my family called me "stupid" or "lazy" or

"ugly."

When I was growing up, I was living on the streets by the time I was a teenager or

even younger.

When I was growing up, there was someone in my family whom I admired or

wanted to be like.

When I was growing up, my parents were too drunk or high to take care of the

family.

When I was growing up, I rarely got the love or attention that I needed.

When I was growing up, people in my family got into trouble with the police.

When I was growing up, there was someone in my family who helped me feel that

I was important or special.

When I was growing up, I felt like there was someone in my family who wanted

me to be a success.

When I was growing up, I had to wear dirty clothes.

When I was growing up, I lived with different people at different times (like

different relatives, or foster families).

79

24

25
26

27
28
29
3o
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

43
44

45

46

47
48

49
50

51
52

When I was growing up, I believe that one of my brothers or sisters may have
been molested.

When I was growing up, I felt that l was loved.

When I was growing up, the other kids that I hung out with seemed like my "real
family."

When I was growing up, I rarely had a father (or step-father) around the house.
When I was growing up, my parents tried to treat all of us children the same.
When I was growing up, I thought that my parents wished I had never been born.
When I was growing up, I got hit so hard by someone in my family that I had to
see a doctor or go to the hospital.

When I was growing up, there was someone in my family who made sure that I
stayed out of trouble.

When I was growing up, people in my family hit me so hard that it left me with
bruises or marks.

When 1 was growing up, I belonged to a gang.

When I was growing up, the punishments I received seemed fair.

When I was growing up, I had sex with an adult, or with someone who was a lot
older than me (someone at least 5 years older than me).

When I was growing up, there was someone older than myself. (like a teacher or
parent) who was a positive role model for me.

When I was growing up, I was punished with a belt, a board, or a cord (or some
other hard object).

When I was growing up, there was nothing I wanted to change about my family.
When I was growing up, people in my family got high or drunk.

When I was growing up, people in my family looked out for each other.

When I was growing up, my parents were divorced or separated.

When I was growing up, people in my family said hurtful or insulting things to
me.

When I was growing up, I believe that I was physically abused.

When I was growing up, people in my family tried to keep me away from bad
inﬂuences.

When I was growing up, there was an adult or other responsible person around the
house when I was home.

When I was growing up, I got hit or beaten so hard that it was noticed by someone
like a teacher, neighbor, or a doctor.

When I was growing up, people in my family seemed out of control.

When I was growing up, people in my family encouraged me to stay in school and
get an education.

When I was growing up, I spent time out of the house and no one knew where I
was.

When I was growing up, the punishments 1 received seemed cruel.

When I was growing up, I felt that someone in my family hated me.

When I was growing up, people in my family felt close to each other.

80

53

54
55
56

57

58
59
60

61
62
63
64

65
66
67

68
69
70

When I was growing up, someone tried to touch me in a sexual way, or tried to
make me touch them.

When I was growing up, people in my family pushed me or shoved me.

When I was growing up, there was enough food in the house for everyone.

When I was growing up, everyone on my house had certain chores that they were
supposed to do.

When I was growing up, someone threatened to hurt me or tell lies about me
unless I did something sexual with them.

When I was growing up, I had the perfect childhood.

When I was growing up, I was frightened of being hurt by someone in my family.
When I was growing up, someone tried to make me do sexual things or watch
sexual things.

When I was growing up, someone in my family believed in me.

When I was growing up, someone molested me.

When I was growing up, I believe that I was emotionally abused.

When I was growing up, people in my family didn't know or seem to care what I
was doing.

When I was growing up, there was someone to take me to the doctor if I needed it.
When I was growing up, I had the best family in the world.

When I was growing up, people in my family had secrets that I wasn't supposed to
share with anyone.

When I was growing up, I believe that I was sexually abused.

When I was growing up, my family was a source of strength and support.

When I was growing up, I saw or heard my mother physically threatened or hurt
by my father (step-father) or her boyﬁiend.

81

Appgndix E: Exmriences in Close Relationships

OOOONONMAUJNH

H

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

Instructions: The following statements concern how you feel in romantic relationships.
We are interested in how you generally experience relationships, not just in what is
happening in a current relationship. Respond to each statement by indicating how much
you agree or disagree with it.

Disagree Strongly Neutral/Mixed Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 5

I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down.

I worry about being abandoned.

I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.

I worry a lot about my relationships.

Just when my partner starts to get close to me I ﬁnd myself pulling away.

I worry that romantic partners won't care about me as much as I care about them.
I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.

I worry a fair amount about losing my partner.

I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners.

I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for
him/her.

I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back.

I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes
scares them away.

I am nervous when partners get too close to me.

I worry about being alone.

I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.
My desire to be very close sometimes scares my partner away.

I try to avoid getting too close to my partner.

I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner.

I ﬁnd it relatively easy to get close to my partner.

Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more feeling, more commitment.
I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners.

I do not often worry about being abandoned.

I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners.

If I can't get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry.

I tell my partner just about everything.

I ﬁnd that my partner(s) don't want to get as close as I would like.

I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner.

When I'm not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure.
I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners.

I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like.

I don't mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help.

I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them.

82

33
34
35
36

It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need.

When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself.
I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance.
I resent it when my partner spends time away from me.

83

 

Apmndix F: Relationships Questionnaire

Instructions: The following is concerned with your experiences in relationships.
Please read the following four statements and choose the one that you feel best
describes you. (Note: the words “close” and “intimate” refer to psychological or
emotional closeness, not necessarily to sexual intimacy. )

A. I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close
relationships, but I ﬁnd it difﬁcult to trust others completely, or to depend on
them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.
B. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important
for me to feel independent and self-sufﬁcient, and I prefer not to depend on others
or have others depend on me.

C. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often ﬁnd that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being
without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as
much as I value them.

D. It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable
depending on others and having others depend on me. I don’t worry about being
alone or having others not accept me.

A B C D
1 l 2 3 4

84

Appendix G: Defen_se Style Questiongaire- 40 item version

b)

\IONUI-lk

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25

26
27
28
29
30

31

Instructions: Below are a series of statements about personal attitudes. Using the
scale described below, please determine which response best reﬂects the way you
feel regarding that statement.

Strongly Disagree neither Agree nor Disagree Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5

I get satisfaction from helping others and if this were taken away from me I would

get depressed

I'm able to keep a problem out of my mind until I have time to deal with it

I work out my anxiety through doing something constructive and creative like
painting or woodwork.

I am able to ﬁnd good reasons for everything I do.

I'm able to laugh at myself pretty easily.

People tend to mistreat me.

If someone mugged me and stole my money, I'd rather he/she be helped than
punished.

People say I tend to ignore unpleasant facts as if they didn't exist.

I ignore danger as if I was Superman/ Superwoman

I pride myself on my ability to cut people down to size

I often act impulsively when something is bothering me.

I get physically ill when things aren't going well for me.

I'm a very inhibited person.

I get more satisfaction from my fantasies than from my real life.

I've special talents that allow me to go through life with no problems

There are always good reasons when things don't work out for me.

I work more things out in my daydreams than in my real life.

I fear nothing.

Sometimes I think I'm an angel and other times I think I'm a devil.

I get openly aggressive when I feel hurt.

I always feel that someone I know is like a guardian angel.

As far as I'm concerned, people are either good or bad.

If my boss bugged me, I might make a mistake in my work or work more slowly
to get back at him/her.

There is someone I know who can do anything and is absolutely fair and just

I can keep the lid on my feelings if letting them out would interfere with what I'm
doing

I'm usually able to see the funny side of an otherwise painful predicament.

I get a headache when I have to do something I don't like.

I often ﬁnd myself being very nice to people who by all rights I should be angry at.
I am sure I get a raw deal from life.

When I have to face a difﬁcult situation I try to imagine what it will be like and
plan ways to cope with it.

Doctors never really understand what is wrong with me.

85

32
33
34
35
36
37

38
39
40

After I ﬁght for my rights, I tend to apologize for my assertiveness

When I'm depressed or anxious, eating makes me feel better.

I'm often told that I don't show my feelings

If I can predict that I'm going to be sad ahead of time, I can cope better.

No matter how much I complain, I never get a satisfactory response.

Often I ﬁnd that I don't feel anything when the situation would seem to warrant
strong emotions

Sticking to the task at hand keeps me from feeling depressed and anxious.

If I were in a crisis, I would seek out another person who had the same problem
If I have an aggressive thought, I feel the need to do something to compensate for
it.

86

Appendix H: Tafbles

87

Table 1

Sample Sizes for Age, Ethnicity, and Gender

 

 

Variables N %
Age
17-18 53 32.3%
19-20 98 59.8%
21-22 10 6.1%
23-25 0 0.0%
26 and older 3 1.8%
Ethnicity
African-American 1 1 6.7%
Asian-American 6 3.7%
Caucasian 13 8 84.1%
Hispanic/Latino 4 2.4%
Other Ethnicity 5 3.1%
Gender
Female 125 76.2%
Male 39 23.8%

 

88

Table 2

Correlations between Demggraphic Variables and Attachment and Defensive Maturity

 

 

Variables Avoidance Anxiety Mature Neurotic Immature
1. Age -.16* .-25** .21** -.18* -.25**

2. Female -.03 .21** .01 .06 -.10

3. African— —.07 -.07 -.11 -.12 -.09
American

4. Asian-American -.01 .13 -.01 .05 .13

5. Caucasian .09 -.02 .07 .08 -.07

6. Hispanic/Latino .03 -. 10 .09 -. 16* .03

7. Other Ethnicity -.12 .01 -.07 .09 .11

 

Note. all correlations are two-tailed.
* p < .05
** p < .01

89

Table 3

Correlations between Demographic Variables and Childhood Environmental Variables

 

 

Variables Age Female Afr-Amer Asn-Amer Caucasian Hisp/Lat Other
Nurturance .02 .03 .03 .03 -.04 .02 -.02
Parenting Style
Authoritative .09 -.02 . 12 -.05 -.03 .08 -. 12
Authoritarian -.2l ** .03 .08 .14 -. l 6* -.09 . 14
Permissive .07 -.06 -.09 -.14 .10 .13 -.02
Parental Conﬂict
COHf- Properi- -.08 .14 -.07 -.09 .05 .07 .03
Self Blame -.21** -.13 -.04 .06 .01 ' -.07 .03
Threat to Self -.11 .10 -.02 -.09 .04 -.02 .05
Maltreatment
Emot. Abuse -. 16* .12 -.18* .07 .05 .03 .04
Emot. -.l l -.05 -.06 .04 .04 .04 -.08
Neglect
Phys Abuse -.12 .01 .03 -.03 -.02 -.06 .08
Phys- Neglect -.08 -.20** -.02 -.07 .08 -.00 -.06
Sexual Abuse -.01 -.05 .02 -.02 .03 -.06 -.01

 

Note. all correlations are two-tailed.
* p < .05
** p < .01

90

Table 4

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance with Childhood Environmental Variables
as the Dependent Variables and Minority Status as the Independent VariaLle

 

 

Variables df £
Parental Nurturance 1, 158 .28
Parenting Style
Authoritative l, 158 .01
Authoritarian l, 158 3.44
Permissive l, 158 .97
Inter-parental Conﬂict
Conﬂict Properties 1, 158 .58
Self Blame l, 158 .01
Threat to Self l, 158 .08
Child Maltreatment
Emotional Abuse 1, 158 .74
Emotional Neglect 1, 158 .62
Physical Abuse 1, 158 .05
Physical Neglect 1, 158 1.18
Sexual Abuse 1, 158 .07

 

Note. The overall F was not signiﬁcant (£( 12,147) = 0.76)
All univariate F’s were nonsigniﬁcant

91

Table 5

Summary of Multivariate Analysis of Variance with Attachment and Defensive Maturity
as the Dependent Vaﬂbles and Minority Smtuﬂs the Independent Variable

 

 

Variables df £
Attachment
Anxiety 5, 158 .05
Avoidance 5, 158 1.39
Defensive Maturity
Mature 5, 158 .84
Neurotic 5, 158 1.13
Immature 5, 158 .80

 

Note. The overall F was not signiﬁcant (£(5,158) = 1.38)
All univariate F’s were nonsigniﬁcant

92

 

Table 6

Summary of Multivariate Anggysis of Variance with Childhood Environmental Variables

as the Dependent Variables and Gender as the Independent Variable

 

 

Variables df £
Parental Nurturance 1, 158 .09
Parenting Style
Authoritative l, 158 .11
Authoritarian 1, 158 .12
Permissive 1, 158 .34
Inter-parental Conﬂict
Conﬂict Properties 1, 158 3.08
Self Blame 1, 158 2.77
Threat to Self 1, 158 1.50
Child Maltreatment
Emotional Abuse 1, 158 2.23
Emotional Neglect 1, 158 .52
Physical Abuse 1, 158 .03
Physical Neglect 1, 158 67]“
Sexual Abuse 1, 158 .27

 

Note. The overall F was signiﬁcant (£(12,147) = 1.93, p < .05)

*p<05

93

Table 7

Summary of Multivariate Anagysis of Variance with Attachment and Defensive Maturity
as the Dependent Variables and Gender as the Independent Variable

 

 

Variables df £
Attachment
Anxiety 5, 158 7.26**
Avoidance 5, 158 .16
Defensive Maturity
Mature 5, 158 .01
Neurotic 5, 158 .48
Immature 5, 158 1.79

 

Note. The overall F was signiﬁcant (£(5,158) = 3.36)

**p<.01.

94

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Childhood Environmental Variables Attachment and
Defensive Functioning

 

 

N Minimum Maximum M SD

 

Parental Nurturance 162 1.17 5 .00 4.07 .70
Parenting Style

Authoritative 163 1.3 5 5 .00 3.51 .70

Authoritarian 163 1.20 4.90 2.99 .65

Permissive 163 1.00 3.65 2.41 .49
Inter-parental Conﬂict

Conﬂict Properties 163 1.00 3.00 1.70 .52

Self Blame 163 1.00 2.56 1.20 .35

Threat to Self 163 1.00 2.83 1.60 .40
Child Maltreatment

Emotional Abuse 164 1.00 4.92 2.05 .76

Emotional Neglect 164 l .00 4.06 1 .60 .63

Physical Abuse 164 1.00 4.71 1.36 .60

Physical Neglect 164 1.00 3.88 1.25 .43

Sexual Abuse 164 1.00 5.00 1.22 .62
Attachment

Anxiety 164 1.22 4.61 2.90 .76

Avoidance 164 1.00 4.39 2.28 .79
Defensive Maturity

Mature 164 1.00 4.71 3.32 .57

Neurotic 164 2.00 5.00 3.16 .55

Immature 164 1.10 3.70 2.45 .50

 

95

Table 9

Correlations between Childhood Environmental Variablesand Adult Attachment

 

 

Variables Avoidance Anxiety
Parental Nurturance -.26** a -.1 1”
Parenting Style
Authoritative -.19** " -.16* b
Authoritarian .01"c .16* "c
Permissive .12 "" .01b
Inter-parental Conﬂict
Conﬂict Properties .13 " .12 ""
Self Blame .07 "8‘ ° .12"'°
Threat to Self .18* a .21** b

Child Maltreatment
Emotional Abuse

Emotional Neglect .23** " .13* b
Physical Abuse .12 a .12 "
Physical Neglect .17* a .04 b' d
Sexual Abuse .08 a .08 b

 

'l' = two-tailed signiﬁcance

a = controlling for anxiety

b = controlling for avoidance
c = controlling for age

(I = controlling for gender
*p<05

* * p < .01.

96

 

Table 10

Correlations between Adult Attachment and Defensive Functioning

 

 

Variables Avoidance Anxiety
Defensive Maturity
Mature -.l8* 2” _.21** b.c
Neurotic -.()6 3~° .16* he
Immature .36** M .36** km
Speciﬁc Immature Defenses
Acting Out .01 “'C .25“ b.c
Dissociation .07 3'“ ‘14:: he
Somatization -.01 a” .33" In
Fantasy .23" ac 32” so
Passive Aggression .25” a.c .12 b,c
Projection .10 ac .37“ so

 

a = controlling for anxiety

b = controlling for avoidance
c = controlling for age

* p < .05

* * p < .01

97

Table 1 l

Intercorrelations between Childhood Environment Variables

 

 

Variables 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
1. Nurturance .64 -.30 -.04 -.34 -.32 -.39 -.60 -.64 -.47 -.44 -.35
Par Style
2.Auth-ive -- -.40 .03 -.37 -.18 -.38 -.64 -.64 -.45 -.36 -.26
3.Auth-ian -- -- -.42 .23 .23 .24 .41 .26 .39 .09 -.03
4.Per-ive -- -- -- .04 -.09 . 10 .02 .09 -.08 .16 .12
Int-par Conﬂict
5.Conf-Prop -- -- -- -- .17 .59 .61 .39 .41 .20 .13
6.Self Blame —- -- -— -- -- .29 .29 .27 .27 .20 .07
7.Threat-Self -- -- -- -- -- -- .49 .32 .36 .25 .1 1
Maltreatment
8.Emt-Abuse -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .75 .70 .46 .37
9.Emt—Negl -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .56 .67 .42
10.Phy-Abuse -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .59 .43
1 1 .Phy-Negl -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .51

1 2 . Sex-Abuse

 

98

Table 12

Intercorrelations of Recomputed Child Environment Variables

 

 

Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Positive Parenting -.36 -.01 -.30 -.39 -.71 -.35
2. Authoritarian Parenting -- -.42 .23 .24 .35 -.03
3. Permissive Parenting -- -.09 .06 .06 .12
4. Self-Blame -- .19 .30 .07
5. Threat/Conf. properties -- .53 .14
6. Phys/Emot. maltreat. -- .48

7. Sexual Abuse

 

99

Table 13

Summary of Hierarchical Reggession Analysis for Age. Anxiety. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Avoidance

 

 

Variables l3 4&2
Step 1

Age -.10 .02
Step 2

Anxiety .20* .06
Step 3

Positive parenting . -.20 .08

Authoritarian parenting -.08

Permissive parenting .08

Exposure/threat IPC .02

Self-blame IPC .00

Phys./emot. maltreatment .1 3

Sexual abuse -.07

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
* *p < .01

100

Table 14

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age, Anxiety, and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Avoidance

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1

Age -.10 .02
Step 2

Anxiety .20* .06
Step 3

Positive parenting -.20 .08

Authoritarian parenting —.08

Permissive parenting .08

Exposure/threat IPC .02

Phys./emot. maltreatment . 1 3

Sexual abuse -.07

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.

*p< .05
**p< .01

101

Table 15

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Anxiety. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Avoidance

 

 

 

Variables l3 4&2
Step 1

Age -.11 .03
Step 2

Anxiety .18* .06 '
Step 3

Positive parenting -.21* .09

Authoritarian parenting -.07

Permissive parenting .09

Phys./emot. maltreatment .1 3

Sexual abuse -.07

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
* *p < .01

102

Table 16

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Anxieﬁ, and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Avoidance

 

 

Variables B A.R_’
Step 1

Age -.10 .03
Step 2

Anxiety .18* .06
Step 3

Positive parenting -.20 .08

Permissive parenting .12

Phys./emot. maltreatment .1 1

Sexual abuse -.06

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.

*p< .05
**p< .01

103

Table 17

 

 

 

 

Summm of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age, Anxiety. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Avoidance
Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -.10 .03
Swp2
Anxiety .18* .06
Step 3
Positive parenting -.20 .08
Permissive parenting .12
Phys./emot. maltreatment .09

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.

*p<.05
**p<.01

104

Table 18

Summgy of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age, Anxieg, and Childhood

Environment variables Predicting Avoidance

 

 

Variables B AK
Step 1

Age -.11 .03
Step 2

Anxiety .19* .06
Step 3

Positive parenting -.26** .08

Permissive parenting .12

 

Note. Beta values are for ﬁrll model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

105

Table 19

Summm of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age, Anxiety. and Positive Parenting

 

 

 

 

Predictingvoidance

Variables B AK
Step 1

Age -. 10 .03
Step 2

Anxiety .20* .06
Step 3

Positive parenting -.25** .06

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

106

 

Table 20

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance, and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -. 1 5 * . 10
Gender .22* *
Step 2
Avoidance .20* .06
Step 3
Positive parenting .02 .06
Authoritarian parenting .16
Permissive parenting .11
Exposure/threat IPC .00
Self-blame IPC .10
Phys./emot. maltreatment . 10
Sexual abuse .04

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

107

Table 21

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -.15* .10
Gender .22**
Step 2
Avoidance .20** .06
Step 3
Positive parenting .02 .06
Authoritarian parenting .16
Permissive parenting .11
Self-blame IPC .10
Phys./emot. maltreatment . 10
Sexual abuse .04

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

108

Table 22

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Anagysis for Age. Avcﬁance. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -. 16* .10
Gender .22**
Step 2
Avoidance .20** .06
Step 3
Authoritarian parenting .15 .06
Permissive parenting .1 1
Self-blame IPC .10
Phys./emot. maltreatment .08
Sexual abuse .04

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

109

Table 23

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidﬁce. and Childhood

Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -.15* .10
Gender .22**
Step 2
Avoidance .20* .06
Step 3
Authoritarian parenting .15 .06
Permissive parenting .11
Self-blame IPC .10
Phys./emot. maltreatment . 1 0

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

110

Table 24

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1
Age -.17* .10
Gender .21 **
Step 2
Avoidance . 19* .06
Step 3
Authoritarian parenting .15 .04
Permissive parenting .09
Phys./emot. maltreatment . 12

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

111

Table 25

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance. and Childhood
Environment variables Predicting Anxiety

 

 

Variables 5 AK
Step 1

Age -. 17* .10

Gender .21 **
Step 2

Avoidance .20* .06
Step 3

Authoritarian parenting .10 .04

Phys./emot. maltreatment . 14

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

112

Table 26

Summm of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance and
Physical/Emotiori Maltreatment Predicting Anxiﬂ

 

 

 

Variables B AK
Step 1

Age -.19* .10

Gender .21**
Step 2

Avoidance .20** .06
Step 3

Phys./emot. maltreatment . 16* .02

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

113

Table 27

Summag of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidancg and Anxiety

Predicting Mature Defenses

 

 

Variables 13 AK
Step 1

Age .13 .04
Step 2

Anxiety -.21 ** .09

Avoidance -. 1 8*

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

114

 

Table 28

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance. and Anxiety
Predicting Neurotic Defenses

 

 

Variables [3 AK
Step 1

Age -. 1 5 .03
Step 2

Anxiety . 1 7* .03

Avoidance -.07

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

115

Table 29

Summm of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Age. Avoidance. and Anxiety
Predicting Imrgature Defenses

 

 

Variables [3 4&2
Step 1

Age -.11 .06
Step 2

Anxiety .34** .27

Avoidance .34**

 

Note. Beta values are for full model.
*p < .05
**p < .01

116

 

Appendix 1: Figures

117

Defense Maturity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5
3
....... ‘
25 ”k”
o"‘ .....
2 ‘"
+Mature
-I—-Neurotic
1.5 "in lmnature
1
0.5
O

 

If I l 1

Secure Dismissing Preoccupied Fearful
Attachment Category

Figure 1: Defense Maturity by Attachment, Controlling for Age

118

References

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
Attachment: Assessed in the Strange Situation and at Home. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Alexander, P. C. (1992). Application of attachment theory to the study of sexual
abuse. Jourgal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 183-195.

Andrews, G., Singh, M., & Bond, M. (1993). The defense style questionnaire.
The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 181, 246-256.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young
adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Q, 236-244.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental
Psychology Monograph. 4, 1-103.

Bernstein, D.P., Fink, L, Handelsman, L, F oote, J ., Lovejoy, M., Wenzel, K.,
Sapareto, E., & Ruggiero, J. (1993). Initial reliability and validity of a new retrospective
measure of child abuse and neglect. American Journal of Psychiatry. 151, 1132-1136.

Bickham, N.L, & Fiese, B.H. (1997). Extension of the children’s perceptions of
interparental conﬂict scale for use with late adolescents. Journal of Family Psychology,
_1_1_, 246-250.

Bond, M., Gardner, S. T., Christian, J ., & Sigal, J. J. (1983). Empirical study of
self-rated defense styles. Archives of General Psychiatry. 40. 333-338.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth

Press.

119

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic
Books.

Brennan, J ., Andrews, G., Morris-Yates, A., & Pollock, C. (1990). An
examination of defense style in parents who abuse children. The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Diseﬁe. 178, 592-595.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of
adult attachment: an integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

Brennan, K.A., & Shaver, PR. (1998). Attachment styles and personality
disorders: Their connections to each other and to parental divorce, parental death, and
perceptions of parental caregiving. Journal of Personality, 66. 835-878.

Buehler, C., Krishnakumar, A., Stone, G., Anthony, C., Pemberton, S., & Gerard,
J. (1998). Interparental conﬂict styles and youth problem behaviors: A two-sample
replication study. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 60. 119 - 132.

Buri, J .R. (1989). Self-esteem and appraisals of parental behavior. Journal of
Adolescent Research. 4, 33-49.

Buri, J .R. (1991). Parental Authority Questionnaire. Jourgal of Personality
Asscﬁsment. 57. 110-119.

Buri, J.R., Kirchner, P.A., & Walsh, J .M. (1987). Familial correlates of self-
esteem in young American adults. The Journal of Social Psycholw, 583-588.

Buri, J. R., Louiselle, P. A., Misukanis, T. M., & Mueller, R. A. (1988). Effects of
parental authoritarianism and authoritativeness on self-esteem. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin. 14. 271-282.

120

Buri, J .R., Murphy, P., Richtsmeier, L.M., & Komar, K.K. (1992). Stability of
parental nurturance as a salient predictor of self-esteem. Psychological Reports. 71, 535-
543.

Cozzarelli, C., Sumer, N., & Major, B. (1998). Mental models of attachment and
coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74, 453-467.

Cramer, P. (1997). Identity, personality, and defense mechanisms: An observer-
based study. Journal of Research in PerSﬂrlity. 31. 58-77.

Crittenden, PM. (1992). Children’s strategies for coping with adverse home
environments: An interpretation using attachment theory. Child Abuse & Nglect. 16,
329-343.

Crittenden, P.M., Partridge, M.F., & Claussen, AH. (1991). Family patterns of
relationships in normative and dysfunctional families. Development and
Psychopathology, 3, 491 -5 12.

Diehl, M., Elnick, A. B., Bourbeau, L. S., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult
attachment styles: their relations to family context and personality. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 74. 1656-1669.

DiTomasso, M.J., & Routh, D.K. (1993). Recall of abuse in childhood and three
measures of dissociation. Child Abuse & Neglect. 17, 477-485.

Erickson, S., Feldman, S.S., & Steiner, M. (1997). Defense reactions and coping
strategies in normal adolescents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 28, 45-56.

Feeney, J ., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult Attachment. London: Sage.

F onagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Target, M., Gerger, A., Leigh, T., Kennedy, R.,

& Mattoon, G. (1996). The relation of attachment status, psychiatric classiﬁcation, and

121

response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 22-31.

Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, RR. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of
unwanted thoughts. Journg of Personality and Social PsychologyJ3, 1080-1091.

Freud, A. (1946). The e& and the mecharﬁms of defence. New York:
International Universities Press.

Fuendeling, J. (1996, August). Exploration of an ambivalent cluster within the
preoccupied and fearful attachment patterns. Poster session presented at the International
Conference on Personal Relationships, Banff, Canada.

Gauthier, L, Stollak, G., Messé, L, & Aronoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood
neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning.
Child Abuse & Nagect. 7, 549-559.

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

Grych, J .H., & Fincham, F .D. (1990). Marital conﬂict and children’s adjustment:
A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin. 10812), 267 - 290.

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & F incham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conﬂict from
the child's perspective: The children's perception of interparental conﬂict scale. C_hgg
Development. 63, 558-572.

Guldberg, C.A., Hoglend, P., & Perry, J .C. (1993). Scientiﬁc methods for
assessing psychological defences. Nordic Journal of Psychology. 47, 43 5-446.

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceived as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

122

Kendall-Tackett, K.A., Williams, L.M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of
sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 1 13, 164-180.

Kobak, J. J ., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working
models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development. 59.
135-146.

Lopez, F.G., Fuendeling, J ., Thomas, K., & Sagula, D. (1997). An attachment-
theoretical perspective on the use of splitting defences. Cougrselliﬁ Psychology
Quarterly. 10, 461-472.

Lopez, F. G., Gover, M. R., Leskela, J ., Sauer, E. M., Schirmer, L., & Wyssmann,
J. (1997). Attachment styles, shame, guilt, and collaborative problem-solving
orientations. Personﬂelationsﬁpgﬁ, 1 87- 1 99.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Block, D. (1996). The disturbed caregiving system: Relations
among childhood trauma, maternal caregiving, and infant affect and attachment. gr_fagt
Mental ﬁalth Jourgal. 17. 257-275.

Main, M. & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent
at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classiﬁcations and stable over a 1-month
period. Developmental Psychology. 24. 415-426.

Main, M., Kaplan, R., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Develogment. 50, (1-2).

Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: strategic

variations in self-appraisals. Jourgal of Persorgrlity and Social Psychology. 75. 420-435.

123

Pawlak, J .L, & Klein, HA. (1997). Parental conﬂict and self-esteem: The rest of
the story. The Joumal of Genetic Psychology. 158, 303-313.

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination
of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological
Bulletin. 124, 22-53.

Schore, A. (1996). The experience-dependent maturation of a regulating system in
the orbital prefrontal cortex and the origin of developmental psychopathology.
Development and Psychopathology,§, 59-87.

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

Smith, C., Thienemann, & Steiner, H. (1992). Defense style and adaptation in
adolescents with depressions and eating disorders. Acta Paedopsychiatrica. 55, 185-186.

Spangler, G., & Grossmann, KB. (1993). Biobehavioral organization in securely
and insecurely attached infants. Child Development.ﬁ4. 1439 - 1450.

Stalker, C.A., & Davies, F. (1995). Attachment organization and adaptation in
sexually-abused women. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 40, 234-240.

Steiner, H., & Feldman, SS. (1995). Two approaches to the measurement of
adaptive style: Comparison of normal, psychosomatically ill, and delinquent adolescents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 34. 180-190.

Tauschke, E., Merskey, H., & Helmes, E. (1990). Psychological defence

 

mechanisms in patients with pain. Pain 40, 161-170.
Tuulio-Henrikson, A., Poikolainen, K., Aalto-Setala, T., & Lonnqvist, J. (1997).

Psychological defense styles in late adolescence and young adulthood: A follow-up

124

study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 36, 1148-
1153.
Ungerer, J.A., Waters, B., Barnett, B., & Dolby, R. (1997). Defense style and

adjustment in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Research in Personality. 31, 375-

 

 

384.

Vaillant, G. (1977). Adaptation to life. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

Vaillant, G. (1993). Wisdom of the ego. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.

Weaver, T.L, & Clum, GA. (1993). Early family environments and traumatic
experiences associated with Borderline Personality Disorder. Jomal of Consultingagg
Clinical Psychology. 61. 1068-1075.

Weinberger, D. A. (1989). The construct validity of the repressive coping style. In
Singer, J. L. (Ed.), Repression and dissociation. (pp. 337-3 86). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

125