 

2:...)

1. 571......35 .2...

am.

...
on.
‘9

. e a \Wﬁéhé,
. £393... .W
mmudmfthmww...

4% .. mam".

.1

11: lit.

ﬁﬁ .A

1-13

wﬁﬁrﬁm
V 4...... «much, gleam

«Bu. . c... $11.93!; .
, .3”. 6.5:..qu .3
(575.1,

. gnu“.
(g.
V 35.4..1 glﬁ:c
Elinlii. {dis-Lu. “51511.: in.
ii... 4.5:]... 1‘ ﬂy"? no? 1...
Ital-5. .H 3 Vt | :7:
2 3?: .51.... 5.
Au... .. .1... i
1 .nxluifqiid aﬁéﬂﬂ
v . . 1.;- Itl'ku I. .0 L
a 2‘ . . e532: 1 a-
7 lznl‘o' vu‘ I ‘ . I
3 .1. 71:52.85! .
x a... , vii :

obtain
3)]:
«wink

.iuhfrﬁfﬁu «(7.
:2... .921: .. 1.

.5}: an

 

 

l m LIBRARY
2» Wu Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Adult Attachment and Recollections of Childhood Parenting
Experiences: Evaluating an Attachment Conceptualization of
Personality Disorder Traits

presented by

Jennifer Sachek

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

PhD. degree in Clinical Psychology

 

 

"it, w

 

Major Professor’s Signature
ml ~. { 0’7

Date

 

MSU is an affirmative—action, equal-opportunity employer

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

 

3mm 0.25119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:/ClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RECOLLECTIONS OF CHILDHOOD PARENTING
EXPERIENCES: EVALUATING AN ATTACHMENT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF
PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
by

Jennifer Sachek

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2007

Abstract
ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RECOLLECTIONS OF CHILDHOOD PARENTING
EXPERIENCES: EVALUATING AN ATTACHMENT CONCEPTUALIZATION OF
PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS
by

Jennifer Sachek

Adult attachment and childhood experiences with caregivers have been demonstrated to
be relevant in understanding the development of maladaptive personality patterns and
personality disorders. This study utilized cluster analysis to group individuals based on
their reports of maternal parenting behavior and their ratings of adult attachment. These
groups were then compared with respect to their self-reported personality disorder traits.
The group of individuals reporting higher levels of insecure attachment and maternal
abuse also reported higher overall personality disorder symptomatology. These results
were discussed in light of Lyddon and Sherry’s attachment conceptualization of
personality disorders, and the usefulness of looking at personality patterns dimensionally

rather than categorically.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Norm Abeles for supporting me in pursuing this
dissertation topic and for his guidance along the way. I couldn’t have done it without
him. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee for their support and
guidance. In particular, I’d like to that Alytia Levendosky for her help and expertise
in the area of adult attachment and her assistance with my statistical questions. I
would also like to thank Marilyn Charles for her support in honing my ideas for the
topic and her willingness to participate from afar. Finally, I would like to thank all of

my friends and family who have supported me in this process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
FOUNDATIONS OF
ATTACHMENT ............................................................................................................ 3
ATTACHMENT IN ADULTHOOD ............................................................................. 5
Adult Attachment to Primary Caregivers .......................................................... 5
Adult Romantic Attachment .............................................................................. 6
Models of Attachment ........................................................................................ 7
Convergence and Divergence of Adult Attachment Perspectives ..................... 8
Attachment Continuity ....................................................................................... 9
ATTACHMENT AND PARENTING BEHAVIOR ................................................... 11
PERSONALITY DISORDERS ................................................................................... 13
Millon’s Model of Personality. ....................................................................... 14
Westen’s Functional Domain Model ............................................................... 15
Lyddon and Sherry’s Attachment Conceptualization ...................................... l6
Dependent personality style..; ............................................................. 16
Obsessive-compulsive personality style .............................................. 16
Histrionic personality style .................................................................. 17
Avoidant personality style ................................................................... 17
Paranoid personality style .................................................................... 18
Antisocial personality style .................................................................. 18
Narcissistic personality style ................................................................ 19
Schizotypal personality style ............................................................... 19
Schizoid personality style .................................................................... 19
Borderline personality style ................................................................. 20
ATTACHMENT AND PERSONALITY DISORDERS ............................................. 21
PARENTING AND PERSONALITY DISORDER TRAITS. .................................. 26
ATTACHMENT, PARENTING, AND PERSONALITY .......................................... 29
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY ............................................................................... 3O
HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................................ 31

iv

METHODS .................................................................................................................. 32

Participants ....................................................................................................... 32
Measures .......................................................................................................... 34
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). ....................................................... 34
OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory (OMNI-IV) ....................... 34

Egna Minnen Barndoms Uppfostran (EMBU; “one’s memories of
upbringing”) ......................................................................................... 35
Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................ 35
Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) .............................. 36
Procedures ........................................................................................................ 36
Data Analysis and Power ................................................................................ 36
RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 37
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 4O
Examining an Attachment Conceptualization of PDs ..................................... 42
Dependent personality style ................................................................. 42
Obsessive-compulsive personality style .............................................. 42
Histrionic personality style .................................................................. 43
Avoidant personality style ................................................................... 43
Paranoid personality style .................................................................... 44
Antisocial personality style .................................................................. 44
Narcissistic personality style ................................................................ 45
Schizotypal personality style ............................................................... 45
Schizoid personality style .................................................................... 45
Borderline personality style ................................................................. 46
Ethnicity ........................................................................................................... 47
Limitations ....................................................................................................... 48
Implications ...................................................................................................... 5 1
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 54
Appendix A: Tables and Figures ..................................................................... 54
Appendix B: Relationship Questionnaire ........................................................ 63
Appendix C: EMBU Item Modiﬁcation .......................................................... 65
Appendix D: EMBU ........................................................................................ 67
Appendix E: Demographic Information .......................................................... 74
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 76

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: Equivalent attachment styles to those in the four category model of
attachment (Bartholomew, 1990) ................................................................................. 54

TABLE 2: Attachment dimension and associated personality styles, as postulated

by Lyddon and Sherry (2001) .................................................................................... 55
TABLE 3: Attachment dimension, personality styles, and associated parenting
behaviors as described by Lyddon and Sherry (2001) ................................................ 56
TABLE 4: Demographic Information for Original Sample, Final Sample by
Group, and Dropped Subjects ...................................................................................... 57
TABLE 5: Variance Explained by EMBU Factors ...................................................... 57
TABLE 6: Varimax-Rotated EMBU Factor Pattern .................................................... 58
TABLE 7: Means and Standard Deviations for Factor (Regression) Scores by
Group ........................................................................................................................... 60
TABLE 8: Means and Standard Deviations for OMNI-IV T-Scores by Group .......... 61

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: Four category model of attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)..62

FIGURE 2: Cluster Analysis Distance of Case from Cluster Center .......................... 62

vii

Introduction

Attachment refers to stylistic ways that individuals relate to important others in
order to maintain a sense of security and safety. An individual’s attachment strategies
begin to develop in infancy through interactions with caregivers, and the continuity of
attachment patterns has been shown to at least a moderate degree throughout childhood
and into adulthood. This continuity can be conceptualized in terms of developmental
pathways, in which different experiences throughout development move an individual
toward more or less optimal outcomes. Thus, early experiences, particularly early
experiences with caregivers, are potential risk or protective factors for attachment
security, and attachment is a potential risk factor or protective factor for later
development.

Indeed, secure attachment has been shown to relate to a number of positive
outcomes while insecure attachment has been shown to relate to a number of negative
outcomes. For example, there are fairly robust ﬁndings that attachment insecurity is
related to the development of more dysfunctional personality styles and actual personality
disorders (PBS), in addition to a host of other difﬁculties. Furthermore, there is evidence
that childhood experiences of parenting behavior are related to the development of PDs
and PD traits. ‘

Nonetheless, the research so far has been limited for a number of reasons. Few
studies have examined all three domains (attachment, parenting, and personality) in the
same sample. Most research has investigated links between two of these domains. As a
result, much of the research conducted used procedures to ﬁnd associations between

variables, but has not looked at more complex relationships among multiple variables.

Related to this, there has been no overarching theory to provide a framework for
understanding what variables should be associated and why. Furthermore, most research
on parenting behavior and attachment has been conducted on infants in the Strange
Situation, not on adults. Moreover, the scant research published looking at adult reports
of parenting practices and attachment used the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI), a
measure with only 2 factors, care and control. Thus, a host of other parenting behaviors
that are theoretically or anecdotally related to attachment or personality have not been
examined. This study addressed these limitations by utilizing Lyddon and Sherry’s
(2001) attachment conceptualization of “developmental personality styles,” or what will
be referred to as PD traits, as a backdrop for understanding the interplay among
attachment, parenting, and personality variables. In addition, the EMBU was selected as
an alternative parenting measure to the PBI because of the larger scope of parenting
practices it considers.

In addressing these limitations, this study was designed to accomplishing three
main goals. The ﬁrst was to explore the characteristics of individuals clustered into
groups by attachment and parenting variables. The second was to examine how these
groups differed with respect to PD traits. The third was to relate these ﬁndings back to

the PD conceptualization proposed by Lyddon and Sherry (2001).

Foundations of Attachment

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973) focuses on the relationship between a child
and his primary caregivers and the implications these early relationships have for the
development of the child’s self-concept, beliefs about relationships, abilities to self-
regulate, and personality. The attachment system was considered by Bowlby to be a
system of self preservation set up by evolution that encourages proximity to the
attachment ﬁgure. In order to maintain proximity to an attachment ﬁgure, infants engage
in attachment behaviors such as crying, smiling, or following the attachment ﬁgure.
Attachment behaviors can be activated under certain environmental conditions. Some
examples include separation from or rejection by the attachment ﬁgure, unfamiliar
environments, or the infant’s internal state. Attachment behavior generally decreases
when the attachment ﬁgure is appropriately responsive to the attachment behavior. As a
child matures, he develops an ability to explore his environment using his attachment
ﬁgure as a secure base to whom he can turn when in need.1

Bowlby (1973) theorized that through a child’s interaction with his primary
caregiver, generally the mother, he constructs internal representations of this relationship,
his mother, and himself. As the child develops, these internal representations become
more complex and more stable structures, termed internal working models. Bowlby
theorized that the child’s working models of his mother are based on whether or not she

is the kind of person who generally responds appropriately to calls for protection. His

 

‘ To simplify the language in this paper, primary caregivers. those who take on traditional “mothering”
responsibilities. will be regarded as female while children will be regarded as male. It must be noted that
primary caregivers. like children, can be male or female. Although attachment theory and early attachment
research generally concerned itself with the mother-child relationship there has been an increase in interest
in the father-child relationship. This is beyond the scope of this paper, and unless otherwise noted (for
example when considering gender differences in attachment) the use of gendered language in this paper is
done only for simplicity purposes.

working model of himself is based on a judgment of whether or not he is the kind of
person to whom others (his mother) respond appropriately. Although these working
models develop within the context of the relationship with the mother, as the child
develops they guide his behavior and expectations in future relationships. For example,
an individual with a consistent and emotionally available mother will develop a positive
view of self and others, which will translate to generally positive expectations of self and
others in later relationships. An individual with an inconsistent or unavailable caregiver
may develop a negative View of self and/or others, which will translate to negative
expectations in later relationships.

Ainsworth and colleagues developed a method for observing and classifying
attachment behavior known as the Strange Situation (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978). In the Strange Situation an infant is separated from his mother, spends a short
amount of time alone, spends time with an unknown adult, and is then reunited with his
mother. According to Ainsworth et al., a child is classiﬁed into one of three attachment
categories based on his behavior during the Strange Situation. Securely attached infants
are visibly distressed when separated from their mothers and upon their return seek
comfort from them. They are also able to then comfortably explore their environment in
her presence. Infants with an anxious/ambivalent attachment classiﬁcation are intensely
distressed by separation from their mothers and approach their mothers upon their return,
but also express anger towards them and are not easily comforted by them. Infants
classiﬁed as anxious/avoidant do not show signiﬁcant separation distress and do not seek

comfort from their mothers when reunited with them.

The literature concerning infant attachment has generally viewed attachment
patterns from a categorical perspective. From this perspective, individual differences in
attachment are attributed to membership in distinct categories (e. g. secure,
anxious/avoidant, anxious ambivalent) with respect to attachment classiﬁcation. F raley
and Spieker (2003) challenged this categorical approach to attachment. They posited that
individual differences in attachment are more consistent with a continuous rather than a
categorical model. Speciﬁcally, their taxometric analysis revealed that traditional
attachment patterns are better viewed as resulting from variability in two domains: (1)
proximity seeking and (2) anger and resistance. The authors also suggested that if
individual differences in attachment organization are centinuous, but are treated
categorically, then reliability, and therefore statistical power, is compromised.

Attachment in Adulthood

Based on the premise that internal working models lay the foundation for
expectations about relationship across the lifespan, attachment theory has been extended
to adulthood. There are two broad lines of research investigating attachment in adulthood.
The ﬁrst, springing from developmental research tradition and the work of Main, Kaplan,
& Cassidy (1985), concerns adult attachment to primary caregivers. The second line of
research, which evolved from the social psychology, investigates attachment to adult
romantic partners.

Adult Attachment to Primary Caregivers

Early attachment to primary caregivers can be assessed in adulthood though the

use of semi-structured interviews. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main, Kaplan,

& Cassidy, 1985) is a commonly used example. Individuals are interviewed about their

early relationships with caregivers, and these interviews are coded such that respondents
are categorized into one of three major attachment classiﬁcations: secure, preoccupied,
and dismissing. These categories correspond to the infant attachment classiﬁcations of
autonomous, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant, respectively. Attachment classiﬁcation is
made based on the style in which the respondent describes early relationships rather than
the content of the responses. Thus, the AAI emphasizes discourse and coherence.
Research using the AAI has focused on the intergenerational transmission of attachment
(e. g. Main & Hesse, 1990; van IJzendoorn, 1995), in addition to the relation between
attachment and such clinical issues as borderline personality disorder (Barone, 2003),
marital interactions (Bouthillier, Julien, Dube, Belanger, & Hamelin, 2002; Crowell,
Treboux, & Waters, 2002), and eating disorders (Ramacciotti, Sorbello, Pazzagli,
Vismara, & Mancone, 2001).
Adult Romtic Attachment

Adult romantic attachment instruments assess working models of adult
relationships rather than early representations of primary caregivers. Self-report
questionnaire measures are the most common means of evaluating adult romantic
attachment, and traditionally these measures have produced attachment classiﬁcations
analogous to infant attachment categories (secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent).
Some romantic attachment measures offer prototypical descriptions of the different
attachment styles and require respondents to select the one that best describes them,
yielding discrete attachment categories (e. g. Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Other measures
conceptualize romantic attachment dimensionally. Such measures require that

respondents rate their attitudes about themselves and others in relationships, which allows

individuals to fall at different points within each attachment category (e. g. Collins &
Reed, 1990; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). Romantic attachment has been
investigated in relation to such diverse domains as child molestation (Bogaerts,
Vervaeke, & Goethals, 2004), anxiety and depression (Williams and Risking, 2004), and
the transition to parenthood (Simpson & Rholes, 2002).
Models of Atgtchment

Much of the research on adult attachment, whether the focus is on attachment to
primary caregivers or romantic attachment, has assumed a 3 category model of
classiﬁcation, (e. g. Main and Hesse, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990). Although there are
some differences among the different 3 category models of adult attachment, they are all
roughly analogous to the 3 attachment classiﬁcations originally described by Ainsworth
et al. (1978; secure, anxious/ambivalent, and anxious avoidant) and described above. In
one notable exception to this, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) proposed a four
category model of adult attachment styles. They suggested that the avoidant category in
other models of adult attachment actually contains two distinct types of avoidant
individuals — those who avoid close relationships because they minimize their need for
attachment and those who avoid close relationships because they fear rejection from
others. To address this, they developed a 4 category model founded on Bowlby’s (1973)
conceptualization that working models are based on an individual’s self image and image
of others. They therefore proposed that the two types of internal working models — a
model of self and a model of others — can be classiﬁed dichotomously as positive or

negative, and can be combined to yield four different attachment styles that roughly

correspond to infant attachment classiﬁcations2 (See Figure l, p. 62). Individuals with
positive models of self and other are classiﬁed as secure. Individuals with a negative
model of self but a positive model of others are classiﬁed as preoccupied. This
corresponds to a classiﬁcation of ambivalent, enmeshed, or preoccupied in other
attachment classiﬁcation systems. Individuals who have a positive model of the self but a
negative model of others are classiﬁed as dismissing. Fearﬁilly attached individuals have
negative models of both self and others. Analogous categories are not present in other
classiﬁcation system, however, this category is most similar to disorganized or avoidant
styles. Essentially, the difference between 3 and 4 category models of attachment is that
the avoidant category is broken down into dismissing-avoidant and fearful-avoidant in
the 4 category model (See Table l, p. 54).3
Conveggence and Divergence of Adult Attachment Perspectives

A number of studies have investigated the extent to which measures of attachment
from the social psychology and developmental traditions converge, and the ﬁndings have
been mixed. While some have found evidence of signiﬁcant associations between self-
report (social psychology) and interview narrative (developmental) attachment
classiﬁcations (e. g. Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan, 2000), others have found negligible

associations (e. g. Simpson, Rholes, Orina, & Grich, 2002; Riggs, Paulson, Tunnel], Sahl,

 

2 Adult attachment theory is often discussed categorically. and much of the research on attachment
reports on individuals assigned to one attachment category. However. a dimensional approach, as discussed
in relation to the child attachment literature (F raley & Spieker, 2003), is arguably be more appropriate for
the adult attachment literature as well. In such an approach individuals have scores for each attachment
style so that their attachment proﬁle indicates the level to which they rely on each attachment strategy.
Indeed, Bartholomew et al. (2001) point out that each attachment category represents a prototypical ideal,
to which individuals approximate to varying degrees. Because most people have multiple attachment
strategies, a dimensional approach allows the complex nature of attachment patterns to be represented.

3 To maintain consistency and avoid confusion, the terminology used in Bartholomew and Horowitz’s
(1991) 4 category model will be used when discussing analogous categories from other models (e. g.
enmeshed will be called preoccupied). Terminology from other classiﬁcation systems will be used for
categories that do not overlap with the 4 category model (e.g. unresolved. avoidant).

Atkinson & Ross, 2007). A recent meta-analytic review of the literature found the
convergence to be small at best (Roisman, Holland, F ortuna, Fraley, Clausell, & Clarke,
2007)

Adult attachment has been found to have different correlates when measured from
social and developmental traditions as well. For example, Riggs and Colleagues (2007)
found that self-report attachment was related to PD traits, with fearful attachment
associated with the most maladaptive pattern of PD dysfunction. In contrast, AAI
unresolved trauma was related to dissociation and PTSD. Unresolved trauma and
unresolved loss were, in conjunction, related to schizotypal and borderline PDs. Roisman
et al., in examining engaged couples’ interactions and attachment, also found differences
in correlates of the two attachment perspectives. They found that attachment security as
measured by the AAI was related to higher levels of collaboration observed in
interactions within the couple. Attachment avoidance as measured by self-report was
related to the observation of a more negative emotional tone to the couples’ interactions.

Thus, While there is some overlap between the two attachment traditions there is
considerable difference. This suggests that the two perspectives, though springing from
Bowlby’s work, address different aspects of a person’s functioning and relationships that
are only somewhat related. It follows that both lines of research can provide unique and
essential information to the understanding of how people relate to important others.
Attachment Continuity

While attachment patterns are assumed to continue into adulthood, attachment
theory does not presume that adult attachment is determined by childhood experiences

with primary caregivers. Rather, continuity is considered in terms of a developmental

trajectory or pathway (Bowlby, 1988). Early experiences with caregivers and the
resulting childhood attachment patterns that develop put a child on a pathway of
development that may lead to a variety of different outcomes, some more healthy than
others. As the child develops, his interactions with the environment can cause a shift
toward more or less healthy trajectories. Over time, a person is less likely to change
course because their styles of ﬁmctioning become increasingly more ingrained
(Bartholomew, Kwong, & Hart, 2001). Therefore, early experiences with caregivers can
be seen as a risk factor for insecure attachment, and attachment insecurity in childhood
can be seen as a risk factor for later attachment insecurity, as well as other undesirable
outcomes.

A number of studies have investigated the continuity of attachment in childhood
(e. g. Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), and while continuity has been demonstrated it has
been shown to be mediated by the stability of the caretaking environment (e. g.
Thompson, Lamb, & Estes, 1982). A few studies have looked at continuity from infancy
into adulthood, conceptualizing attachment from the developmental tradition, and have
yielded mixed results. Attachment security as assessed by the Strange Situation in
childhood has shown a high degree of continuity with adult AAI attachment security in
two studies (Hamilton, 1994; Waters, Weinﬁeld, & Hamilton, 2000), but no continuity in
two others (Weinﬁeld, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000; Zimmermann, Fremmer-Bombik,
Spangler, & Grossman, 1997). Even fewer studies have looked at adult attachment
continuity, generally from a social psychology perspective, but the available data
evidenced moderate to high continuity (Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Scharfe &

Bartholomew, 1994). Similar to the childhood continuity studies, in a review of the

10

literature of the continuity of attachment from infancy to adulthood F raley (2002) found
that instability in the caretaking environment was related to lower levels of attachment
continuity.

In summary, attachment theory posits that human beings are motivated to attach
to others in order to maintain personal safety and feelings of security. Early interactions
with caregivers, particularly in situations in which attachment behaviors are evoked, help
shape the way an individual approaches relationships across the life span. An individual’s
attachment orientation places him on a developmental pathway that has implications for
outcomes in a variety of domains in adulthood. Therefore, attachment is an important
factor in understanding the development and maintenance of personality styles, both
healthy and unhealthy.

Attachment and Parenting Behavior

One of the main premises of attachment theory is that experiences with caregivers
shape a person’s expectations about, and behavior in, close relationships. While
attachment security develops from interactions with responsive, sensitive caregivers,
attachment insecurity arises, in part, out of repeated distressing or inconsistent
interactions with caregivers. A large body of literature in the area of childhood
attachment indicates that different classiﬁcations of insecure attachment are related to
distinct differences in caregiving. For example, caregivers of avoidantly attached infants
have been shown to have more rejecting, unresponsive, and controlling interactions with
their children (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bretherton, Biringen, Ridgeway, & Maslin, 1989;
Pastor, 1981). In contrast, caregivers of ambivalently attached infants tend to be more

intrusive, coercive, and inconsistent with their children (Ainsworth et al. 1978;

11

Ainsworth, 1982). Generally, these studies have involved direct observation of parent-
child interactions during the Strange Situation described above.

Surprisingly, given the emphasis on the continuity of attachment into adulthood,
there is little extant research investigating the link between childhood experiences of
parental behavior and adult attachment. The available studies of caregiving and adult
attachment generally rely on respondents’ retrospective accounts of their parents’
behavior, and have also found differences in caregiving among attachment dimensions.
For example, Gittleman, Klein, Smider, & Essex (1998) found that fearful individuals
generally recalled lower levels of parental care than secure individuals. Moreover, fearful
and preoccupied men recalled higher levels of matemal control than dismissive men.

Brennan and Shaver (1998) evaluated rejection and fostering independence as
parenting qualities, as well as subjects’ idealization of parents, and found that secure
individuals recalled more accepting relationships with parents than all three insecure
groups, while fearﬁJl individuals described their mothers as more rejecting than
preoccupied and dismissing individuals. Compared to the other two groups, secure and
dismissing individuals reported more idealistic childhood relationships with father, and
more support for independence from both parents. Dismissing individuals reported the
least idealized’matemal relationships.

Muris, Meesters, Morren, & Lidwine (2004) looked at attachment and parental
rearing styles as they relate to anger, hostility, and aggression. They found that insecurely
attached individuals deviated from securely attached individuals. More speciﬁcally,
avoidant adolescents reported less parental emotional warmth, higher parental rejection,

and higher paternal inconsistency than secure adolescents. In addition, preoccupied

12

individuals reported more parental rejection and control than secure individuals. Overall,
these studies suggest that insecurely attached individuals recall more negative parenting
practices from'childhood. F earﬁrl individuals tended to recall more problematic parental
behavior in childhood than other insecure groups, however since each study looked at
different parenting variables with little overlap, it is difﬁcult to draw ﬁrrther conclusions.

In summary, research on attachment in childhood demonstrates a link between
parenting behaviors and attachment classiﬁcations. The literature regarding adults also
suggests a link between attachment and recollections of parenting, however the research
in this area is limited. This seems like a ﬁuitﬁil area of exploration, as it would be
important to explore whether the same parenting behaviors that related to childhood
attachment also relate to adult attachment patterns. Furthermore, the method of studying
recollections of parenting behaviors allows for the investigation of a variety of behaviors
that have not been studied in childhood because they are not easily observed or occur
later in the child’s development. Thus far, however, only a handﬁJl of parenting behaviors
have been tested.

Personality disorders

Personality disorders (PDs) are pervasive, long-standing patterns of behavior and
experience that deviate from cultural expectation, are fairly rigid, begin in
adolescence/early adulthood, and lead to impaired functioning or distress (Diagnostic and
Sgtistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Edition, Text Revision. (DSM-IV—TR; 2000).
Individuals with personality disorders generally have dysfunctional interpersonal
relationships as adults, and tend to report childhood neglect and abuse, particularly sexual

abuse (e.g. Parker, Roy, Wilhelm, Mitchell, Austin, & Hadzi—Pavlovic, 1999).

13

The DSM-IV—TR recognizes 10 speciﬁc personality disorders, plus the general
“Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Speciﬁed” category. The personality disorders are
broken down into the odd/eccentric Cluster A disorders (paranoid, schizoid, and
schizotypal), the dramatic/erratic Cluster B disorders (narcissistic, antisocial, borderline,
and histrionic), and the anxious Cluster C disorders (avoidant, dependent, obsessive-
compulsive). There are several criticisms of the current DSM personality disorder
nosology. The symptom-based descriptive nature of the Axis II disorders has led to
considerable overlap among the different diagnostic categories, while dichotomizing
personality patterns based on arbitrary symptom counts has made the diagnostic process
seem artiﬁcial. Moreover, the atheoretical stance taken in recent editions of the DSM has
led to an exclusion of etiological (among other) considerations and as a result fails to
capture the complexity of characterological disorders.

Theories of Personality Disorders

As the DSM is purported to be atheoretical, several theorists have developed
conceptualizations of personality dysfunction that account for DSM disorders. For
example, Millon (1995) developed a theory of personality based on DSM personality
disorders. Westen (1998, 2005) developed a model of personality ﬁinctioning that
accounts for not only personality disorders but non-disordered personality ﬁJnctioning as
well. Finally, Lyddon and Sherry (2001) developed an attachment conceptualization of
personality disorder.

Millon’s Model of Personality
Millon’s (1995) personality model, grounded in evolutionary theory, views

personality disorders in terms of strategies for survival that are imbalanced, inadequate,

r4

or in conﬂict. Millon posited that 4 spheres exist in which evolutionary principles are
enacted, and three of these (existence, adaptation, and replication) have implications for
the development of PBS. According to Millon, different polarities manifest in these three
spheres for humans. Existence is seen as a continuum from pleasure-seeking to pain-
seeking. Adaptation is manifested in a continuum from activity to passivity. Finally,
replication is manifested as a continuum between self and other orientation. Different
PDs are thought to develop depending on the problem (imbalance, inadequacy, or
conﬂict) and the sphere. For example, individuals with dependent PD are considered to
have an imbalance in their orientation towards others versus the self, while individuals
with borderline PD are thought to be conflicted in this domain. Further explication of this
complex theory is beyond the scope of this paper.
Westen’s Functional-Domain Model

Westen (1996) developed a model of conceptualizing personality that, while
speaking to personality disorders, addresses more broadly the critical aspects of an
individual’s overall personality. Thus, it can account for a range of personality dynamics,
from the healthy to the more disturbed. Westen’s model places an emphasis on
personality process and functions, including affect regulation and an individual’s internal
representations of self-and other, According to the model, a thorough formulation of an
individual’s personality style should address three domains: 1) wishes, fears, and values,
2) psychological resources, and 3) experience of the self and others, and the ability to
sustain relationships. While not explicitly stated in the model, the emphasis on self and

other representations, affect regulation, and the ability to maintain relationships, among

15

other things, suggests considerable overlap between Westen’s ﬁmctional-domain model
and attachment theory.
Lyddon am Sherry’s Attachment Conceptualization

Lyddon and Sherry (2001) developed an attachment based theory of DSM
personality disorders, considered dimensionally, using the 4 category model of
Bartholomew (1990) and Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). They provided attachment
conceptualizations of 10 major personality dimensions, which they termed developmental
personality styles (see Table 2, p.55). They described each personality style from a
developmental perspective using working models and attachment theory, and suggested
typical childhood experiences with attachment figures associated with each style.
Because they take a dimensional approach to the evaluation of attachment, some
personality styles reﬂect two attachment dimensions. Their conceptualizations were
based heavily on theory and clinical evidence rather than experimental research, although
they did cite a few supporting studies. A brief review of their rationale for each
personality style is described below.

Dependent personglity style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) suggested that a
dependent personality style represents a preoccupied attachment dimension. Individuals
with a dependent style often lack conﬁdence and are typically clingy, submissive, and
unassertive. They were often raised by overprotective caregivers who fostered
dependency and discouraged autonomy. They have a negative view of themselves, and
believe that they are incompetent to survive on their own. They also believe that they

cannot survive without assistance, and generally have a positive view of others.

16

Obsessive-compulsive personality style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) proposed that
an obsessive-compulsive personality style represents a preoccupied attachment
dimension. Individuals with an obsessive-compulsive personality style are generally
reliable, yet stubborn, possessive, and irresolute. They tend to have a submissive
approach to relating to those with authority, combined with an authoritarian approach to
relating to peers and those over whom they have authority. Lyddon and Sherry theorized
that as children, these individuals generally experienced their parents as controlling and
over-involved, with perfectionistic expectations that were impossible to meet. As a result
of their inability to meet parental expectations, they developed a negative view of
themselves. However, they maintained a positive view of their perfectionistic parents and
therefore developed a positive view of others.

Histrionic person_ality style. Histrionic personality style was also theorized to
represent a preoccupied attachment dimension. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001),
histrionic individuals generally have interpersonal interactions that are organized around
getting attention from others, and they tend to be superﬁcial, unconventional, and
emotionally labile, despite the potential for seeming charismatic and exciting at ﬁrst.
Their childhood experiences with caregivers can be categorized as enmeshed and
inconsistent, and they were generally exposed to histrionic behaviors in one or both
parents. Their need to resort to more extreme lengths in order to get attention from their
parents contributed to their negative self-view, however, the attention they did get ﬁ'om
extreme behavior contributed to a positive view of others.

Avoidant personglity style. An avoidant personality style was theorized to

represent both preoccupied and fearful attachment dimensions. According to Lyndon and

17

Sherry (2001), avoidant individuals tend to incorporate both preoccupied and fearful
attachments because the have a model of self that is negative combined with a model of
others that wavers between positive and negative. They tend to avoid people and
relationships and have few ﬁiends, however this likely results from a fear of rejection and
desire to be accepted by others. Nonetheless, they can become needy in relationships
when they do develop. Their childhood experiences generally involved either an avoidant
or an engulﬁng caregiver, and as a result they fear rejection or engulfment in subsequent
intimate relationships.

Paranoid personality style. Paranoid personality style was theorized by Lyddon
and Sherry (2001) to represent a fearful attachment dimension. Individuals with this style
are generally distrustﬁil and guarded. Their interpersonal relationships are suspicious,
secretive, and criticizing. Childhood experiences generally involved perfectionistic
caregivers who rejected and persecuted the child, and who were critical in their parenting
methods. As a result, these individuals are overwhelmingly mistrustful of others and have
negative models of self and others.

Antisoch personglity style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) theorized that an
antisocial personality style represents both fearful and dismissing attachment dimensions.
Individuals with an antisocial style are often calculating, antagonistic, sensation seeking,
and reactively angry. They generally view more tender sentiments like warmth and
intimacy as weak and have a tendency to exploit and manipulate others. Their childhood
experiences with caregivers were often characterized by hostility and abuse, forcing them
to be self-reliant. As a result, they have a model of self that vacillates between positive

(from their self-reliance or as a defensive reaction) and negative (from the hostility and

18

abuse). They tend to have a negative model of others and see others as unwilling to care
for them.

Ngrcissistic person_aﬂity style. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001), a
narcissistic personality style represents fearﬁil and dismissing attachment dimensions as
well. Individuals with this style generally appear arrogant and pretentious.
Interpersonally, they are exploitive and tend to use others to boost themselves. Their
childhood experiences generally included caregivers who overindulged and overvalued
them, but whose approval was dependent on accomplishment. They developed a negative
model of others through the notion that others are inferior relative to their grandiose view
of themselves. Nevertheless, their model of self wavers between positive and negative.
Generally, thongh they appear grossly overly self-assured, they often experience or
defend off feelings of intense insecurity.

Schizotypal personality style. A schizotypal personality style was theorized to
represent fearful and dismissing attachment dimensions. According to Lyddon and Sherry
(2001), individuals with this style generally exhibit very peculiar behaviors. They tend to
experience paranoid thinking and extreme anxiety in social situations, and detach
themselves socially as a result. Their childhood experiences often included a cold, critical
caregiver whose parenting style communicated that the individual was bizarre. As a
result, the individual lacks a developed sense of self and becomes dependent on others,
yet fears others have negative motivations or will criticize them. They develop a negative
model of others while their model of self, undeveloped and confusing, wavers between

positive and negative to defend against this conﬁrsion.

l9

Schizoid personglity styLe. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001), a schizoid
personality style represents a dismissing attachment dimension. Individuals with this
style generally appear to have minimal interest in others and are unresponsive or aloof.
Their childhood experiences often included caregivers who lacked social skills or were
rigid and unresponsive. These experiences left them less interested in interaction with
others, coupled with a belief that they are different from others. They have a negative
model of others in that they generally don’t View interactions with others as worth the
effort. They are not distressed by their lack of relationships and are able to maintain a
positive model of themselves as a result.

Borderline personality style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) depart from Bartholomew
and Horowitz’s (1991) 4 category model of attachment to suggest that a borderline
personality style represents a disorganized attachment dimension4 because of the
presence of an unstable personality conﬁguration that shifts among the various forms of
insecure attachment. Individuals with such a style often present as emotionally labile,
reactive, impulsive, and empty. Their models of self and others frequently shift from
positive to negative, and they shift between idealizing and devaluing the important people
in their lives. As a result, interpersonally they vacillate between extreme closeness and
extreme distance. These individuals tend to have had early experiences marked by chaos,
inconsistency, and instability in parenting, coupled with no structure within which to
regulate affect. Physical and/or sexual abuse is common in their histories. As a result of
these early experiences they have no consistent sense of self or others. For the purposes

of this study, and in order to remain consistent with the adult romantic attachment

 

4 Disorganized attachment refers to a lack of a consistent strategy in attachment relationships, such that a
person switches among the organized attachment styles, and may be prone to dissociation when confronted
with present or past trauma or loss.

20

literature, borderline personality traits are conceptualized to represent preoccupied and
fearﬁil attachment dimensions. Individuals with borderline personality traits are thought
to have negative models of self along with models of others that vacillate between
positive and negative.
Attachment and Personality Disorders

As mentioned above, attachment theory can be a useful way of understanding an
individual's functioning throughout life in a variety of domains. For example, attachment
theory can be considered a development model of personality construction (Bowlby,
1980). As such, it can be useful for understanding the development of and maintenance of
personality disorders. There is a growing body of literature on the relation between
attachment and personality disorders, but so far there is no overarching theory that guides
this research. Moreover, while Lyddon and Sherry (2001) developed a theoretical
exposition for the link between attachment and personality disorders, it has not been
empirically evaluated in a systematic way.
Romgntic Attachment and Personality Disorders

A growing body of research has demonstrated a link between attachment styles
and dimensional PDs. For example, Bender, Farber, and Geller (2001) investigated the
relation between adult attachment and PD traits. In comparing individuals with Cluster A,
B, and C personality traits, they found that there were obvious differences in the
attachment patterns present. In addition, they found that individuals with Cluster B traits
had the most attachment difficulties. More speciﬁcally, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial,
and borderline personality pathology was related to higher levels of attachment

insecurity. Because their insecure group was not differentiated with respect to attachment

21

style, no conclusions about stylistic differences in personality traits can be made ﬁ'om
these data.

In contrast, Timmerman and Emmelkamp (2005) found that Clusters A and C
were more strongly associated with attachment than Cluster B. More speciﬁcally, Cluster
A personality traits were related to secure and fearful attachment styles, Cluster C
personality traits were related to all attachment categories, but Cluster B personality traits
were unrelated to fearﬁil attachment. Antisocial personality traits were associated with
dismissing attachment, and borderline personality traits were associated with preoccupied
attachment style. This study looked at attachment and PDs in prisoners and forensic
inpatients, along with controls, and this difference in population might explain the
differing results of this study.

Nonetheless, other studies have similarly found differences in the links between
personality clusters and attachment. Meyer, Ajchenbrenner, and Bowles (2005) found
that Cluster B borderline personality features were more strongly related to insecure
attachment than Cluster C avoidant personality features. Crawford and colleagues
examined personality cluster symptoms as they relate to anxious and avoidant attachment
dimensions (Crawford, Shaver, Cohen, Pilkonis, Gilath, & Kasen, 2006). They found that
Cluster B and C features were associated with elevated anxious attachment (model of
other) while Cluster A features were associated with avoidant attachment (model of self).

Brennan and Shaver (1998) investigated attachment styles and personality in a
sample of over 1000 non-clinical adolescents and young adults. They found that
adolescents with preoccupied attachment based on the Relationship Questionnaire had

higher scores on the histrionic and dependent personality scales. Brennan and Shaver also

22

found that dismissing adolescents outscored fearful adolescents on the schizoid scale,
while fearﬁil adolescents outscored preoccupied adolescents on the paranoid scale.

Fossatti and colleagues (2003) conducted a study of personality disorders and
adult attachment in a psychiatric sample. They administered an attachment and
personality measure to a psychiatric sample of 487 individuals, all of whom were
receiving inpatient or outpatient treatment. They used the Attachment Style
Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney et. al., 1994) which yields the following attachment scales:
Conﬁdence, Discomfort with Closeness, Relationships as Secondary, Need for Approval,
and Preoccupation with Relationships. Their canonical correlation analysis demonstrated
that Discomfort with Closeness and Conﬁdence loaded onto the same variate, attachment
avoidance. Similarly, Preoccupation with Relationships and Need for Approval loaded
what they described an attachment anxiety variate. The avoidance variate was related to
avoidant, paranoid, schizotypal, and depressive personality features while the anxiety
variate was related to dependent, histrionic, and borderline personality features.

Meyer, Pilkonis, & Beevers (2004) investigated the relations among personality
styles, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social cues. They found that
while borderline personality was associated with preoccupied attachment and schizoid
personality was weakly associated with avoidant attachment, avoidant personality was
associated with both preoccupied and avoidant attachment. Moreover, they found that
borderline and avoidant personality characteristics indirectly inﬂuenced how unfriendly
and rejecting an individual rated neutral faces through preoccupied attachment.

Westen and colleagues reported on three studies investigating clinician ratings of

attachment and personality disorders in adolescents and adults (W esten, Nakash, Cannon,

23

& Bradley, 2006). In the adolescent group, they found the borderline PD was related to
preoccupied and incoherent/disorganized attachment while dismissing attachment was
related to avoidant and schizoid PBS, and that these relations held even when variance
accounted for by other PD scores was partialed out. They found similar results in the
adult sample, with the exception that schizoid personality alone (not avoidant) was
related to dismissing attachment. The adult sample also revealed positive associations
between narcissistic PD and dismissing attachment, and preoccupied attachment and
histrionic and dependent PDs. Secure attachment was negatively correlated with
borderline and avoidant PDs in the adult sample.

Links between attachment and personality pathology have also been made in
various special populations. For example, Tweed and Dutton (1998), comparing 2 groups
of batterers on measures of attachment and personality styles, found that while avoidant
PD traits were related to preoccupied and fearful attachments, antisocial PD traits were
not linked to fearful and dismissing attachment, as might be predicted. Instead, antisocial
personality was associated with preoccupied attachment. Conversely, in examining the
relation between attachment and personality in a sample of incest survivors, Alexander
(1993) found that preoccupied attachment predicted the presence of dependent
personality style and fearful attachment predicted the presence of avoidant personality
style.

Bogaerts and colleagues have investigated attachment patterns and PDs in child
molesters (Bogaerts, Vanheule, & Declercq, 2005; Bogaerts, Vanheule, & Desmet,
2006). They found that antisocial and schizoid PDs differentiated child molesters from

controls, and that molesters were more likely to be insecurely attached (Bogaerts et al.,

24

2005). When comparing personality disordered and non-personality disordered subgroups
of molesters, they found that avoidant and anxious-ambivalent attachments were more
common in the PD subgroup (Bogaerts et al., 2005). Conversely, in examining PBS in
securely and insecurely attached child molesters they found that schizoid PD
differentiated the two groups (Bogaerts et al., 2006).

Dickenson and Pincus (2003) looked at subtypes (grandiose and vulnerable) of
narcissistic character style, through an analysis of personality disorder criteria and
attachment. Grandiose personality was related to the dramatic traits associated with
narcissistic, antisocial, and histrionic personality disorders, and their self-reported
attachment styles were generally secure or dismissive, indicating a positive model of self.
Individuals reporting a vulnerable narcissistic personality, related to avoidant personality
disorder, reported interpersonal distress and social avoidance. They tended to report
fearﬁil and preoccupied attachment styles, suggesting a negative model of self.

Overall, the data generally seem to support the attachment conceptualization of
personality styles theory developed by Lyddon and Sherry (2001), with 2 notable
exceptions. First, antisocial personalin style was associated with different insecure
attachment dimensions depending on the study. This could reﬂect differences in samples
(e. g. adolescents vs. batterers), how antisocial personality was measured (e. g.
questionnaire vs. interview; dimensional vs. categorical), how attachment was
conceptualized (interview vs. questionnaire; 3 vs. 4 category model) or some other
concern. Despite these conﬂicting ﬁndings, Lyddon and Sherry’s dismissing attachment
conceptualization of an antisocial personality style makes conceptual sense. One would

expect traits like callousness, manipulativeness, and a lack of empathy to be associated

25

with a dismissing attachment orientation in which other people are viewed negatively and
relationships are devalued.

Second, borderline personality style was associated with preoccupied and fearful
attachment dimensions. While Lyddon and Sherry (2001) conceptualized the other
personality styles using Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) 4-category model, they
stepped out of this framework to describe borderline personality. However, the data
linking borderline personality with fearﬁil and preoccupied attachments indicate that it is
reasonable to conceptualize borderline personality within the framework of the 4-
category model.

Lyddon and Sherry’s (2001) conceptualization is novel in that it is the only model
found that applies attachment theory to an understanding of personality styles and
includes predictions about which attachment dimension(s) relate to each personality style.
Nevertheless, it has never been evaluated. As stated above, there is evidence from various
sources supporting much of Lyddon and Sherry’s (2001) conceptualization, however due
to variability in methodology and measurement among these studies any conclusions
drawn must be tentative until it is evaluated more careﬁilly.

Parenting and Personality Disorder Traits

A number of studies have investigated the relation between parenting and PD
traits, also using adults’ retrospective accounts of childhood. In terms of overall
personality dysﬁinction, Carter, Jouce, Mulder, and Luty (2001) found that high parental
control and low parental care were associated with increasing PD symptomatology.
Similarly, Brennan & Shaver (1998) found that overall, traits of the 10 DSM-IV

(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric

26

Association, 1994) PDs were associated with overprotective, rejecting parenting from
both parents. Paris, Frank, Buonvino, & Bond (1991) tried to differentiate Axis 11 clusters
based on level of care and control in a sample of depressed patients. In going from
Cluster A to B to C to non-Axis 11 controls, they found decreasing deﬁciencies in
parenting (i.e. increasing care and decreasing control scores). In contrast, in comparing
Cluster A and Cluster B symptoms while statistically controlling for lifetime depression,
Nordahl and Stiles (1997) found that while Cluster A was not associated with either
control or care, Cluster B was associated with high levels of parental control. That
Cluster B pathology has shown a stronger relation to parenting variables (e. g.
Timmerman & Emmelkamp, 2005) could be accounted for by the association between
borderline personality and parenting variables.

The majority of studies on parenting and personality styles have focused on
borderline personality, which generally has been associated with high parental control
and low parental care. (Goldberg, Mann, Wise, & Segall, 1985; Patrick et al., 1994;
Timmerman & Emmelkamp, 2005). However, Nickell, Waudby, & Trull (2002) found
that when controlling for gender, childhood adversity, Axis I disorder, and non-borderline
Axis 11 symptoms, maternal care was uniquely related to borderline personality features.
Conversely, in individuals with panic disorder with agoraphobia, parental control (but not
care) was a strong predictor of borderline symptoms. Borderline personality has also been
related to other parenting variables including maternal rejection and neglect and “grossly
inappropriate parental behavior” (Ludolph et al., 1990), and indifference and abuse

(Parker et al., 1999; Battle et al., 2004).

27

With respect to other Axis II pathology, antisocial personality has been related to
different types of abuse, poor supervision, and cold or inconsistent parenting (e. g. Battle
et al., 2004), as well as maternal control (Parker et al., 1999) and parental care (Norden,
Klein, Donaldson, Pepper, & Klein, 1995). Histrionic personality style has been
associated with maternal abuse (Parker et al., 1999). Cluster A pathology has been
associated with low maternal care (Timmerman & Emmelkamp, 2005) and schizoid
personality has also been associated with paternal control (Norden et al.). Paranoid
personality has been associated with parental indifference and control, maternal abuse
(Parker et al., 1999), and less parental care (Rankin, Bentall, Hill, & Kinderman, 2005).
Timmerman and Emmelkamp found that cluster C measured dimensionally was related to
parental care and control. Moreover, Nordahl and Stiles (1997) found that while
dependent personality was not related to parenting variables, avoidant and obsessive-
compulsive personalities were related to parental care and control. Avoidant personality
has also been shown to relate to lower parental care as well as more rejecting, guilt-
engendering, and intolerant parenting styles (Stravynski, Elie, & Franche, 1989).

Overall, these data clearly demonstrate a relation between personality styles and
retrospective accounts of parenting behavior. The nature of these relations, and
differences in childhood experiences with parents among types of personality pathology,
are less clear. This is in part due to differences in the samples used (e. g. depressed
patients, forensic cases, normal adolescents), means of evaluating personality styles
(questionnaire vs. interview; categorical vs. dimensional) speciﬁc personality style
criteria (DSM-III-R vs. DSM-IV, APA, 1987, 1994), and measures of parenting

practices. Indeed, the majority of the studies reported above used the Parental Bonding

28

Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979) to assess perceptions of childhood
relationships with parents. The FBI measures two dimensions of parenting attitudes and
behaviors — care and control — for each parent. While this has allowed for a strong link to
be demonstrated between these two components and different personality styles, it would
be interesting to investigate other aspects of parenting that might theoretically be related
to the development of personality pathology. For example, Lyddon and Sherry (2001)
have linked a number of parental experiences to personality styles (see Table 3, p.56), but
these links have yet to be empirically investigated.

Attachment, Parenting, and Personality

As described above, there are a number of studies that demonstrate relations
between attachment and parenting, attachment and personality, and parenting and
personality. Only two studies were found that consider attachment, parenting and
personality. Patrick et al. (1994) examined recollections of parenting behaviors and
attachment in patients with borderline personality disorder. Borderline personality was
associated with preoccupied and disorganized attachments on the AAI. In addition,
comparisons with the Parental Bonding Instrument indicated lower levels of maternal
care and higher levels of maternal overprotection in patients with borderline pathology.
More complex relations among variables were not tested.

Brennan and Shaver (1998) investigated whether negative representations of early
experiences with parents would be associated with attachment insecurity and personality
disorders. Speciﬁc results are discussed in detail above, but brieﬂy they found that
insecure individuals described their relationships with parents more negatively than

secures, with fearﬁil individuals describing their maternal relationships as even more

29

rejecting than the other insecure groups. In addition, personality disorders were
negatively associated with positive aspects of parenting. Again, more intricate analyses
were not conducted. Clearly, more research is needed to examine complex
interrelationships among all three domains. An understanding of such relationships would
have implications for treatment as well as early interventions targeted at speciﬁc risk
factors for personality pathology.
Rationale for the Study

This is an important study for a number of reasons. First, it adds to the literature
on the relation between attachment and parenting. As reviewed above, only a handful of
studies have investigated the link between adult attachment and parenting behaviors,
although attachment theory is predicated on the notion that negative early experiences
with caregivers are risk factors for the development of attachment insecurity. Additional
research has been needed to further evaluate if this assumption holds up, and to clarify
which parenting behaviors are associated with which attachment dimension. To this end,
this study included a more diverse array of parenting behaviors than prior studies. This
study also adds to the literatures on attachment and personality, and parenting and
personality. While both lines of research are supported by a number of studies, many of
them focused on a limited number of personality styles (e. g. borderline, Cluster A). As a
result, methodological differences and variations in the conceptualizations of attachment
and personality make comparisons tricky. I utilized a frequently-used measure of
attachment, a measure of personality disorder based on the most recent version of the

DSM, a broader scope of parenting behaviors to address these limitations.

30

Finally, the proposed study will evaluate Lyddon & Sherry’s (2001) attachment-
based model of personality disorders. As noted above, Lyddon and Sherry developed a
unique conceptualization of PD traits using attachment theory, which has yet to be
explored. Although a number of studies seem to support this attachment
conceptualization through separate comparisons between attachment and parenting,
attachment and personality, and parenting and personality, no studies were found that
examine the relations among attachment, parenting, and personality together.

Hypotheses

The main goal of this study was to examine the way that adults’ reports of their
mothers’ behavior and their self-reported attachment come together as they are used to
sort individuals into groups, and how groups based on these dimensions differ with
regard to self-reported personality pathology. Thus, while research has demonstrated
links between attachment and PDs (e. g. Brennan & Saver, 1998; Alexander, 1993) and
parenting and PDs (e. g. Carter et al., 2001; Timmerman & Emmelkamp, 2005), the
present study investigated how attachment and parenting together relate to PDs. A
secondary goal was to evaluate the results using Lyddon and Sherry’s (2001) attachment
conceptualization of PD traits. Because the results of the factor analyses and cluster
analysis would ultimately determine which attachment and parenting variables would be
examined, I did not make speciﬁc a priori predictions using Lyddon and Sherry’s
framework.

Clustering individuals into groups based on maternal parenting and attachment
variables was generally an exploratory procedure. The attachment literature (e. g. Brennan

et al., 1998; F eeney et al., 1994) suggests 2 underlying dimensions that cross to form 4

31

attachment categories. Thus, in deciding on the number of clusters, I expected either 2 or
4 clusters would be most appropriate. This is a fairly subjective process, and I intended to
use the ease of interpretability of the item groupings as well as the number of
signiﬁcantly different clustering variables in selecting the best number of clusters. A few
speciﬁc predictions about the cluster analysis results were made based on the attachment
literature. I

Hypothesis 1: Reports of secure attachment would cluster together with reports of
positive, supportive maternal parenting behavior

Hypothesis 2: Reports of fearﬁil attachment would cluster together with reports of
abusive maternal parenting behavior

Because the nature of the clusters derived was not known prior to beginning the
study, only a few general hypotheses were made about group differences in personality
disorder variables:

Hypothesis 3: Groups with a higher degree fearful attachment would have greater
reported PD traits than groups with a lower degree of fearﬁil attachment.

Hypothesis 4: Groups with a higher degree of secure attachment would have
lower reported PD traits than groups with a lower degree of secure attachment.

Hypothesis 5: Groups with a higher degree of maternal abuse would have greater
reported personality disorder traits than groups with a lower degree of maternal abuse.

Hypothesis 6: Groups with a higher degree of reported positive maternal
parenting behavior would have lower reported PD traits than groups with a lower degree

of reported positive maternal parenting behavior.

32

Hypothesis 7: Groups with higher reported abuse and fearﬁil attachment would

have more reported PD traits than the other groups.
Methods

Participants

Five hundred twenty one undergraduate students were recruited from the
psychology subject pool to participate in this study, and received course credit for their
participation. The demographic information for this original sample is displayed in Table
4 (p. 57). Also displayed are the demographics for the ﬁnal sample and those subjects
who were “dropped” from the study. As is evident in the table, a large proportion of the
ﬁnal sample appears to have been dropped, however this number is an over-estimate, as
42 individuals never completed the study. There were some technical difﬁculties
reported, for example that the online study “timed out” while subjects were in the middle
of completing it, and some subjects reported being disconnected from the intemet (Those
subjects were still given subject-pool credit for the study). Also, this was a fairly lengthy
study, and a number of participants may have decided to quit. Due to the anonymity of
the study, it is also unclear as to how many of the subjects with incomplete data went on
to complete the study at a later time. In addition to unﬁnished experiments, a number of
other individuals were dropped from the study for too much missing data overall (27).
Other reasons subjects were dropped included seemingly random response patterns (13),
invalid data suggested by the personality measures (19), inconsistent responding (8), and
a report of no prior romantic relationships (31). In addition, because cluster analysis is so
sensitive to outliers, 7 subjects were dropped from the study because their response

pattern was so different from the rest of the sample. An examination of the demographic

33

information reveals that a greater proportion of participants from minority groups were
dropped ﬁ'om the study. In addition, there were differences in the observed and expected
representation of ethnicities across groups. There is no clear explanation for this;
however this phenomenon is discussed in further detail in the discussion section below.
Measures

Relationship Questionnaire (RQL The Relationship Questionnaire, developed by
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) as an adaptation of Hazan and Shaver’s (1987)
attachment measure, is an instrument requiring respondents to read 4 prototypical
descriptions representing the four attachment categories and select which one best
describes them. Respondents are then directed to rate the degree to which each category
ﬁts them on a 7-point Likert scale (See Appendix B, p. 56). The RQ therefore provides
two ways of viewing attachment. Respondents are classiﬁed categorically based on their
selection of the prototype that most resembles them and they are classiﬁed dimensionally
based on their assessment of how similar each prototype is to them. The dimensional
ratings of the 4 attachment categories were used for this study. Bartholomew and
colleagues (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994;
Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998) reported adequate reliability, discriminant validity,
predictive validity, and convergent validity for the relationship questionnaire.

OMNI-IV Personality Disorder Inventory (OMNI-IV). The OMNI-IV, developed
by Loranger (2001), is a 210-item self-report inventory of personality disorders, which
was derived from the longer OMNI personality inventory. The OMNI-IV consists of 10
personality disorder scales in addition to 2 validity scales. Reliability for the personality

disorder scales range from alphas of .62 to .84. Validity for the OMNI-IV was assessed

34

by correlating self-report with observer (spouse) ratings, and with other personality
measures. The comparison between self-report and observer ratings yielded correlation
coefﬁcients ranging from .28 to .55, with a median of .47. Correlation coefﬁcients in the
comparison of OMNI-IV scales and a psychiatric interview ranged from .52 to .81, with a
median of .66. Thus, reliability and validity of the instrument are adequate for the
purposes of this study.

Egga Minnen Barndoms Uppfostran (EMBU; “one’s memories of upbringi_I_Ig’_’)_.
The EMBU was originally designed by Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring, &
Ferris (1980) as an 83-item measure of memories of parental childrearing behaviors in 14
different domains: Abusive, Depriving, Punitive, Shaming, Rejecting, Overprotective,
Overinvolved, Tolerant, Affectionate, Performance-oriented, Guilt engendering,
Stimulating, Favoring siblings, and Favoring patient. Developed in the Swedish language,
it was translated in to English by Ross, Campbell, and Clayer (1982), and has been used
in a number of English-language studies (e. g. Weinﬁeld, Goldney, Tiggemann, &
Weinﬁeld, 1988; Huang, Someya, Takahashi, Reist, & Tang, 1996). Overall, an analysis
of subscale reliability has demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with alphas
generally ranging from .61 to .87 (Ross et al., 1982; Weinﬁeld et al., 1988). The present
study used the 71-item English version of the EMBU translated by Ross and colleagues
with two modiﬁcations suggested by Weinﬁeld et al. Some items were modiﬁed to be
more appropriate for a contemporary American audience (see Appendix C, p. 58) and the
directions were modiﬁed to instruct respondents to rate their memories of their childhood

relationships with their parents (See Appendix D, p. 60). Although rating for both

35

parents were collected, the present study was concerned only with ratings of maternal
behavior.

Demographic questionnaire. A short demographic questionnaire was administered

 

to obtain demographic information including age, gender, and ethnicity (See Appendix E,
p. 67). No speciﬁc a priori predictions were made regarding these variables.

Personjality Diaggmtic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4L). The PDQ-4 (Hyler, 1994),
consisting of 85 true/false items, is a self-report measure that assesses the 10 DSM-IV
(APA, 1994) personality disorders. Each PDQ-IV item corresponds directly to one
personality disorder criterion, and a response of “true” indicates that the criterion is
present. In addition, there are two validity scales to identify random responding and a
defensive response style. Although the PDQ-4 has been used quite extensively, there is
limited research available regarding its psychometric properties. Nonetheless, the very
similar prior version (PDQ-R) was widely used and had demonstrated validity (Hyler
Skodol, Kellman, Oldham, & Rosnick, 1990; Hyler Skodol, Oldham, Kellman, & Doige,
1992). This measure was collected as a back-up personality measure in addition to the
OMNI-IV.

Procedures

All measures were completed online in one session lasting approximately 60
minutes. Participants complete the demographic questionnaire, followed by the
Relationship Questionnaire, the OMNI-IV, the EMBU, and the PDQ-4.

Data Anﬂysis pnd Power
First, factor analysis was employed to determine the underlying factor structure of

the EMBU. These factors were then clustered with the RQ using k-means cluster analysis

36

to examine the constellations of attachment and parenting experiences that grouped
together. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to explore differences among the
derived groups on the clustering variables as well as the personality variables. AN OVA
was then used to examine group differences on the personality variables.

Cohen and Cohen (1983) recommend using the f—statistic as an effect size
parameter in power analysis for ANOVA. If a medium effect size (f9 = .25) is presumed
in the present study, power was .97 for the main One-Way AN OVAs comparing the 4
groups on the clustering variables and the personality variables. For the speciﬁc group
comparisons with a medium effect size (d = .5), power was .67 when comparing Group 1
vs. Group 2, .69 when comparing Group 1 vs. Group 3, .66 when comparing Group 1 vs.
Group 4, .99 when comparing Group 2 vs. Group 3, .97 when comparing Group 2 vs.
Group 4, and .99 when comparing Group 3 vs. Group 4. If a medium-large effect size is
presumed (d = .65), power increases to .85, .87, and .85 for Group 1 comparisons. This
was deemed to be adequate power for the expected effect sizes for this study.

Results

Before running the cluster analysis, data reduction methods were employed to
determine the factor structure of the EMBU. Principal component analysis with Varimax
rotation was employed. It must be noted that items related to siblings were dropped from
the analysis because of the large amount of missing data. The EMBU yielded 11 factors
using eigenvalues > 1 as a cut-off point, However, analyzing scree plot, suggested by
Costello and Osbourne (2005) to be a more appropriate way of determining factors,
suggested a 4-factor rotated solution. The variance explained by each factor is presented

in Table 5 (p. 57) and the results for the rotated solution are displayed in Table 6 (p. 58)

37

Items that loaded highly on to the 4 EMBU factors were examined. Items loading on the
ﬁrst factor described a positive, supportive experience with parents during childhood.
Items loading on the second factor indicated emotional and physical abuse during
childhood. Items loading on the third factor indicated parents who were anxious and
overprotective. Finally, items loading on the fourth factor were related to parents who
were performance-oriented. Items were aloud to load on multiple factors.

Factor scores were calculated using the regression method for each participant on
each of the 4 factors, and entered into a k-means cluster analysis with the 4 RQ variables.
In k-means clustering the number of clusters should be determined based on theory, and
is set by the experimenter. The analysis was initially run to yield four clusters because
each of the 4 attachment dimensions were theorized to belong to a different cluster. The
cluster analysis was re-run with 2, 3, 5, and 6 clusters, but the 4 cluster data were most
interpretable. A graph of the distance of each case from its cluster center is depicted in
Figure 2 (p. 62).

Thus, 4 groups were derived from membership into one of the 4 clusters.
Descriptive statistics (in the form of regression scores) for each factor based on group
membership are presented in Table 7 (p. 60). A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was
performed to evaluate group differences and gender. These data should be interpreted
with caution, as the clustering process formed clusters by maximizing differences on
these variables. Nonetheless, the data proved helpful in exploring the composition of each
group. There were main effects for group (E = 51.64; p < .01) but not gender (E = 1.18; p
=.31) and the group by gender interaction was not signiﬁcant (F = 1.36; p = .12).

Between-subjects analyses revealed signiﬁcant effects for each attachment and parenting

38

factor at the p < .01 level, with the exception of maternal anxiety, which was not
signiﬁcant (p = .37).

Post-hoe Bonferroni corrected t-tests were run to examine group differences for
each variable, and these group differences are represented in Table 7. Because the gender
x group analysis did not reach signiﬁcance, gender was not considered in this analysis.
Group 1 reported relatively high levels of preoccupied, dismissing, and fearﬁil
attachment along with high levels of maternal abuse and low maternal orientation toward
performance. This group will be referred to as the Insecure/Maternal Abuse group. Group
number 2, the Preoccupied/Fearﬁil group consisted of individuals reporting a tendency
toward preoccupied and fearful attachment styles, suggesting a negative working model
of the self. They tended to report higher levels of anxious maternal behavior (though not
signiﬁcantly so) compared to the other groups. Group 3 reported a relative tendency
toward secure attachment and away from fearful and preoccupied attachments. They
reported more supportive maternal behavior than other groups. Thus, they will be referred
to as the Secure/Matemal Support group. Finally, Group 4, the Dismissing/Fearful group,
reported a tendency toward dismissing and fearful attachment. They tended to report a
higher degree of maternal performance orientation and lower levels of supportive,
abusive, and anxious maternal behavior.

Descriptive statistics for each personality variable based on group membership are
presented in Table 7 (p. 60). A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was performed to
evaluate cluster group differences and gender on personality variables. There were main
effects for group (E = 4.95; p < .01) and gender (E = 3.00; p < .01) but the group by

gender interaction was not signiﬁcant (F = 1.16; p = .28). Between-subjects analyses

\

revealed signiﬁcant effects for each personality variable at the p < .01 level, with the
exception of histrionic PD which was signiﬁcant at p < .05. With regard to gender, males
reported more antisocial personality (M = 55.85, SD = 11.51 versus M = 51.02, SD =
10.19; p < .01), and narcissistic personality (M = 55.64, M; = 10. 41 versus M = 50.48,
SD = 10.69; p < .01) than females. Because the group x gender interaction was not
signiﬁcant, gender was dropped from ﬁiture analyses.

Post-hoe Bonferroni corrected t-tests were performed to uncover group
differences on the personality variables, and the results are represented in Table 8 (p. 61).
The Insecure/Maternal Abuse group reported signiﬁcantly higher levels of paranoid,
schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, and dependent PD traits than the other three
groups, and their was a trend in that direction for the other PD classiﬁcations. In contrast,
the Secure/Maternal Support group reported lower levels of paranoid, schizoid,
schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, and obsessive-compulsive PD traits and demonstrated a
trend in that direction for the remaining PDs as well. The only signiﬁcant ﬁnding outside
of one of these two groups was that the Preoccupied/Fearful group reported more
dependent PD traits than the Dismissing/Fearful group.

In sum, the Secure/Maternal Support reported lower levels of virtually all of the
PD traits compared to the other groups. The Insecure/Matemal Abuse group reported
higher levels of virtually all of these PD traits, in particular those relating to paranoid,
schizoid, schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, and dependent personalities. The other two
groups were not well differentiated based on PD traits.

Discussion

40

This study was designed to evaluate the attachment and maternal parenting
variables that cluster together, and examine differences in PD traits based on this
clustering. The results of the cluster analysis suggest that mothering and attachment
variables come together in ways that make intuitive sense. As predicted (Hypothesis 1),
individuals who report generally positive interactions with their mothers also report
secure attachments. Also as predicted (Hypothesis 2), maternal abuse was associated with
relatively high self-reported fearﬁil attachment. However, maternal abuse was associated
with relatively high levels of the other two insecure attachment dimensions as well, while
fearful attachment was associated with preoccupied attachment. Overall, these ﬁndings
suggest that maternal abuse toward a child is a risk factor for attachment insecurity in
general and fearﬁil attachment in particular.

Consistent with Hypotheses 3 and 5, individuals in the group reporting fearﬁil
attachment and maternal abuse also reported higher levels of PD traits across the board,
including higher levels of borderline personality. This makes sense given the large bodies
of literature connecting borderline PD with both abuse (e. g. Battle et al., 2004) and
fearful attachment (e. g. Agrawal, Gunderson, Holmes, & Lyons-Ruth, 2004). Childhood
abuse can lead to negative working models of self and other, and can stymie the
development of appropriate affect regulation strategies, which may manifest in the
hallmark features of BPD such as affective instability, impulsivity, feelings of emptiness,
and engaging in self-destructive behavior.

As expected (Hypotheses 4 and 6) the Secure/Maternal Support group generally
reported lower levels of PD traits relative to the other groups. In examining the other two

groups reporting insecure attachment but no abuse, the only signiﬁcant ﬁnding was that

41

the Preoccupied/Fearful group reported higher levels of dependent traits than the
Dismissing/Fearful group. Thus, individuals with a negative model of self, regardless of
the valence of the model of others, reported more dependent traits than individuals with a
negative model of others, regardless of the valence of the model of self. This ﬁnding
suggests that individuals who do not feel positively about themselves are more likely to
rely on others for reassurance and taking responsibility in their lives, to fear losing the
approval of others, and to have other dependent traits compared to individuals who don’t
feel positively about others.
Eaaminingjpt Attachment Conceptualization of PDs

These ﬁndings will now be reviewed in light of Lyddon and Sherry’s (2001)
attachment conceptualization of PD traits. Due to the limited number of parenting
behaviors considered, an emphasis will be placed on the attachment and personality
variables. Parenting will generally be addressed only when relevant ﬁndings are present.

Dependent person_ality style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) suggested that a
dependent personality style represents a preoccupied attachment dimension. In the
present study, the Insecure/Maternal Abuse and Preoccupied/Fearful groups reported
higher levels of preoccupied attachment than the other two groups. They also reported
signiﬁcantly more dependent PD traits than the othertwo groups, with the
Insecure/Matemal Abuse group reporting the most dependent traits. This association
between preoccupied attachment and dependent PD traits provides support for Lyddon
and Sherry’s assertion that individuals with dependent PD traits view themselves
negatively, as incapable of surviving on their own, but view others as generally

positively.

42

Obsessive-compulsivgersrmlity styﬁ. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) proposed that
an obsessive-compulsive personality style represents a preoccupied attachment
dimension. Individuals in the groups reporting higher levels of preoccupied attachment
(Insecure/Maternal Abuse and Preoccupied/Fearful) reported more obsessive-compulsive
traits than individuals in the Secure/Maternal Support group. Moreover, the
Insecure/Maternal Abuse group reported signiﬁcantly more obsessive-compulsive traits
than the Dismissing/Fearful group, and the Preoccupied/Fearful group showed a trend in
this direction. This suggests that individuals with obsessive-compulsive traits have a
positive model of others combined with a negative view of themselves, which Lyddon
and Sherry attribute to their positive view of their perfectionistic parents in conjunction
with their negative self-appraisals resulting from never being able to live up to their
parents’ high expectations.

Histrionic person_ality style. Histrionic personality style was also theorized to
represent a preoccupied attachment dimension. The Insecure/Maternal Abuse group
reported more histrionic traits than the Secure/Maternal Support group, and a trend in this
direction compared to the Dismissing/Fearful group. The Preoccupied/Fearful group
reported somewhat greater histrionic traits than these two groups, but this difference was
not signiﬁcant. Overall, there is some evidence that individuals with histrionic traits have
negative models of the self combined with positive models of others. Lyddon and Sherry
(2001) suggested that this was due to interactions with caregivers that required them to
resort to extreme measures to get attention. More speciﬁcally, individuals were thought to
develop negative views of the self in the face not being able to consistently gain the

attention of their sought-after caregivers.

43

Avoidant personality styﬁ. An avoidant personality style was theorized to
represent both preoccupied and fearﬁil attachment dimensions. The Insecure/Maternal
Abuse and Preoccupied/Fearﬁil groups reported relatively high levels of these attachment
classiﬁcations, along with more avoidant traits than the Secure/Maternal Support group.
Both groups also reported more avoidant traits than the Dismissing/Fearful group,
although this difference did not reach signiﬁcance for the Preoccupied/Fearful group.
These ﬁndings are consistent with Lyddon and Sherry’s assertion that individuals
reporting avoidant traits have negative models of self coupled with models of others that
waiver from good to bad (i.e. avoidance of relationships and but clinginess in
relationships).

P_aranoeid personality style. A paranoid personality style was theorized by Lyddon
and Sherry (2001) to represent a fearful attachment dimension. F earﬁil attachment was
fairly consistent among the three groups reporting higher levels of insecure attachment.
The three insecure groups also reported more paranoid PD traits than the Secure/Maternal
Support group, with the Insecure/Maternal Abuse group reporting more paranoid PD
traits than the other two insecure groups as well. This provides evidence that individuals
with Paranoid PD traits have negative models of self and other, which Lyddon and Sherry
attributed to childhood experiences with parents who were critical and rejecting.

Antisocial persorgtlity style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) theorized that an
antisocial personality style represents both fearful and dismissing attachment dimensions.
The Fearful/Dismissing group did not report more antisocial traits than the
Secure/Maternal Support group, although there was a trend in this direction. The

Insecure/Maternal Abuse group, who also reported moderate to high fearﬁil and

44

dismissing attachments, reported more antisocial PD traits than the other three groups.
Individuals in this group also reported more maternal abuse than the other two groups,
which is consistent with Lyddon and Sherry’s attachment conceptualization of antisocial
PD. Thus, it appears that while having a negative model of others couple with a model of
self that vacillates between positive and negative may be related to antisocial PD traits,
childhood abuse is an important factor.

Narcissistic personality style. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001), a
narcissistic personality style also represents fearful and dismissing attachment dimension.
While the two groups with the highest reported fearful and dismissing attachment
dimensions reported more narcissistic personality traits than the Secure/Maternal Support
group, the insecure groups were not differentiated based on narcissistic traits. Lyddon and
Sherry suggested that individuals with narcissistic personality styles have a view of self
that wavers from positive to negative, which is reﬂected in their grandiosity as a defense
against feelings of inferiority. Their model of others according to Lyddon and Sherry is
negative.

SchizotypaLpersonality style. A schizotypal personality style was theorized to
represent fearful and dismissing attachment dimensions. The three groups reporting
insecure attachments reported more schizotypal traits than the Secure/Matemal Support
group. In addition, the Insecure/Maternal abuse group reported more schizotypal traits
than the other three groups. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001) schizotypal
individuals have a model of self that is confused and undeveloped, and therefore wavers
between positive and negative. They have a model of others that is generally negative.

The present study did not provide evidence to support this, in that the Dismissing/le

45

group reported similar levels or lower levels of schizotypal traits relative to the other two
groups reporting insecure attachment.

SchizoidperscMality style. According to Lyddon and Sherry (2001), a schizoid
personality style represents a dismissing attachment dimension. All three groups
reporting insecure attachments reported higher levels of schizoid traits than the
Secure/Maternal Support group. Moreover, the Insecure/Maternal Abuse group reported
more schizoid traits than the other three groups. Lyddon and Sherry theorized that
individuals with schizoid traits maintain a positive view of themselves as they are not
distressed by their lack of relationships. They have a negative view of others in that they
don’t see relating to others as a worthwhile endeavor. In the present study, the group
reporting the highest levels of dismissing attachment did not report more schizoid traits
than the other two groups reporting insecure attachment, so there was no clear evidence
in support of Lyddon and Sherry’s conceptualization of schizoid PD.

Borderline persgality style. Lyddon and Sherry (2001) departed ﬁ'om
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) 4 category model of attachment to suggest that a
borderline personality style represents a disorganized attachment dimension because of
the presence of an unstable personality conﬁguration that shifts among the various forms
of insecure attachment. For the purposes of this study however, borderline personality
traits were considered to be related to fearful and preoccupied attachment. The two
groups reporting higher levels of both of these attachment dimensions reported more
borderline features than the Secure/Matemal Support group. The insecure/Matemal
Abuse group also reported more borderline traits than the other three groups. Thus, there

is some evidence that individuals with borderline PD traits have a negative view of the

46

self combined with a view of others that vacillates from positive to negative. However,
ﬁndings for Borderline PD may support Lyddon and Sherry’s original conceptualization.
The Insecure-Matemal Abuse group, while reporting higher levels of fearﬁil and
preoccupied attachments, also reported high levels of dismissing attachment and may
represent a group of individuals with disorganized attachment, who do not rely on one
organized, even if insecure, attachment strategy. The results concerning borderline PD
traits also conﬁrm Lyddon and Sherry’s model, and the PD literature, associating
childhood abuse with borderline PD.

The present study provided evidence in support of Lyddon and Sherry’s
attachment conceptualization of PBS in many cases. However, a possible alternate
explanation of the ﬁndings is that insecure attachment in was generally related to greater
levels of dysﬁmctional personality traits. Individuals with the most difﬁcult childhoods
(abuse) and the most insecure (or disorganized) attachments, reported the most PD traits.
Those who reported the most supportive relationships with their mothers and a secure
attachment style reported the fewest PD traits. Individuals with moderately problematic
insecure attachments and less traumatic recollections of their mother’s behavior during
childhood reported PD traits somewhere in between. Additional research, particularly
with non-college student clinical samples, would likely shed more light on these and
other possibilities. Nevertheless, Lyddon and Sherry’s main argument, that attachment
theory in general and working models of self and other in particular provide a meaningful

context for understanding PD traits, was generally supported.

Ethnicity

47

As mentioned above, a greater proportion of minority participants, were dropped
from (or dropped out of) the study (See Table 4 p. 57). Unfortunately, I did not track
why each subject was dropped so it is unclear why this is the case. It could be that there
were cultural concerns, for example in reporting on the maternal parenting behavior,
which caused minority participants to discontinue. Perhaps some participants who
learned English as a second language may have had difﬁculty with the wording of the
questions. Related to this, there were also differences in the observed and expected
representation of ethnicities across groups. As can be seen in Table 4 there were more
African Americans and Latino(a)s in the Insecure-Matemal Abuse group than was
expected. In addition, there were more Asians in the Dismissing/Fearﬁil group than
expected and more Caucasians in the Secure/Matemal Support group then expected.
Finally, there were fewer African Americans and Asians in the Secure/Matemal Support
group than expected. While further analysis of these data was beyond the scope of this
study, it brings up an interesting question about the role of cultural norms (for example
around spanking, achievement, collectivism, and individualism) in the complex relations
among parenting, attachment, and the development of PD traits.

Limitations

This study has four main limitations. The ﬁrst is the use of a non-clinical college
sample. While reliance on university students for research has many beneﬁts, including
the ability to gather data from a large sample in a short amount of time, there are a
number of inherent drawbacks as well. College samples limit the ability to generalize
results to other populations that have more variability in age and educational background.

More importantly for this study, which was an exploration of potentially pathological

48

personality traits, the use of a college sample rather than a clinical sample may have
prevented relationships among key variables from being uncovered. Indeed, in reviewing
the data from the perspective of Lyddon and Sherry’s attachment conceptualization of PD
traits, there were several “trends” in the data supporting the attachment conceptualization
that did not reach signiﬁcance. Moreover, in the present study the Preoccupied/Fearﬁil
and F earﬁil/Dismissing groups were distinct from the Secure/Maternal Support and
Insecure/Maternal abuse groups, but were not well differentiated from each other, at
times making it difﬁcult to draw conclusions about Lyddon and Sherry’s assertions. It
seems likely that a clinical sample, with a broader scope of Axis I and II concerns, would
have less of a restricted range of PD traits and provide for a more in-depth examination of
Lyddon and Sherry’s theory.

The second key limitation is that only maternal parenting behavior was
considered. This was done to keep the necessary sample size reasonable, but excluding
reports on paternal behavior resulted in losing a critical aspect of the participants’
childhood experiences of parenting. Abuse or anxiety and overprotection from either
parent can be a risk factor for later development, just as support from either parent can be
protective factor. Related to this, there were far fewer male participants in the study. In
future research I would hope to look at the effects of the combination of maternal and
paternal parenting.

A third important limitation was the utilization of strictly self-report measures.
This design was chosen to enable data collection from such a large sample size in a short
amount of time, but with the realization that there are a number of disadvantages to this

methodology. Many of the items were transparent in their meaning, and participants may

49

have answered in a socially desirable way. However, the anonymity afforded in this
study makes socially desirable responding somewhat less likely. Self-report measures are
also limited in that they require a person to be aware of their thoughts, feelings, and
motivations. Thus, while they may capture a person’s world view and conscious
experiences they do not necessarily speak to unconscious dynamics, or representations of
self and other, that are crucial in understanding both attachment and character pathology.

There is some evidence that self-report measures of personality are more accurate
for certain PD diagnoses. In a recent study examining the relation between self-reported
and clinician reported (dimensional) borderline and antisocial PD ratings, small to
medium correlations were found (Bradley, Hilsenroth, Guamaccia, & Westen, 2007).
However, the authors selected these particular PDs because the self-report data have been
shown to be most valid, based on convergence with other informants or measures. Other
PD diagnoses (e. g. narcissistic) have shown little to no convergence between self-report
and informant report (Thomas, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2003), and the validity for self-
report diagnosis for these disorders has been called into question.

The fourth main limitation relates to the measurement of PD traits. I am coming
from the framework that personality function and dysfunction lie on a continuum from
simply exhibiting traits associated with a PD, as everyone does, to having such
signiﬁcant impairment that it rises to the level of a characterological disorder. This
dimensional approach to personality, consistent with the PDM conceptualization of
personality patterns (PDM Task Force, 2006), has also been shown to have better
construct validity than data derived from a categorical approach in PD research (e. g.

Widiger 2003). The measure I used (OMNI-IV) was not designed to make this

50

differentiation. Indeed, I found no self-report measure5 available during the planning or
write-up phase of the project that evaluated personality disorders dimensionally. In
addition, with the exception of some of the Fearful-Maternal Abuse group scores, all PD
ratings were Within one standard deviation from the mean. This is not unexpected given
the nature of the sample (college students), but it does limit the interpretability of the
data.
Implications

This study has implications for the way personality traits and personality
disorders are deﬁned. The current framework for diagnosing personality disorders
provided in the DSM-IV-TR is essentially a symptom checklist with considerable overlap
among disorders and no consideration of etiology or course. Other factors such as the
meaning and function a particular set of symptoms has for an individual, which might
seem clinically important in differentiating among different diagnostic possibilities, are
not accounted for. This can be a source of frustration for practitioners trying to tease apart
overlapping symptoms to make accurate and meaningful diagnoses in clinical settings. In
the present study, where PD traits were based on DSM-IV diagnostic categories,
individuals in the Insecure/Maternal Abuse group were elevated relative to at least one
other group on all of the PD traits, suggesting substantial overlap in this sample. This is
consistent with the large body of research linking the development of PD traits to
childhood experiences and ways of maintaining relationships with others, and suggests
that these are important aspects of personality to consider even if the extensive overlap

among PDs and PD traits makes the results difﬁcult to interpret. Thus, it follows

 

5 Non-questionnaire measures such as the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP 200: Westen &
Shedler, 1999), a clinician-rated q-sort procedure for assessing personality disorder characteristics
dimensionally, have been developed.

51

considerations beyond behavioral symptoms as deﬁned in the DSM are needed when
deﬁning diagnostic dimensions or categories, to a yield more meaningﬁil classiﬁcation
system with greater speciﬁcity.

In part in responding to shortcomings in DSM personality disorder classiﬁcation,
the PDM Task Force (2006) recently published the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual.
This alternate, or complementary, classiﬁcation system provides prototypical descriptions
of each personality disorder including possible etiological and conceptual information,
therapeutic considerations, and characteristic affects, beliefs, and defenses. Similar to
DSM, the PDM is also a multi-axial classiﬁcation system and the ﬁrst axis, the P Axis, is
where personality patterns and disorders are addressed. Classiﬁcation on this axis is
predicated on the notion that personality patterns fall on a continuum from healthy to
disordered. According to the PDM, what differentiates disordered from non-disordered
include “deﬁcits in sense of identity, relations with others, reality testing, adaptation to
stress, moral ﬁmctioning, or affective range, recognition, expression, and regulation (p.
18). Thus a person can have a depressive personality, for example, without having a
depressive personality disorder depending on his or her functioning in these domains.

The results of this study support the use of the PDM, a non-categorical approach
to personality diagnostics. This study also provided further evidence of the importance of
interrelations among parenting, attachment, and PD traits. Prior research ﬁndings were
replicated, but this study was unique in that it used cluster analysis to combine parenting
and attachment variables to evaluate differences in personality traits. Also, this study
evaluated a conceptualization of PD traits based on working models of attachment, and

provided support for the use of working models in understanding PDs and PD traits.

52

Additional research with different parenting behaviors (e. g. physical versus verbal versus
sexual abusiveness) utilizing a clinical sample would be a potential next step in
understanding the unique combination of parenting and attachment that contribute to

personality development.

53

Appendix A

Tables and Figures

Table 1: Equivalerﬂttachment styles to those in the four category model of attachment

@ﬂholomew. 1990).

 

Four Category Other Models

Description

 

Model
Comfortable in relationships
Secure Secure, Autonomous . . .
wrth autonomy and Intimacy
. Ambivalent, Anxious-Ambivalent, Overly dependent in
Preoccupred . .
Enmeshed relationships
N/A; Dismissing and Fearful Emphasize self-reliance over
Dismissing categories are considered Avoidant relationships, dismiss
(sometimes secure) in other models attachment
. . . A i r l i n hi f r
Fearﬁil Avordant, Anxrous-avordant V0 d e at o S ps, ea

attachment

 

54

Table 2: Attachment dimension and associated personality styles, as postulated by
Lyddon and Sherry (2001 ).

 

Attachment Dimensions Personality Style

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dependent
Preoccupied ODSCSSIVC COIITpUlSIVC

Histrionic
Preoccupied/ .
FearﬁJl Avordant
Fearﬁil Paranoid

Antisocial
Fearful/ . . .
. . . Narcrssrstrc
Dismissrng

Schizotypal
Dismissing Schizoid
Disorganized Borderline

 

 

55

Table 3: Adaptation of attachment dimensiongersonality styles, and assocmd parenting
behaviors as described by Igddon and Sherry (200 ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment Personality Style Parenting Behaviors
D1mens10ns
Dependent Overprotective, Unstimulating
' Obsessive Performance Oriented Overinvolved
Preoccupied Compulsive ,
Histrionic Rejecting, Overinvolved
. Borderline Overprotective, Abusive, Unaffectionate
Preoccupied/
Fearful
Avoidant Overinvolved, Rejecting, Unaﬁ‘ectionate
Fearﬁil Paranoid Rejecting, Intolerant, Shaming
Antisocial Abusive, Unaffectionate, Punitive
F r l/ . . . . .
ea fu . NaI‘ClSSlSth Performance Oriented, Overinvolved
Dismissmg
Schizotypal Shaming, Unaffectionate, Intolerant
Dismissing Schizoid Rejecting, Unaffectionate

 

 

 

Note: In keeping in line with the adult romantic attachment literature, Lyddon and
Sherry’s model was adapted so that borderline personality disorder is associated with
preoccupied and fearful attachment dimensions, rather than a disorganized attachment

dimension.

56

I_able 4: Demoggiphic Informaftion for Original Sample. Final Sample by Group. m
Dropped Subjects.

Whole Subjects

Total Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Sample Dropped

 

 

 

1:1. 374 19 88 179 88 521 147
Mean Age 19.7 19.2 19.2 19.7 19.8 19.7 19.8
($2) (2.2) (1.4) (1.5) (2.6) (1.9) (2.1) (1.8)
% Male 25.2 36.8 22.7 26.8 21.8 25.9 29.2
Race

% AfAmer 6.6 252' 7.2 4.2b 7.1 8.1 12.9
% Asian 5.7 6.3 6.0 2.4gb 11.9a 8.3 15.6
% Cauc 83.8 43.8 81.9 91.13 78.6 73.3 59.9
% Latino(a) 1.4 18.8a 1.2 .6 0 1.7 2.7
% Other 1.7 0 3.6 1.2 1.2 2.5 2.7

 

Note: Group 1‘ = Insecure/Maternal Abuse; Group 2 = Preoccupied/Fearful; Group 3 =
Secure/Maternal Support; Group 4 = Dismissing/ Fearful. a = higher representation than
expected; b = lower representation than expected.

Table 5: Variance explained by EMBU factors.
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

 

 

Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Positive/ Supportive 10.6 17. 1 17. 1
Abusive 8.2 13.2 30.3
Anxious 4.5 7.3 37.6
Performance 2.5 4. 1 4 l .7
Oriented

 

57

Table 6: Varimax-Rotated UMBU Factor Pattern

 

 

Factor Loading
EMBU Question Pos Abuse Anx P-O
Could you seek comfort from your parents if you were .74 -.18 -. 10 -. l4
sad?
If things went badly for you, did you then feel that your .73 -. 12 .12 -.21

parents tried to comfort and encourage you?
If you had a difﬁcult task in front of you, did you then .73 -.26 .04 .02
feel support from your parents?

Would your parents demonstrate they were fond of you? .73 -. l 3 .02 .08
Did your parents usually try to praise you? .71 -. 18 -.02 .18
Do you think your parents respected your opinion? .67 -. 14 -. 16 -. 10
Did your parents show with words and gestures that they .65 -.22 .01 .01
liked you?

Did your parents accept you as you were? .65 -.38 -.11 -.10
Did you feel it was difﬁcult to approach your parents? -.64 .25 .13 .28
Did your parents usually hug you? .63 -. 14 .00 -.03
Did your parents respect the fact that you had other .62 -. 16 -.26 -.06
opinions than they had?

Did your parents usually engage themselves in your .62 -.05 -.06 .10
interests and hobbies

Did you feel that your parents were proud when you .60 -.38 .00 .09
succeeded in something you had undertaken?

Did you feel that you parents liked you? .60 -.30 -. 14 .08
Did you feel that your parents wanted to be together with .59 -.22 -. 13 .14
you?

Do you think that your parents tried to make your .58 -. 19 -.02 .18

adolescence stimulating, interesting, and instructive (for
instance by giving you good books, arranging for you to
go to camp, encouraging you to join clubs)?

If you had done something foolish, could you then go to .58 -. 10 -.24 -.03
your parents and make everything right by asking their

forgiveness?

Did your parents wish you were like someone else? -.51 .43 .23 .20
Did your parents usually take an interest in what kinds of .49 ~05 .17 .10

friends you spent time with?
Do you think that either of your parents wished you had -.48 .44 .18 .21
been different in any way?

Did you think that your parents punished you fairly? .43 -.24 -.28 .01
Did you usually get beaten by your parents? -.22 .71 -.04 -. 18
Did your parents beat you for no reason? -. l 6 .68 -.09 -.17
Did your parents give you more physical punishment -.22 .65 .12 .21

then you deserved?

Were you punished by your parents without having done -.27 .64 .20 -.06
anything?

Would your parents punish you hard, even for trivial -.36 .63 .21 -.04

58

things?

Did you feel that your parents thought it was your fault
when they were unhappy?

Did your parents usually criticize you and tell you how
lazy and useless you were in front of others?

Do you think that your parents were mean and grudging
toward you?

Would your parents use expressions like "Is this the
thanks we get for having done so much for you, and for
having sacrificed so much for your sake?"

Do you think that either of your parents was severe
towards you?

Did your parents oﬁen say they did not approve of your
behavior at home?

Did your parents treat you in such a way that you felt
ashamed?

Did your parents usually show that they were interested
in your getting good grades?

Would your parents not let you have the things you
needed, based on the principle that you shouldn’t become
spoﬂed?

Did your parents use expressions like "If you do that, yOl
will make me sad?"

Did your parents tell you your behavior was
inappropriate for someone of your age, gender, etc?
Would your parents look sad or in any other way show
you that you had behaved badly so that you go real
feelings of guilt?

Did your parents punish you, even for small offenses?
As a child, were you beaten or scolded in the presence of
others?

Did your parents tell stories about something you had
said or done in front of others so that you felt ashamed?
Did your parents usually criticize the friends you liked to
spend time with?

Were your parents usually abrupt towards you?

Did you feel that your parents’ anxiety interfered with
everything you did?

Were you treated as the "black sheep" or "scapegoat" of
the family?

Were you usually allowed to go where you liked without
your parents worrying too much?

Did either of your parents forbid you to do things other
children were allowed to do because they were afraid
something might happen to you?

Did your parents allow you to do the same things as your

59

.40

-.24

.44

-.31

-.27

-.22

-.41

.24

.15

-.35

.04

-.24

-.27

-.35

-.22

-.37
-.23

-.32

.19

-.17

.24

.59

.59

.56

.55

.55

.54

.51

-.47

.46

.45

.44

.42

.40

.40

.40

.40

.39
.38

.35

.02

.ll

.04

.00

.12

.15

.10

.22

.12

.22

.15

.17

.15

.23

.20

.37

.18

.04

.30

.09
.20

.24

-.78

.66

-.63

.10

.13

.04

.25

-.Ol

.22

-.Ol

.43

-.12

.15

.18

.27

-.10

-.10

.28

.18

.07
.26

.26

—.18

.06

.07

friends did?

Did you feel that your parents trusted you so that you .43 -. 13 -.61 .06
were allowed to do things on your own?

Did you wish that your parents would worry less about -.04 .20 .58 .25
what you were doing?

Did your parents put decisive limits on what you were .07 .16 .57 .12
and were not allowed to do -- to which they adhered

vigorously?

Do you think that your parent's anxiety that something -. 13 .26 .50 .25
might happen to you was exaggerated?

When you came home, did you always have to account .13 .18 .47 .08
for what you had been doing to your parents?

Did your parents usually worry about your health .10 .14 .44 .10
unnecessarily?

Do you think that your parents put high demands on .02 .01 .14 .63
when it came to school grades, sport performances, or

similar things?

Did your parents try to spur you on to become the best? .15 -.07 .15 .55
Did your parents try to inﬂuence you to become elite or -.06 .09 .09 .42
superior?

 

Note: Factor loadings with an absolute value _>_ .35 are bolded.

ﬁble 7: Means and Standard Deviations for R0 Attachment Ratings and EMBU Mor

 

(Reﬁssion) Scores by Group.

 

Group 1 GTOUp 2 Group 3 ___
Factor 1319 3:88 ﬂ=179 Group 4 lg 88
Preoccupied ed ed ad ab
Attachment 3-6 (1'7) 4'3 (1-5) 2.5 (3.8) 2.4 (1.2)
Dismissing bd ad d abc
Attachment 3-8 (1.6) 2.6 (1.1) 3.1 (1.5) 5.4 (1,0)
Fearﬁrl c c abd 6
Attachment 5-3 (1.1) 5.4 (1.2) 2.4 (1.1) 5.0 (1.4)
Secure a c 5 C abd 6
Attachment "6 (1'4) 3'4 (1-3) 5-8 (0-9) 3.5 (1.4)
Supportive c c abd c
Parenting -.44 (1.17) -.23 (.96) .35 (.71) -,17 (_99)
Abusive bed a a 8
Parenting 3.30(1.11) -. 18 (.61) -22 (.59) .13 (.62)
Anxious
Parenting -.26 (1.15) .16 (.99) -.02 (.87) -.04 (1.00)
Performance
oriented “'69 0-19)de -11 (.85)a =05 (.89)a .10 (1.01)a
Parenting

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Superscripted letters indicated group differences at p < .05. Group 1
(Insecure/Maternal Abuse) = a Group 2 (Preoccupied/Fearful) = b, Group 3
Secure/Maternal Support) = c, and Group 4 (Dismissing/Fearful) = d.

60

Table 8: Means Standard Deviations Maximums and Minimums for OMNT-IV.

 

 

 

 

$28“ $28“ $28.“ $38“
Paranoid _M/s_ 62.5(8.9)b°d 55.0 (8.7)“ 46.0 (8.4)“bd 53.6 (9.1)“c
Min/Max 48/87 36/81 22/73 38/79
Schizoid M/S_D 58.5(10.3)b°d 48.3(10.4)“° 41.3 (7.9)“bd 50.2(10.6)“c
Min/Max 41/81 33/81 26/85 26/87
Schizotypal l\_/I/S_D 62.0(105)bed 54.3(10.8)““ 45.2 (9.3)“bd 521(99)“c
Min/Max 37/74 33/91 23/74 27/76
Antisocial _M/sp 64.6(14.1)"“d 52.5(9.9)““‘ 49.9 (9.8)“b 52.8(105)a
Min/Max 33/87 38/85 33/82 35/82
Borderline M/S_D 67.2 (9.3)bccl 591003)“ 49.6 (9.7)“bd 55.9(10.6)“°
Min/Max 45/79 35/84 30/81 38/94
Histrionic M/S_D 58.0 (7.1)“ 54.8(7.4) 52.0 (9.0)“ 53.0 (9.7)
Min/Max 47/75 38/73 27/78 33/73
Narcissistic M/s_D 596(55)“ 53.0(98) 49.4006)“d 53.8(119)c
Min/Max 48/71 29/75 21/77 25/86
Avoidant M/so 62.3(11.0)°d 57.2(10.8)° 460(88)“bd 53.6015)“c
Min/Max 45/84 37/86 29/68 32/84
Dependent 111/812 63.6(116)bcd 56.2(11.3)“°“’ 48.4 (9.0)“b 50600.8)“b
Min/Max 40/77 33/87 33/77 31/87
Obsess/ M/sp 62.9(8.4)cd 57.4 (8.8)° 49.9 (8.8)““’“I 566(92)“c
Comp
Min/Max 46/76 35/80 30/78 355/76

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Group 1 = Insecure/Maternal Abuse; Group 2 = Preoccupied/Fearful; Group 3 =
Secure/Maternal Support; Group 4 = Dismissing/Fearﬁrl. Minimum possible T-score for
OMNT-IV=0; Maximum possible T-score for OMNI-IV = 100. Clinical Cutoff is T Z 65.

61

Figure 1: Four category model of attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz. 1991).

 

Model of Self
Positive Negative
Positive Secure I Preoccupied
Model of other
Negative Dismissing I Fearﬁil

Figure 2: Cluster analysis distance of case from cluster center.

 

 

 

 

h 6.00000
C,
E 0
U
o 8
3 500000 0
a ' o g e 9
o
2 3
o o o g
5 ° 8
3 4.00000— 0 °
N
U
a
N 8
0 3.00000
"3
.f.’ 3
g o
.2 2.00000—
3 o
o
N 0
o 8 o
'6
3 1.000004
= o
N
E
9 0.00000—
1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4

Group

Note: Group 1 = Insecure/Maternal Abuse; Group 2 = Preoccupied/Fearful; Group 3 =
Secure/Matemal Support; Group 4 = Dismissing/ Fearful.

62

Appendix B
Relationship Questionnaire

Part 1: Pleas Read through all of the following four statements concerning how you feel
about close relationships with other people; then choose the statement that best expresses
how you feel.

1. 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.

2. 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 to close to others.

3. 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 worry that others don’t value me as much as I
value them.

4. 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.

63

Part 2: Now, indicate how much each statement is like you, or is not like you, by marking
the appropriate number below each statement.

A. 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me like me like me

B. 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 to close to others.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me like me like 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 worry that others don’t value me as much as I

value them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me like me like me

D. 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me like me like me

64

 

Appendix C
EMBU item modiﬁcation

 

Old EMBU Items

Modiﬁed EMBU Items

 

Were you spoilt by your parents in
comparison with your sister(s) and or
brother(s)?

Did it happen that your parents punished
you, even for small offences?

Did your parents try to inﬂuence you to
become something "posh"?

Did it happen that you were disappointed
with your parents because you didn't get

something you wanted?

Did you think that your parents punished
you justly?

Did it happen that either of your parents

forbade you to do things other children were

allowed to do because they were afraid
something might happen to you?

Did it happen that as a child you were

beaten or scolded in the presence of others?

Did it happen that your parents gave you
more corporal punishment then you
deserved?

Did it happen that your parents narrated

something you have said or done in front of

others so that you felt ashamed?

Did your parents usually show that they

were interested in your getting good marks?

Did it happen that your parents wish you
were like someone else?

Were you spoilt by your parents in
comparison with your sister(s) and or
brother(s)?

Did your parents punish you, even for
small offenses?

Did your parents try to inﬂuence you to
become elite or superior?

Were you disappointed with your parents
because you didn’t get something you
wanted?

Did you think that your parents punished
you fairly?

Did either of your parents forbid you to dc
things other children were allowed to do
because they were afraid something might
happen to you?

As a child, were you beaten or scolded in
the presence of others?

Did your parents give you more physical
punishment then you deserved?

Did your parents tell stories about
something you had said or done in front 0
others so that you felt ashamed?

Did your parents usually show that they
were interested in your getting good
grades?

Did your parents wish you were like
someone else?

Did your parents say: you who are so big, or Did your parents tell you your behavior
you who are a boy/girl shouldn't act like tha' was inappropriate for someone of your

should you?

Did your parents usually criticize the friends

you liked to frequent?

Do you think that your parents tried to make

your adolescence stimulating, interesting,
and instructive (for instance by giving you
good books, arranging for you to go on
camps, taking you to clubs)?

Did it happen that your parents wouldn’t let

you have the things you needed, based on
the principle that you shouldn't become
spoilt?

Did it happen that you got a bad conscience

towards your parents because you behaved
in a way they did not desire"

Do you think that your parents put high

demands on when it came to schoolmarks,
sport performances, or similar things?

Did it happen that you were punished by

your parents without having done anything?

Did your parents usually take an interest in

what kinds of friends you frequented?

Would your parents punish you hard, even
for triﬂes?

Did it happen that your parents beat you for

no reason?

Did it happen that you wished your parents

would worry less about what you were
doing?

age, gender, etc?

Did your parents usually criticize the
friends you liked to spend time with?

Do you think that your parents tried to
make your adolescence stimulating,
interesting, and instructive (for instance
by giving you good books, arranging for
you to go to camp, encouraging you to
join clubs)?

Would your parents deny you the things
you needed, based on the principle that
you shouldn't become spoiled?

Did you feel remorseful towards your
parents because you behaved in a way
they did not desire?

Do you think that your parents put high
demands on when it came to school
grades, sport performances, or similar
things?

Were you punished by your parents
without having done anything?

Did your parents usually take an interest
in what kinds of friends you spent time
with?

Would your parents punish you hard, ever
for trivial things?

Did your parents beat you for no reason?

Did you wish that your parents would
worry less about what you were doing?

 

66

 

Appendix D
EMBU

Instructions: Below are some questions about your parents’ childrearing practices. Read
each question carefully and mark the response that indicates how often you had that
experience with each of your parents. When choosing your responses think about your
childhood and'adolescence only; if you are over the age of 18 try not to let your adult
relationships with your parents inﬂuence your answers. Also, you are to answer the
questions about the person who was most like a mother and the person most like a father
to you, even if it was a stepparent or foster parent. For questions that do not apply to you,
for example if don’t have siblings or you don’t have a mother or father ﬁgure who raised
you, please mark “Not applicable.”

Never Rarely Often Always

1. Did you feel that your parents Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
anxrety interfered wrth everyth1ng Father

you did? 1 2 3 4 N/A

3.13.? Z35“ 2‘3"?“ Emmi}. . M0862 ‘ 2 3 4 N“
o s g u es a ey e Father 1 2 3 4 N/A

you?

3. Were you spoilt by your parents Mother 1 2 3 4 N/ A

in comparison with your sister(s) Father 1 2 3 4 N/ A

and or brother(s)?

4. Did you feel that you parents Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
liked you? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
5. Did your parents punish you, Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
even for small offenses? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
6. Did your parents try to inﬂuenct Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
you to become elite or superior? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
3.335882 32535.1“.2'32655’2'21t3et M088 1 2 3 4 N/A
get something you wanted? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
“88881.88:818:88“:Meee . . e .
p y Father 1 2 3 4 N/A

different in any way?

67

 

9. Did your parents let you have
things your brother(s) and/or
sister(s) were not allowed to have?

Mother
Father

10. Did you think that your parent: Mother
punished you fairly? Father

11. Do you think that either of
your parents was severe towards
you?

Mother
Father

12. If you had done something

foolish, could you then go to your Mother
parents and make everything right Father
by asking their forgiveness?

13. Did your feel that your parents
liked your brother(s) and/or
sister(s) more than they liked you?

Mother
Father

14. Did your parents treat you

unjustly (badly) compared with Mother
how they treated your sister(s) Father
and/or brother(s)?

15. Did either of your parents

forbid you to do things other Mother
children were allowed to do Father
because they were afraid

something might happen to you?

16. As a child, were you beaten or Mother
scolded in the presence of others? Father

17. If things went badly for you,

did you then feel that your parents Mother
tried to comfort and encourage Father
you?

18. Did your parents usually worn Mother
about your health unnecessarily? Father

19. Did your parents give you
more physical punishment then Mother
you deserved? Father

68

Never

1
l

Rarely

2
2

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Often

Always

4
4

Ah AA Ab bk

AA

AA

A AA A

AA

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/ A

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

 

20. Would your parents become
angry if you didn't help at home
with what you were asked to do?

21. Would your parents look sad
or in any other way show you that
you had behaved badly so that you
go real feelings of guilt?

22. Did your parents let you have
things which your ﬁ'iends got, to
the extent they could afford them?

23. Did you feel it was difﬁcult to
approach your parents?

24. Did your parents tell stories
about something you had said or
done in front of others so that you
felt ashamed?

25. Did you feel that your parents
liked you more than they liked
your brother(s) and/or sister(s)?

26. Did your parents begrudge you
the things you needed?

27. Did your parents usually show
that they were interested in your
getting good grades?

28. If you had a difficult task in
front of you, did you then feel
support from your parents?

29. Were you treated as the "black
sheep" or "scapegoat" of the

family?

30. Did your parents wish you
were like someone else?

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

Mother
Father

69

lﬂever

l
l

1

Rarely

2
2

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Often

Always

AA

AA

AA

AA

A

AA

AA

AA

A

AA

AA

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

 

31. Did your parents tell you your
behavior was inappropriate for
someone of your age, gender, etc?

Mother
Father

32. Did your parents usually

criticize the friends you liked to Mother
. . Father
spend time With?
33. Did you feel that your parents Mother
thought it was your fault when
Father
they were unhappy?
34. Did your parents try to spur Mother
you on to become the best? Father
35. Would your parents Mother
demonstrate they were fond of
9 Father
you.
36. Did you feel that your parents Mother
trusted you so that you were Father

allowed to do things on your own?

37. Do you think your parents Mother
respected your opinion? Father
38. Did you feel that your parents Mother
wanted to be together with you? Father

39. Do you think that your parents

were mean and grudging toward Mother
9 Father
you.
40. Dldyour parents use Mother
expressrons like If you do that,
Father

you will make me sad?"

41. When you came home, did ya
always have to account for what
you had been doing to your
parents?

Mother
Father

70

Never

1
l

Rarely

2
2

N

N

N

N

N

Often

Always

4
4

AA

AA

A

AA

A

AA

AA

A

AA

AA

N/A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/ A

N/A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

 

42. Do you think that your parents

tried to make your adolescence Mother
stimulating, interesting, and Father
instructive (for instance by giving

you good books, arranging for you

to go to camp, encouraging you to

join clubs)?

43. Did your parents usually try to Mother
praise you? Father

44. Would your parents use

expressions like "Is this the thanks Mother
we get for having done so much Father
for you, and for having sacriﬁced

so much for your sake?"

45. Would your parents not let yor

have the things you needed, based Mother
on the principle that you shouldn't Father
become spoiled?

46. Did you feel remorseﬁil

towards your parents because you Mother
behaved in a way they did not Father
desire?

47. Do you think that your parents

put high demands on when it came Mother
to school grades, sport Father
performances, or similar things?

48. Could you seek comfort from Mother
your parents if you were sad? Father

49. Were you punished by your
parents without having done
anything?

Mother
Father

50. Did your parents allow you to
do the same things as your friends
did?

51. Did your parents often say the)
did not approve of your behavior Mother
at home? Father

Mother
Father

7]

Never

1
l

Rarely

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Often

Always

AA

A AA AA

A

AA

AA

A

AA

A

AA

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/ A

 

52. Did your parents usually

criticize you and tell you how lazy Mother
and useless you were in front of Father
others?

' ll
53..D1d your parents. usua y take Mother
an interest in what kinds of friends

. . Father
you spent time With?

54. Were you the one of your

sister(s) and/or brother(s) whom Mother
your parents blamed if anything Father
happened?

55. Did your parents accept you as Mother

you were? Father
56. Were your parents usually Mother
abrupt towards you? Father

57. Would your parents punish Mother
you hard, even for trivial things? Father

58. Did your parents beat you for Mother
no reason? Father

59. Did you wish that your parents

would worry less about what you Mother

were doing? Father
60. Dld your parents usually Mother
engage themselves in your Father

interests and hobbies

61. Did you usually get beaten by Mother
your parents? Father

62. Were you usually allowed to
go where you liked without your Mother
parents worrying too much? Father

72

Never

1
l

Rarely Often

2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3
2 3

Always

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

AA

N/ A
N/A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/A
N/A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

N/ A
N/ A

Never Rarely Often Always
63. Did your parents put decisive

limits on what you were and were Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
not allowed to do -- to which they Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
adhered vigorously?

64. Did your parents treat you in Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
such a way that you felt ashamed? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
65. Did your parents let your

sister(s) and/or brother(s) have Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
things which you were not allowec Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
to get?

66. Dto yﬁutthlnk mat your parents Mother 2 3 4 N / A
anxre y a some mg mg Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
happen to you was exaggerated?

67. Did your parents respect the Mother 1 2 3 4 N / A
fact that you had other opinions Father 1 2 3 4 N / A
than they had?

38.33133iTJJZ’JJEEEJQZLZ‘E’. M088 1 2 3 4 N/A
something you had undertaken? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
33.1.311313122218325;53233.3”Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
and/or brother(s)? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
70. Did your parents take your par

against your sister(s) and/or Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
brother(s), even if you were the Father 1 2 3 4 N/A
guilty one?

71. Did your parents usually hug Mother 1 2 3 4 N/A
you? Father 1 2 3 4 N/A

80. The “mother” you rated is your:
A. Biological mother B. Adoptive mother C. Stepmother D. Foster mother E. Other
81. The “father” you rated is your:

A. Biological father B. Adoptive father C. Stepfather D. Foster father E. Other

 

I'-T"-‘_i

Appendix E
Demographic Information

1. Gender:
A. Male
B. Female

2. Date of Birth (mo/day/yr):

 

3. Race/Ethnicity (if you are more than one, you can choose more than one):

A. African American
B. Asian

C. Caucasian

D. Latino(a)

E. Native American
F. Other

 

Current year in school:
A. Freshman
B. Sophomore
C. Junior
D. Senior

Cumulative college GPA:
A. below 2.0
B. 2.0 — 2.49
C. 2.5 — 2.99
D. 3.0 — 3.49
E. 3.5 — 4.0

What is your marital status?
A. Never married
B. Married
C. Separated
D. Divorced
E. Widowed

What is your current relationship status (if you are not currently married)?
A. Never dated
B. Not currently dating anyone
C. Dating more than one person
D. In a committed relationship

If applicable, how long have you been married or in a relationship (in months)?

 

74

.1

d. l

Are you currently, or have you ever been, in counseling or therapy with a mental health
professional?

A. No

B. Yes, For how long (total, in months)?

 

If yes, how helpful do/did you find overall?
A. Very helpful
B. Somewhat helpful
C. Not very helpful

Are you currently, or have you ever, taken medication for a psychological or psychiatric
condition?

A. No

B. Yes For how long (total, in months)?

 

If yes, how helpful do/did you ﬁnd it overall?
A. Very helpful
B. Somewhat helpﬁil
C. Not very helpful

What is the nature of your parents’ relationship (Select all that apply)?

 

 

 

 

 

A Never married; don’t live together Your age at break-up

B. Never married; live together

C. Married

D. Separated Your age at separation

E. Divorced Your age at divorce

E. Mother deceased Your age at time of death
F. Father deceased Your age at time of death

 

F. Both parents are deceased

Growing up, who did you live with most?
A. Biological mother
B. Adoptive mother
C. Stepmother
D. Foster mother
E. Another woman who acted like a mother to me
F. There was not a mother ﬁgure in my home

Growing up, who did you live with most?
A. Biological father
B. Adoptive father
C. Stepfather
D. Foster father
E. Another man who acted like a father to me
F. There was not a father ﬁgure in my home

75

References
Agrawal, H. R., Gunderson, J ., Holmes, B. J., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2004). Attachment
studies with borderline patients: A review. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 12, 94-
104.

Ainsworth, MD. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In J. Stevenson-Hinde &
C.M. Parks (Eds). The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. New York:
Basic Books.

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

Alexander, P. C. (1993). The differential effects of abuse characteristics and attachment
in the prediction of long-term effects of sexual abuse. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 8, 346-362.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

 

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th ed, Text Revision.) Washington, DC: Author.

Barone, L. (2003). Developmental parental and risk factors in borderline personality
disorder: A study using the adult attachment interview. Attachment and 1'1qu
Development. 5. 64-77.

 

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of
social personal relationships. 7. 147-178.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Jouraal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.

Bartholomew, K., Kwong, M. J ., & Hart, S. D. (2001). Attachment. In W. J. Livesley
(Ed). Handbook of Personality Disorders. New York: Guilford Press.

Bartholomew, K. & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment: Do
they converge? In W. S. Rholes & Simpson, J. A. (Eds) Attachment theog m
close relationships (pp. 25-45). New York: Guilford Press.

Battle, C. L., Shea, M. T., Johnson, D. M., Yen, S., Zlontick, C., Zanarini, M. C.,

Sanislow, C. A., Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H.,
& Morey, L. C. (2004). Childhood maltreatment associated with adult personality

76

 

disorders: Findings from the collaborative longitudinal personality disorders
study. Journal of Personality Disorders. 18. 193-211.

Bender, D. S., Farber, B. A., & Geller, J. D. (2001). Cluster B personality traits and
attachment. Journal of the America Academy of Psychoanalysis. 29, 551-563.

Bogaerts, S., Vanheule, S., Desmet, M. (2006). Personality disorders and romantic adult
attachment: A comparison of secure and insecure attached child molesters.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compative Criminology, 50,
139-147.

Bogaerts, S., Vanheule, S., Declercq, F. (2005). Recalled parental bonding, adult
attachment style, and personality disorders in child molesters: A comparative
study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 16, 445-458.

Bogaerts, S., Vervaeke, G., & Goethals, J. (2004). A comparison of relational attitude and

personality disorders in the explanation of child molestation. Sexual Abuse:
Journal of Research and Treatment, 16, 37-47.

 

Bouthillier, D., Julien, D., Dube, M., Belanger, I., & Hamelin, M. (2003). Predictive
validity of adult attachment measures in relation to emotion regulation behaviors
in marital interactions. Journal of Adult Development. 9, 291-305.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Altachment @d loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety. and anger. New
York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Lossgidnessaand Depression. New
York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of Age. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 145. 1-10.

Bradley, R., Hilsenroth, M., Guarnaccia, C. & Westen, D. (2007). Relationship between
clinician assessment and self-assessment of personality disorders using the
SWAP-200 and PAI. Psychological Assessment, 1Q 225-229.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self reported measurement of adult
attachment. In J. A. Simpson and W. S. Rholes (Eds). Attachment Theory aad
Close Relationships. New York: Guilford Press.

Brennan, K. A. & Shaver, P. R (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, 83 5-878.

Bretherton, 1., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., & Maslin, C. (1989). Attachment: The
parental perspective. Infant Mental Health Jouraal. 10. 203-221.

77

Carter, J. D., Jouce, P. R., Mulder, R. T., & Luty, S. E. (2001). The contribution of
temperament, childhood neglect, and abuse to the development of personality

dysfunction: A comparison of there models. Journal of Personality Disordersal 5,
123-135.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 112, 155-159.

Collins, N. L. & Reed, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644—
663.

Crawford, T. N., Shaver, P. R., Cohen, R, Pilkonis, P. A., Gillath, O., & Kasen, S.
(2006). Self-reported attachment, interpersonal aggression, and personality
disorder in a prospective community sample of adolescents and adults. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 20, 331-351.

Crowell, J. A., Treboux, D., & Waters, E. (2002). Stability of attachment representations:
The transition to marriage. Develcgmental Psycholagy. 38. 467-479.

Dickinson, K.A., & Pincus, AL. (2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and
vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188-207.

Feeney, J. A. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic
relationships. Journal of Persoraility and Social Psychology, 58, 281-291.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B.
Sperling, (Ed). mchment in Adults. New York: Guilford Press.

Fossati, A., Feeney, J. A., Donati, D., Donini, M., Novella, L., Bagnato, M., Carretta, L,
Leonardi, B., Mirabelli, S., & Maffei, C. (2003). Personality disorders and adult
attachment dimensions in a mixed psychiatric sample: A multivariate study. The;
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 191, 30-37.

F raley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and
dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social
Psychology Review. 6. 123-151.

Fraley, R. C. & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or
categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of Strange Situation behavior.
Develoaimental Psychology, 39, 387-404.

Gittleman, M. G., Klein, M. H., Smider, N.A., & Essex, M. J. (1998). Recollections of

parental behavior, adult attachment, and mental health: mediating and moderating
effects. Psychological Medicine. 28. 1443-1455.

78

 

Goldberg, R. L., Mann, L. 8., Wise, T. N., & Segall, E. A. (1985). Parental qualities as
perceived by borderline personality disorders. Hillside Jougal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 7, 134-140.

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

Hamilton, C. E. (2004). Continuity and Discontinui’av of Attachment from Infancy
through Adolescence. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California:
Los Angeles.

 

Hazan, C. & Shaver, P. P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Personaﬂtelationships, 52, 511-524.

Huang, Y., Someya, T., Takahashi, S., Reist, C., & Tang, S. W. (1996). A pilot
evaluation of the EMBU Scale in Japan and the USA. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 94, 445-448.

Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (Pm-4). New York: New
York State Psychiatric Institute.

Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Kellman, H. D., Oldham, J. M., & Rosnick, L. (1990).
Validity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: Comparison with
two structured interviews. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1043-1048.

Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Oldham, J. M., Kellman, H. D., & Doige, N. (1992). Validity
of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: A replication in an
outpatient sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 73-77.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Hazan, D. (1994). Attachment style, and close relationships: A four-
year prospective study. Personal Relationshisz, 123-142.

Loranger, A. W (2001). OMNI Personality Inventories: Professional Manual. Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.

 

Ludolph, P. S., Westen, D., Misle, B., & Jackson, A. (1990). The borderline diagnosis in
adolescents: Symptoms and developmental history. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 141 470-476.

 

Lyddon, W. J. & Sherry, A. (2001). Developmental personality styles: An attachment
theory conceptualization of personality disorders. Journal of Counseling and
Develgiment, 79, 405-414.

Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990). Parent’s unresolved traumatic experiences related to infant
disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior

79

the linking mechanism? In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings
(Eds), A_ttachment in preschool years: Theory. research. and intervention (pp.
161-184). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development. 50, 66-104.

Meyer, 3, Ajchenbrenner, M., & Bowles, D. P., (2005). Sensory sensitivity, attachment
experiences, and rejection responses among adults with borderline and avoidant
features. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 641-658.

Meyer, 3, Pilkonis, P, A. & Beevers, C. G., (2004). What's in a (neutral) face?
Personality disorders, attachment styles, and the appraisal of ambiguous social
cues. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 320-336.

Millon, T. (1995). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond (2nd Ed). New Jersey:

Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., Morren, M., & Lidwine, M. (2004). Anger and hostility in
adolescents: Relationships with self-reported attachment style and perceived
parental rearing styles. Journal of Psychomatic Research. 57, 257-264.

Nickell, A. D., Waudby, C. J ., & Trull, T. J. (2002). Attachment, parental bonding and
borderline personality disorder features in young adults. Journal of Personality
Disorders. 16. 148-159.

Nordahl, H. M. & Stiles, T. C. (1997). Perceptions of parental bonding in patients with
various personality disorders, lifetime depressive disorders, and healthy controls.
Journal of Personality Disorders. 11. 391-402.

Norden, K. A., Klein, D. N., Donaldson, S. K., Pepper, C. M., & Klein, L. M. (1995).
Reports of the early home environment in DSM-III-R personality disorders.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 9, 213-223.

Paris, J ., Frank, H., Buonvino, M., & Bond, M. (1991). Recollections of parental
behavior and Axis II cluster diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders. 5, 102-
106.

Parker, G., Roy, K., Wilhelm, K., Mitchell, P., Austin, M., & Hadzi-Pavlovic, D. (1999).

An exploration of links between early parenting experiences and personality
disorder type and disordered personality functioning. Journal of Personzﬂty
Disordersa13, 361-3 74.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.

80

 

‘—1

Pastor, D. L. (1981). The quality of mother-infant attachment and its relationship to
toddlers' initial sociability with peers. Develcagmental Psychology, 17, 326-335.

Patrick, M. H., Hobson, R. P., Castle, D., & Howard, R. (1994). Personality disorder and
the mental representation of early social experience. Development and
Psychoaathology, 6, 375-388.

PDM Task Force. (2006). Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. Silver Spring, MD:
Alliance of Psychoanalytic Organizations.

 

Periis, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980).
Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing
behavior. Acta Psychiatrica Scaninavica, 61, 265-274.

Ramacciotti, A., Sorbello, M., Pazzagli, A., Vismara, L., & Mancone, A. (2001).
Attachment processes in eating disorders. Eating and Weight Disorders, 6, 166-
170.

Rankin, P., Bentall, R., Hill, J ., & Kinderman, P. (2005). Perceived Relationships with
Parents and Paranoid Delusions: Comparisons of Currently 111, Remitted and
Normal Participants. Psychopathology, 38, 16-25.

Riggs, S. A., Paulson, A, Tunnell, E., Sahl, G., Atkinson, H., & Ross, C. A. (2007).
Attachment, personality, and psychopathology among adult inpatients: Self-
reported romantic attachment style versus Adult Attachment Interview states of
mind. Development and Psychopathology. 19, 263-291.

Roisman, G.I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R.C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A. (2007).
The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style: An

empirical rapprochement. Journal of Persogility and Social Psychology, 92, 678-
697.

Ross, M. W., Campbell, R. L., &Clayer, J. R. (1982). New inventory for measurement of
parental rearing patterns: An English form of the EMBU. Acta Psychiatrica
Sgndinavica, 66, 499-507.

Scharfe, E. & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment
patterns. Persoaal relationships. 1, 23-43.

Shaver, P.R., Belsky, J ., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The adult attachment interview and
self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and methods.
Personal Relationships, 7. 25-43.

Simpson, J. A. & Rholes, W.S. (2002). Attachment orientations, marriage, and the
transition to parenthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 622-628.

81

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Orina, M. M., & Grich, J. (2002). Internal working
models of attachment in a support seeking situation. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598-608.

Stravynski, A., Elie, R. & Franche, R.-L. (1989). Perception of early parenting by
patients diagnosed avoidant personality disorder: A test of the overprotection
hypothesis. Acta Psychjiatrica Scandinavica, 80, 415-420.

Thomas, C., Turkheimer, E. & Oltmanns, T. F. (2003). Factorial structure of pathological
personality as evaluated by peers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 81-91.

Thompson, R. A., Lamb, M. E., & Estes, D. (1982). Stability of infant-mother attachment
and its relationship to changing life circumstances in an unselected middle-class
sample. Child Development. 53. 144-148.

 

Timmerman, I. G. H. & Emmelkemp, P. M. G. (2005). Parental rearing styles and
personality disorders in prisoners and forensic patients. Clinical Psychology and

Psychotherapy, 12, 191-200.

Tweed, R. G. & Dutton, D. G. (1998). A comparison of impulsive and instrumental
subgroups of batterers. Violence and Victims 13, 217-230.

van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Attachment representations in mothers, fathers,
adolescents, and clinical groups. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,
64, 8-21.

Waters, E., Weinﬁeld, N. S., & Hamilton, C. E. (2000). The stability of attachment
security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General discussion.
Child Development. 71, 703-706.

Weinﬁeld, H. R., Goldney, R. D., Tiggemann, M., & Weinﬁeld, A. H. (1989). Reported
parental rearing patterns and psychological adjustment: A short form of the
EMBU. Persopality and Individual Differences. 10. 459-465.

Weinﬁeld, N., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early
adulthood in a high risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates.
Child Develoiianenta 71. 695-702.

Westen, D. (1996). A model and a method for uncovering the nomothetic from the
idiographic: An alternative to the ﬁve-factor model. J ourﬂil of Research in
Personality. 30. 400-413.

Westen, D., Nakash, O., Cannon, T., & Bradley, R. (2006). Clinical assessment of

attachment patterns and personality disorder in adolescents and adults. Journal of
Consultingand Clinical Psychomy. 74, 1065-1085.

82

Westen, D. & Shedler, J. (1999). Revising and assessing Axis II: Part 1. Developing a
clinically and empirically valid assessment method. American Journal of
Psychiatry. 156, 258-272.

Widiger, T. A. (1993). Validation strategies for the personality disorders. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 7, 34-43.

Williams, N. & Risking, J. H. (2004). Adult romantic attachment and cognitive
vulnerabilities to anxiety and depression: Examining the interpersonal basis of
vulnerability models. Journal of Cognitive Paychotherapy, 18. 7-24.

Zimermann, P., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Spangler, G., & Grossman, K. E. (1997).
Attachment in adolescence: A longitudinal perspective. In W. Koops, J. B.
Hoeksma, & D. C. van den Boom (Eds), Development of Interaction aai_d_
_Aﬂchment: Traditionaland Non-Traditional Approaches (pp. 281-292).
Amsterdam: North-Holland.

83

             
 
   

TTTTTTTT

11111111111111

3 1293 029

EEEEEEEEEEEEE

llll lllllllllll

56 3859