For Journal Entry 1, you should write 1-2 pages describing how attachment theory applies to your own adult relationships. You might want to visit the website below and complete the Relationship Questionnaire to measure your own attachment style.  

 Reflect on the attraction theories covered in chapters 4 and 6.  What attracts you to another person?  How do these theories of attraction apply to the characteristics you find attractive?  .   

SelfReport Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Attachment

THE RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE (RQ)

Reference:
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-

category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Description of Measure:

This is a 4-item questionnaire designed to measure adult attachment style. The RQ extends
the original attachment Three-Category Measure (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) by rewording the
descriptions of each of the attachment styles, and by adding a fourth style –dismissing-avoidant.

Dismissing-avoidant people are characterized as avoiding intimacy, being highly self-reliant
and independent. (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

For more information on adult attachment, visit this website:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/labs/Shaver/measures.htm

Abstracts of Selected Related Articles:

Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns.

Personal Relationships,1, 23-43.

A basic premise of attachment theory is that internal models of attachment remain
relatively stable across the life span. We examined stability and change in adult
attachment representations over 8 months in a sample of young adults (N = 144; Mean
age = 24.5 years). Attachment patterns were assessed by categorical and continuous
ratings across three methods—self-report ratings, expert ratings based on semi-structured
interviews, and reports of romantic partners—and showed moderate stability. Interview
ratings tended to show higher stability than self-report ratings. Changes in attachment
ratings (across methods) were not consistently related to life events that had occurred in
the intervening 8 months. The relationship between reliability and stability was
discussed, and where the “true” stability could be estimated independent of unreliability,
it was found to be very high (r’s ranging from .72 to .96). The results highlight the
importance of using multiple indicators in assessing adult attachment and using
continuous rather than categorical ratings in the assessment of stability.

Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments,

emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology.

The authors review the theory of romantic, or pair-bond, attachment as it was originally
formulated by C. Hazan and P. R. Shaver in 1987 and describe how it has evolved over more
than a decade. In addition, they discuss 5 issues related to the theory that need further
clarification: (a) the nature of attachment relationships, (b) the evolution and function of
attachment in adulthood, (c) models of individual differences in attachment, (d) continuity
and change in attachment security, and (e) the integration of attachment, sex, and
caregiving. In discussing these issues, they provide leads for future research and outline a
more complete theory of romantic attachment.

Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Attachment

Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment: Do they converge?

In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 25–
45). New York: Guilford Press.

In recent years, several streams of research have emerged from Bowlby’s (1988) and
Ainsworth’s (1982) attachment theory. Originally, the theory was aimed at explaining child
and adult psychopathology in terms of nonoptimal relationships between children and their
caregivers, or “attachment figures.” According to attachment theory, the long-term effects of
early experiences with caregivers are due to the persistence of “internal working models” —
cognitive / affective schemas, or representations, of the self in relation to close relationship
partners (Bartholomew, 1990; Shaver, Collins, & Clark, 1996). Theoretically, these
representations influence a person’s expectations, emotions, defenses, and relational
behavior in all close relationships. Although the theory does not assume or require that
internal working models persist without change across the life span, both theory and
empirical evidence from longitudinal studies have led researchers to suspect that the effects
of childhood attachment relationships extend into adulthood, where they can be seen in the
domains of parenting and close peer relationships, including romantic relationships (e.g.,
Bartholomew, 1990, 1993; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw,
1988; Weiss, 1982).

Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Attachment

Scale:
Following are four general relationship styles that people often report. Place a checkmark next to the
letter corresponding to the style that best describes you or is closest to the way you are.

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

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

____ D. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel
independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.

Now please rate each of the relationship styles above to indicate how well or poorly each description
corresponds to your general relationship style.

Style A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree

Strongly

Neutral/
Mixed

Agree

Strongly

Style B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree
Strongly

Neutral/
Mixed

Agree
Strongly

Style C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree
Strongly

Neutral/
Mixed

Agree
Strongly

Style D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree
Strongly

Neutral/
Mixed

Agree
Strongly

Self Report Measures for Love and Compassion Research: Attachment