relationships (.40), self-confidence (.41), and warmth (.59 ). Continuous ratings of the dismissing prototype were posi-
tively associated with self-confidence (.52). Also, ratings o f the preoccupied prototype correlated positively with emo-
tional expressiveness (.78), level of romantic involvement (.34), disclosure (.60), and tendency to rely on others (.64).
Divergent/Discriminant
InBartholomew and Horowitz’s (1991) first study, continuous ratings of the secure prototype correlated nega-
tively with measures with emotional expressiveness ( 2.69), frequency of crying ( 2.55), warmth ( 2.68), caregiving
(2.37), and with all of the scales related to involvement in close relationships (ranging from 2.57 to2.33). Ratings
of the preoccupied prototype correlated negatively with self-confidence ( 2.33), as also did ratings of the fearful pro-
totype ( 2.70), and correlated negatively with all the measures indicating involvement in close relationships (ranging
from2.30 to2.36).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991, p. 231) reported that, ‘a factor analysis was performed to examine the con-
vergence of interview ratings, the subjects’ self-ratings, and the friends’ ratings ...[using] a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation of the intercorrelations of the three sets of attachment ratings (with axes rotated to
facilitate interpretation). The two factors accounted for 47% of the variance.’ Presumably, the principal compo-
nents analysis reported by Bartholomew and Horowitz was based on the intercorrelations derived from the
rather small sample of 77 undergraduates in their first study which may raise concerns about the robustness of
the resulting solution (cf. Boyle, Stankov, & Cattell, 1995 ).
Location
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/C0244.
Results and Comments
Bartholomew and Horowitz’s conceptual analysis and use of the RQ in their studies showed that few people
clearly manifest a single attachment style. Instead, most report a mix of tendencies, suggesting that important
inter-individual variability is ignored when people are categorized. Subsequent attempts to measure adult attach-
ment, such as the Relationships Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994 ) have therefore used a
multi-item method to assess the dimensions underlying attachment patterns. Because the RSQ is similar to the
ECR, described below, we will not include its items here.
RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: Following are descriptions of four gen-
eral relationship styles that people often report. Please
read each description and CIRCLE the letter correspond-
ing to the style that bestdescribes you or is closest to the
way you generally are in your close relationships.
Secure
It is easy for me to become emotionally close to
others. I am comfortable depending on others and hav-
ing others depending on me. I don’t worry about being
alone or having others not to accept me.
Preoccupied
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.Dismissing
I am comfortable without close emotional relation-
ships. It is very important to me to feel independent and
self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or
have other depend on me.
Fearful
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.
Notes : Each paragraph description is rated on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from: 1 5This is
nothing like me to 7 5This is exactly like me.
Reproduced with permission.424 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES