Criterion/Predictive
As evidence of criterion/predictive validity, several studies (e.g., Shaver & Brennan, 1992) have shown
that the RAC differentially predicts relationship-related constructs with the Big Five personality factors
statistically controlled.
Location
Hazan, C. & Shaver, P.R. (1987) Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process . Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52 , 511/C0524.
Results and Comments
These results using the RAC support Hazan and Shaver’s (1987) proposal that romantic love can be conceptu-
alized as an attachment process and that adult attachment styles resemble the infant attachment patterns
described by Ainsworth et al. (1978) . Other researchers have noted, however, that it would be more precise to
use continuous, multi-item measures of the dimensions underlying attachment patterns, and several alternative
measures have been created over the years, several of which are described below.
ROMANTIC ATTACHMENT CATEGORIES
Avoidant
I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. I
find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to
allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when
anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me
to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
Anxious
I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I
would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t reallylove me or won’t want to stay with me. I want to merge
completely with another person [later changed to: I
want to get very close to my partner], and this desire
sometimes scares people away.
Secure
I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am
comfortable depending on them and having them
depend on me. I don’t often worry about being aban-
doned or about someone getting too close to me.
Note: Reproduced with permission.
Adult Attachment Scale (AAS)
(Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990 ).
Variable
Collins and Read (1990, p. 644) ‘developed a multi-item scale to measure dimensions underlying adult attach-
ment styles to replace Hazan and Shaver’s discrete, categorical measure. Based on multi-sentence type descrip-
tions, Collins and Read (1990) had argued that there were limitations to a categorical measure.’ Since each type
description contained statements about more than one aspect of relationships (e.g., being comfortable with close-
ness and being able to depend on others), respondents therefore had to accept an entire description that may not
have reflected their position on all facets, and likewise, researchers were unable to assess the degree to which a
particular style characterized a particular person. Moreover, the categorical measure assumed that there were
three mutually exclusive attachment styles, making it difficult to examine possible relations among styles or to
evaluate whether there were actually just three adult attachment patterns. For these reasons, Collins and Read
(1990) sought to develop a more sensitive measure of adult romantic attachment styles, which was subsequently
revised by Collins (1996) .
Description
The 18-item AAS was originally constructed by Collins and Read (1990) , based on Hazan and Shaver’s (1987)
Following factor analysis with oblique rotation ( N5406), three subscales were elucidated (each with 6 items): (a)
theClose subscale concerns comfort with closeness and intimacy; (b) the Depend subscale assesses comfort with
depending on others and the belief that partners can be relied upon when needed; and (c) the Anxiety subscale420 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES