partner’s attention. A person’s position on the avoidance dimension indicates the extent to which he or she
distrusts the partners’ goodwill and ability to help, which heightens efforts to maintain a safe degree of mental
privacy, behavioral independence, and self-reliance.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
Here we review self-report measures of individual differences in attachment orientations, or styles /C0differ-
ences in security, attachment anxiety, and avoidance. We also review measures of individual differences in the
functioning of other ‘behavioral systems’ (Bowlby, 1982) such as caregiving and power.
Measures of Attachment Orientation or Attachment Style
1.Romantic Attachment Categories ( Hazan & Shaver, 1987 )
2.Adult Attachment Scale ( Collins, 1996; Collins & Read, 1990 )
3.Relationships Questionnaire ( Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 )
4.Attachment Style Questionnaire ( Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994 )
5.Adult Attachment Questionnaire ( Simpson, Rholes, & Phillips, 1996 )
6.Experiences in Close Relationships ( Brennan et al., 1998 )
7.Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Revised ( Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000 )
8.Experiences in Close Relationships /C0Relationship Structures Questionnaire ( Fraley, Heffernan, Vicary, &
Brumbaugh, 2011 )
9.State Adult Attachment Measure ( Gillath, Hart, Noftle, & Stockdale, 2009 )
10.Pet Attachment Questionnaire ( Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2011 )
Behavioral Systems Scales
1.Caregiving System Scale ( Shaver, Mikulincer, & Shemesh-Iron, 2010 )
2.Social Support Scale Based on Attachment Theory ( Frı´as, Shaver, & Dı ´az-Loving, 2014 )
3.Power Behavioral System Scale ( Shaver, Segev, & Mikulincer, 2011 )
OVER VIEW OF THE MEASURES
Measures of Attachment Orientation or Attachment Style
Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) first observed and named different patterns of attachment between
infants and their primary caregivers, or attachment figures. When Hazan and Shaver (1987) began to study simi-
lar patterns in the context of adolescent and adult romantic relationships, they created a measure of Romantic
Attachment Categories modeled on Ainsworth’s three infant categories: secure, anxious, and avoidant.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) made a case for a four-category classification system, based on two underly-
ing dimensions. Over time, many other researchers created continuous multi-item measures of these or related
dimensions. In 1998, Brennan et al. factor-analyzed items from the measures created up to that time, finding two
higher-level factors similar to the ones underlying Bartholomew and Horowitz’s classification system, which
Brennan et al. called anxiety and avoidance. We include here various measures representing the history of mea-
sure development. As research on adolescent and adult attachment continued over the years, researchers realized
that besides being attached to other people, a person can be ‘attached’ to pets. We therefore include a measure of
that kind of attachment. Researchers, especially experimentalists, also needed a measure of ‘state’ attachment
security, anxiety, and avoidance, and we have included one such measure, the State Adult Attachment Measure
(SAAM; Gillath et al., 2009 ).
Behavioral Systems Scales
Because it is often important to measure a person’s orientation, not just as someone who is emotionally
attached to someone else, but also as someone who is serving as an attachment figure or caregiver for someone
else. Bowlby (1982) theorized that human beings possess an innate caregiving behavioral system, just as they pos-
sess an innate attachment behavioral system. In couple relationships, such as marriages, it is especially important418 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES