Test/C0Retest
Shaver et al. (2010) reported stability coefficients over a 4-month test /C0retest interval of .76 for hyperactivation
and .72 for deactivation, respectively.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
CSS hyperactivation correlated positively with compulsive caregiving (.40), being distressed during a dyadic
interaction (.43), and scoring higher on the ECR Anxiety scale (.29). CSS deactivation correlated positively with
controlling care (.25) and ECR avoidance (.43).
Divergent/Discriminant
Because the correlations between the CSS scales and the corresponding ECR attachment scales were only moder-
ate in size, and because the CSS scales were not highly correlated with broad measures of personality (not specifi-
cally reported here), Shaver et al. concluded that the CSS is not simply redundant with other constructs such as
attachment insecurity or personality traits. CSS hyperactivation correlated negatively with being supportive during
a dyadic interaction ( 2.36). CSS deactivation correlated negatively with maintaining proximity to a needy partner
(2.45), sensitivity to a partner’s signals and needs ( 2.47), and being supportive during a dyadic interaction ( 2.32).
Construct/Factor Analytic
The CSS scales were created by subjecting the item intercorrelations to a principal components analysis fol-
lowed by varimax rotation. A two-component structure corresponding to the constructs of hyperactivated and
deactivated caregiving was obtained in both American and Israeli samples.
Location
Shaver, P.R., Mikulincer, M., & Shemesh-Iron, M. (2010). A behavioral-systems perspective on prosocial behav-
ior. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior (pp. 73 /C092). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Results and Comments
By developing this measure, Shaver et al. (2010) began to illuminate the functioning of the caregiving behav-
ioral system, one of several behavioral systems discussed in the attachment literature.
CAREGIVING SYSTEM SCALE
In the following questionnaire, we are interested in
the way you usually feel, think, and act when you
are involved in helping other people. Please read each
statement and indicate the extent to which you agree
with it.
Deactivation items
1.When I see people in distress, I don’t feel
comfortable jumping in to help.
3.I sometimes feel that helping others is a waste
of time.
5.I often don’t pay much attention to other people’s
discomfort or distress.
7.I don’t invest a lot of energy trying to help others.
9.Thinking about helping others doesn’t excite me
very much.
11.I don’t often feel an urge to help others.
13.I have no problem helping people who are troubled
or distressed.15.When I notice that someone seems to need help, I
often prefer not to get involved.
17.It’s hard for me to work up much interest in helping
others.
19.I feel uncomfortable when I’m required to help
others.
Hyperactivation items
2.When helping people, I often worry that I won’t be
as good at it as other people are.
4.When I’m unable to help a person who is in distress,
I feel worthless.
6.I feel bad when others don’t want my help.
8.I sometimes try to help others more than they
actually want me to.
10.When people don’t want my help, I still sometimes
feel compelled to help.
12.I often get anxious when I think nobody needs
my help.440 15. MEASURES OF ADULT ATTACHMENT AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES