The first description depicts an adult with a secure attachment style. The
second portrays an avoidant style, the third an anxious-ambivalent style. Al-
though the sample was far from scientific, the results were enlightening.
Fifty-six percent of the respondents placed themselves in the secure category,
25% said the avoidant description fit them best, and the remaining 19%
identified themselves as part of the anxious-ambivalent group. A subsequent
national survey with a large stratified sample found a similar breakdown
among Americans: 59% secure, 25% avoidant, 11% anxious, and 5% un-classifiable (Mickelson, Kessler, & Shaver, 1997). The significance of these
numbers was not lost on the investigators. They were quick to point out that
the percentages of adults who fall into the three categories match quite closelythose found by developmental psychologists calculating the number of secure,
avoidant, and anxious-avoidant infants (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, &
Stenberg, 1983). Although only suggestive, the similarity in numbers is con-sistent with the notion that the adult attachment styles were formed in
childhood.
Results of additional studies indicate that the connection between early
parent –child relationships and adult attachment style is more than specula-
tive. When asked about family members, secure adults are more likely than
others to describe positive relationships with parents and a warm and trusting
family environment (Brennan & Shaver, 1993; Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau, &
Labouvie-Vief, 1998; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Levy,
Blatt, & Shaver, 1998). In contrast, anxious-ambivalent people in these stud-
ies recall little parental support, and avoidant people describe their relation-
ships with family members as distrustful and emotionally distant. People
who describe their parents ’marriage as unhappy are more likely to fall into
the avoidant category and less likely to develop a secure attachment style.
Alternate Models and Measurement
The introduction of adult attachment styles resulted in an explosion of writ-
ings and research. This work includes new ideas about the number of adult
attachment styles and new scales for determining how to classify individuals(Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998; Carver, 1997; Sipley,
Fischer, & Liu, 2005). In recent years attachment researchers have found it
useful to divide attachment style along two dimensions (Bartholomew &Horowitz, 1991; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Researchers first divide
people into those who are and are not fearful that their romantic partner
will abandon them. Drawing from attachment theory, we can say this fear ofabandonment reflects the person’ s internalized feelings of self-worth. Those
who rarely worry about abandonment see themselves as worthwhile and ca-pable of being treasured. On the other hand, some people are burdened withself-doubts about their value and reservations about whether anyone would
find them lovable. The second dimension concerns how comfortable people
are with closeness and dependency. On one side of this dimension we find
people who believe that others can be trusted and will be there to provide
for their emotional needs. At the other end are those who see people as unre-
liable and rejecting.142 CHAPTER 6 The Neo-Freudian Theories