The relationship structures questionnaire examples

the relationship structures questionnaire examples

This section provides a brief introduction to the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, ) and the Relationship Scales Questionnaire ( RSQ; Griffin . For example, the now standardized RQ secure scores are combined with the now Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. in Close Relationships – Relationship Structures questionnaire. validation of the ECR-RS in a sample of Portuguese community individuals (N=). The. 40 items authors report a measure, the Relationship Structures questionnaire of the . example, one of the most commonly used self-report measures of security.

The correlation between the two ECR-R dimensions strongly correlated in the romantic domain.

the relationship structures questionnaire examples

This is noteworthy because it Relationship functioning. The IMS assesses commitment, investment, satisfaction in a rela- We next examined the association between these two measures tionship, and the quality of alternatives.

Relationship Structures

The alpha reliabilities for of attachment and various relational and intrapersonal outcomes. In the present study, participants were asked avoidance across most relational domains was related to relation- to rate these items with respect to their current relationship.

However, the associations were much more Intrapersonal functioning. The 9-item version of the Center salient in the romantic domain. As expected, the ECR-R dimensions also correlated with those based on the full-scale version in previous research Kohout these relational variables in similar ways.

Highly anxious and et al. The alpha of the scores in the present sample was. Extraversion, Agreeableness, partner dimensions correlated just as strongly with the relational Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. The and intrapersonal outcomes as the ECR-R dimensions. The excep- alpha reliabilities for these scores were. The ECR-RS measures of anxiety and avoidance also correlated attachment dimensions is similar to what other investigators have with measures of depressive symptoms.

the relationship structures questionnaire examples

People who were more reported using different measures of attachment e. Specifically, attachment-related anxiety tends to ship domains tended to report a higher number of depressive correlate with neuroticism and attachment-related avoidance tends symptoms.

This was true for the ECR-R measures of anxiety and to correlate negatively with agreeableness. One noteworthy feature avoidance as well. These cor- the domains in which attachment and personality traits tend to relations are reported in Table 6. In general, the pattern of asso- correlate. In this article, Openness. The logic is as follows: If a person behaves in Alternatives. In contrast, if CES-D. We then averaged those nine standard deviations to index Partner.

The average amount of differentiation observed ECR-R in our sample was 1. Correla- ality traits see the column labeled SD. This is compatible with what As revealed in Table 7, differentiation is related to attachment Baird et al. In other words, people who exhibited more dif- measures of personality differentiation.

They found that people ferentiation tended to be more insecure as a general rule i. Indeed, Baird et al. This confounding can emerge when item eration. To control related to intra- and interpersonal measures of adjustment but that for this problem, Baird et al. Once we controlled item mean and the square of that mean.

This adjusted index for overall levels of security, the association between differentia- adjusted standard deviation represents the amount of differenti- tion in working models and adjustment largely disappeared. Table 7 shows the relationship between General Discussion the adjusted standard deviation and the various variables of interest see the column labeled Adjusted SD. What is noteworthy about A primary goal of this article was to present a self-report method these data is that there do not appear to be any associations that would address four limitations of commonly used attachment between attachment differentiation and measures of inter- and measures.

Once we controlled for insecurity see Baird et al. This finding implies that, at least with respect to scores across relationship domains could be compared on a com- the variables we assessed, there may not be any unique implica- mon metric. Third, we wanted a measure that was relatively short tions of heterogeneity in working models per se. Someone who has so that attachment could be assessed across relationship domains relatively secure representations of his or her romantic partner but without placing an unnecessary burden on clients or research insecure working models with respect to his or her parents is not participants.

Finally, we desired a measure that could be used to going to have less satisfying relationships or experience more study not only security versus insecurity in different relational depression because of the lack of congruity in attachment repre- domains but also the amount of homogeneity versus differentiation sentations across domains.

Because a com- mon set of items is used to assess attachment in different domains, Limitations, Caveats, and Conclusions security across contexts can be contrasted and compared in mean- ingful ways. Although the ECR-RS has the potential to be useful, it would be In Study 1, we demonstrated that the two-dimensional structure premature to claim that it is without limitations.

One noteworthy familiar to contemporary attachment researchers emerged in each limitation of the measure is that the items are not well balanced of the four relational domains of interest. Moreover, the composite with respect to keying.

How to Answer "Behavior Based Interview Questions" - Interview Tip

As such, like other measures of attachment that have this small number of items. We also found that the correlations be- problem, the ECR-RS anxiety scales have the potential to suffer tween the attachment dimensions across relational domains were from response acquiescence. This has a number identified, but not resolved, by Fraley et al.

For self-report measures of attachment. Most attachment measures one, it indicates that the common trait-like approach to assessing tend to be good at differentiating among people on the insecure attachment, although valuable in its own right, might not allow the end of the spectrum but are relatively poor at differentiating people nuances of attachment across contexts to be assessed adequately. If on the secure end. As an analogy, most self-report measures researchers are primarily interested in studying attachment in ro- function in the same way that algebra-focused math tests might mantic relationships, it might be advisable for them to assess function.

These tests can differentiate people with poor math skills individual differences in that domain specifically rather than to fairly well, but they cannot differentiate people with basic knowl- assume that a more global or less specific measure captures the edge in calculus from people with advanced training in differential variance of interest.

Another implication of these data, most equations and matrix algebra. This issue is a potential concern for clearly revealed in Study 2, is that it is possible to show the researchers who use the ECR-RS or any other self-report measure association between attachment and various outcomes with higher of attachment see Fraley et al. For example, as relatively secure on average. As such, the majority of the people shown in Table 5, attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, as being assessed will be assessed with less fidelity than the minority assessed in the context of a romantic relationship, are more of the people scoring on the insecure ends of the ECR-RS dimen- strongly correlated with satisfaction, investment, and commitment sions.

Future research should focus on developing items that allow than the measures of attachment taken in the parental or friend highly secure people to be discriminated from one another with domains.

The consideration of context also reveals that the greater precision. This suggests that the tended to be limited to these domains in particular. In fact, it was association that exists between measures of adult attachment and designed specifically to be flexible in its use. Moreover, there is no reason why an relationship domains is related to inter- and intrapersonal out- investigator should only use four domains, as we have done in our comes.

Our analyses indicated that, although highly differentiated work here. Beyond the ECR-RS itself, there are also some limitations of Finally, we would like to note that psychological measurement these particular studies and samples. For one, we have a high should be viewed as an evolutionary process. We do not consider proportion of women participating in our web-based research. However, because there is no com- Although we did not observe large sex differences in our data, it is monly established method for doing so, many of these efforts have important to keep in mind that our sample might not capture the been ad hoc and have relied on different questionnaires; different full range of psychological variation of interest.

We also included item sets; different instructions; and, in some cases, different highly limited demographic assessments. For example, we did not conceptual models of individual differences in attachment. We assess whether participants came from intact families, how much believe there is some value in building upon existing, widely used interaction they had with their best friends, or other variables that measures and models to assess attachment in context.

Although it is often assumed by researchers texts. We are continuing to work on ways to improve measurement that these dimensions should be uncorrelated see Mikulincer, and we encourage others to do so as well. The two dimensions are adult attachment by providing a short and useful method for clearly separable and conceptually independent e. But conceptually distinct things need standard way to assess attachment in different contexts.

We hope not be statistically independent.

Self-Report Attachment Measures - Psychology Members' Site

It might be helpful to consider a that the ECR-RS will provide a useful common ground for re- related example: Relationship scholars searchers and practitioners interested in such issues. The Inventory of Parent and with it Rusbult et al. Despite this conceptual indepen- Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to psy- dence, measures of satisfaction and investment tend to correlate chological well-being in adolescence.

On the nature of intraindi- highly invested in them. Although the high correlation among vidual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with these measures can provide a basis for aggregating them for well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, — Social-cognitive conceptualizations of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects.

Journal of Personality In short, from a theoretical point of view, we do not think that and Social Psychology, 71, 94 — Adult avoidance of intimacy: An attachment uncorrelated with one another. Indeed, recent meta-analytic re- perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, — But the fact that there is a ment of adult attachment: The transference of attachment patterns: How parental and romantic relationships influence feelings other statistical techniques.

We have not done so here largely toward novel people. Personal Relationships, 14, — Attachment stability and tion that the two dimensions might make to specific outcomes. But change during adolescence: A longitudinal application of the social if researchers are specifically interested in, for example, the con- relations model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, tribution of attachment-related avoidance to a specific outcome, it — One for all, and all for one?

Personality and Social Psychology Guilford Press. Adult attachment, working models, Kohout, F. Journal Social Psychology, 58, — Understanding attachment security in family context. Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners.

the relationship structures questionnaire examples

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, — Journal of Family Psychology, 23, — General versus Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination specific mental models of attachment: Are they associated with different theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, — Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, — Models of the self: Self-construals and Lo, C.

Psychological Bulletin,5— Measuring attachment security in patients with ad- Psychometric properties of a modified and brief Expe- Donahue, E. The riences in Close Relationships Scale. Psycho-Oncology, 18, — Concurrent and longitudinal effects of psychological ad- doi: Journal of Meyer, B. Personality and Social Psychology, 64, — Partner relationships during the transition to par- Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 26, 99 — The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style doi: Orthogonal dreams in an A meta-analysis of the relation between anxiety and Noftle, E.

The same 9 items are used to assess attachment styles with respect to 4 targets i. The items were written in a way that allows them to be used for a variety of interpersonal targets not just romantic relationships and for a variety of age groups.

If desired, the 9 items can be used to target only one kind of relationship and, therefore, this instrument can be used as a 9-item version of the ECR-R. The test-retest reliability over 30 days of the individual scales are approximately.

Moreover, research from our lab indicates that the scales are meaningfully related to various relational outcomes e.

You can learn more about general measurement issues in adult attachment e. The first article to be published from our lab using the ECR-RS was the following, which was based on a global composite of the individual relational domain scores: Adult attachment and the perception of emotional expressions: Probing the hyperactivating strategies underlying anxious attachment. Journal of Personality, 74, This report discusses the development of the measure and shows the associations between attachment across a variety of relational domains.

A method for assessing attachment orientations across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, Information on the stability of ECR-RS scores when used as a "state" measure of attachment is reported in the following article: Patterns of stability in adult attachment: An empirical test of two models of continuity and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Scoring information Relationship-specific attachment Two scores, one for attachment-related avoidance and the other for attachment-related anxiety, should be computed for each interpersonal target i. The avoidance score can be computed by averaging items 1 - 6, while reverse keying items 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The anxiety score can be computed by averaging items 7 - 9. These two scores should be computed separately for each relationship target.