Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

The latent structure of the adult attachment interview: Large sample evidence from the collaboration on attachment transmission synthesis

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Bronia Arnott


Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.


© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University PressThe Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) is a widely used measure in developmental science that assesses adults' current states of mind regarding early attachment-related experiences with their primary caregivers. The standard system for coding the AAI recommends classifying individuals categorically as having an autonomous, dismissing, preoccupied, or unresolved attachment state of mind. However, previous factor and taxometric analyses suggest that: (a) adults' attachment states of mind are captured by two weakly correlated factors reflecting adults' dismissing and preoccupied states of mind and (b) individual differences on these factors are continuously rather than categorically distributed. The current study revisited these suggestions about the latent structure of AAI scales by leveraging individual participant data from 40 studies (N = 3,218), with a particular focus on the controversial observation from prior factor analytic work that indicators of preoccupied states of mind and indicators of unresolved states of mind about loss and trauma loaded on a common factor. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that: (a) a 2-factor model with weakly correlated dismissing and preoccupied factors and (b) a 3-factor model that further distinguished unresolved from preoccupied states of mind were both compatible with the data. The preoccupied and unresolved factors in the 3-factor model were highly correlated. Taxometric analyses suggested that individual differences in dismissing, preoccupied, and unresolved states of mind were more consistent with a continuous than a categorical model. The importance of additional tests of predictive validity of the various models is emphasized.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Lee Raby K, Verhage ML, Pasco Fearon RM, Chris Fraley R, Roisman GI, van IJzendoorn MH, Schuengel C, Madigan S, Oosterman M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Bernier A, Ensink K, Hautamaki A, Mangelsdorf S, Priddis LE, Wong MS, Aviezer O, Behrens KY, Brisch K-H, Cassibba R, Cassidy J, Coppola G, Costantini A, Dozier M, Duschinsky R, Ierardi E, Finger B, de Millan SG, Harder S, Hazen NL, Jin MM, Myung S, Jongenelen I, Leerkes EM, Lionetti F, Lyons-Ruth K, McMahon C, Meins E, Pace CS, Pederson DR, Crugnola CR, Sagi-Schwartz A, Schoppe-Sullivan SJ, Speranza AM, Steele H, Tarabulsy GM, Vaever MS, Ward MJ, Arnott B, Bailey H, Behringer J, Brice PJ, Castoro G, Costantino E, Cyr C, George C, Gloger-Tippelt G, Howes C, Jacobsen H, Jacobvitz D, Juffer F, Kazui M, Koppe S, Millan S, Murray L, Simonelli A, Solomon J, Steele M, Teti DM, Monique van Londen-Barentsen W

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Development and Psychopathology

Year: 2022

Volume: 34

Issue: 1

Pages: 307 - 319

Print publication date: 01/02/2022

Online publication date: 19/10/2020

Acceptance date: 22/05/2020

ISSN (print): 0954-5794

ISSN (electronic): 1469-2198

Publisher: Cambridge University Press


DOI: 10.1017/S0954579420000978


Altmetrics provided by Altmetric