Joseph Tan Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad Joanna Chango Joseph Allen

transcript

Joseph Tan

Elenda HesselEmily Loeb

Megan SchadJoanna Chango

Joseph Allen

Long-Term Relational Sequelae of Adolescent

Attachment State of Mind

Collaborators

Co-authorsElenda HesselEmily LoebMegan Schad, Ph.DJoanna Chango, Ph.DJoseph Allen, Ph.D

CollaboratorsSamantha PerryRachel NarrChristopher Hafen, Ph.DLauren Molloy, Ph.DErik Ruzek, Ph.D

We gratefully acknowledge grant support from NICHD (PI: Joseph P. Allen, 9R01-HD058305).

Attachment in Adolescence

• Extending what we know about sequelae of attachment into adulthood

• One domain to look at: romantic relationships

Primary Question• What are the long-term implications

of individual differences in adolescent attachment state of mind for romantic relationships?

Key Area: Romantic Relationships

• Why?– Normative developmental experience

(Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003)– Primary relationship as adolescence

transition into adulthood (Laursen & Williams, 1997; Kobak, Rosenthal, Zajac, & Madsen, 2007)

– Developmentally significant (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009)

• What might be important to know about romantic relationships?

Key Domains of Romantic Relationships

• Navigating emotionally-sensitive interactions– Predicts longevity of relationships (Bernier

& Dozier, 2002; Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, & Anbar, 2006)

– Full of challenges (Furman & Shomaker, 2008; Kobak et al., 2007)

• Two examples of common emotionally-sensitive interactions– Support-seeking situations– Discussions of conflict in the

relationships

Sample• Subsample: 111 adolescents in romantic relationships

at either age 18 or age 21– Full sample: 184 Adolescents (followed from age 13 to 27),

their Parents, Best Friends, Other Friends, Romantic Partners• Intensive Interviews and Observations with all parties

(Total N over first 13 years ~ 3200).• Equal numbers of Males and Females• Socio-economically Diverse (Median Family Income=

$40- $60K)• 31% African American; 69% European American• Very Low Attrition (98% participation rate in current

phase)

Attachment State of Mind

• Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996)

• Interviewed at age 14• AAI Q-set (Kobak et al., 1993)– Security scale • Spearman-Brown interrater reliability = 0.82

Results: Supportive Behavior

• Maintaining engagement while giving support (Supportive Behavior Task, Allen et al., 2001)–With a close friend (age 14)–With a romantic partner (ages 18 and

Results: Supportive Behavior

• Typical support-seeking topics:–With close friend (age 14): • Problems with siblings• Joining a sports team

–With romantic partner (ages 18, 21):• Career choices• Moving

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors

Secure attachment

state of mind

Engagement with romantic

partner

Age 14 Age 18

Note: All coefficients are standardized betas*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Secure attachment

state of mind

Engagement with romantic

partner

Age 14 Age 21

Secure attachment

state of mind

Romantic partner’s

engagement

Age 14 Age 18

.48***

Secure attachment

state of mind

engagement

Age 14 Age 21

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates

Secure attachment

state of mind

engagement

Engagement with close

friend

Age 14 Age 18

.36***

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates

Secure attachment

state of mind

engagement

friend

Age 14 Age 21

.36***

Mediation Model for Supportive Behaviors

Secure attachment

state of mind

engagement

friend

engagement

Age 14 Age 18 Age 21

.36***

Total Indirect: .12 (95% CI: lower = -.01, upper = .26)

Results: Conflict Resolution

• Autonomy and relatedness behaviors during a disagreement (Autonomy Task, Allen et al., 2005)–With a close friend (age 14)–With a romantic partner (ages 18 and

Results: Conflict Resolution

• Typical areas of disagreement:–With a close friend (age 14):• “Sinking ship” paradigm: Decide together

who to bring to a mission to Mars–With a romantic partner (ages 18, 21):• Money• Jealousy• Moving

Prediction of Conflict Resolution

Secure attachment

state of mind

Autonomy and relatedness

with romantic partner

Age 14 Age 18

.51***

Secure attachment

state of mind

Autonomy and relatedness

with romantic partner

Age 14 Age 21

.43***

Secure attachment

state of mind

autonomy and relatedness

Age 14 Age 18

Secure attachment

state of mind

Age 14 Age 21

Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates

Secure attachment

state of mind

Autonomy and relatedness with close

friend

Age 14 Age 18

.31***

Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates

Secure attachment

state of mind

friend

Age 14 Age 21

.31***

Mediation Model for Conflict Resolution

Secure attachment

state of mind

friend

Age 14 Age 18 Age 21

Total Indirect: .09 (95% CI: lower = -.01, upper = .18)

.31***

Summary of Findings• Early adolescent attachment state of

mind predicts:– Later supportive and conflict resolution

behaviors with romantic partners– Later romantic partner’s supportive and

conflict resolution behaviors– Over and above early adolescent

behaviors with peers• Developmental path?

Limitations• Correlational data• Other factors• Sample size

Conclusions• Contributions to understanding

attachment in adolescence?– Long-term (adulthood) outcomes– Setting the stage for future relationships– Affect regulation?

• Implications for relationship functioning–Mechanisms: selection and evocation

Joseph Tan Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad Joanna Chango Joseph Allen

Documents