29
Joseph Tan Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad Joanna Chango Joseph Allen Long-Term Relational Sequelae of Adolescent Attachment State of Mind
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
21)
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
.38**
Prediction of Supportive Behaviors
Secure attachment
state of mind
Engagement with romantic
partner
Age 14 Age 21
.23*
Prediction of Supportive Behaviors
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Age 14 Age 18
.48***
Prediction of Supportive Behaviors
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Age 14 Age 21
.33**
Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Engagement with close
friend
Age 14 Age 18
.36***
.40**
.19
Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Engagement with close
friend
Age 14 Age 21
.36***
.31**
.11
Mediation Model for Supportive Behaviors
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Engagement with close
friend
Romantic partner’s
engagement
Age 14 Age 18 Age 21
.36**
.17
.36***
.35*
.05
.19
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
21)
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***
Prediction of Conflict Resolution
Secure attachment
state of mind
Autonomy and relatedness
with romantic partner
Age 14 Age 21
.43***
Prediction of Conflict Resolution
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Age 14 Age 18
.34**
Prediction of Conflict Resolution
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Age 14 Age 21
.30**
Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Autonomy and relatedness with close
friend
Age 14 Age 18
.32*
.07
.31***
Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Autonomy and relatedness with close
friend
Age 14 Age 21
.26**
.14
.31***
Mediation Model for Conflict Resolution
Secure attachment
state of mind
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Autonomy and relatedness with close
friend
Romantic partner’s
autonomy and relatedness
Age 14 Age 18 Age 21
Total Indirect: .09 (95% CI: lower = -.01, upper = .18)
.32**
.27*
.06
.31***
.17
.13
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
