Self-Perception by Lauren Berger

7/27/2019 Self-Perception by Lauren Berger

1/44

The Relationship between Accuracy of Self-Perception and Attachment Organization

in Adolescence

Lauren Berger

Distinguished Majors Project

University of Virginia, Spring 2001

First Reader: Joseph P. Allen, Ph.D.

Second Reader: Thomas F. Oltmanns, Ph.D.

1


2/44

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between attachment organization and accuracy of self-perception among176 adolescents. Attachment organization was assessed with the Adult Attachment Interview. Accuracy ofself-perception was measured in terms of mutuality of adolescent self- and parent/peer-report on measures ofadolescent psychosocial functioning. Preoccupied adolescents overreported internalizing/externalizing

symptoms in comparison to parent-reports. Dismissing adolescents were more likely to be discrepant fromparent-reports of internalizing/externalizing symptoms, and from peer-reports of behavior conduct. Theselinkages remained after accounting for baseline levels of adolescent symptoms. The findings suggest thatattachment theory may account for individual differences in self-perception of symptoms in adolescence.

2


3/44

The Relationship between Accuracy of Self-Perception and Attachment Organization

in Adolescence

Since the birth of psychology, researchers have been interested in ascertaining how well people knowthemselves and what psychological processes promote accuracy versus distortion in self-perception (Robins &John, 1997). Attachment theory, which has received considerable attention in the field of developmentalpsychology over the past thirty years (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), offers a particularly interesting perspectiveon the development of self-views. However, despite promising theoretical inference and a substantial body ofresearch on linkages between attachment and psychosocial functioning in childhood (e.g., Eliker, Englund, &Sroufe, 1990), adolescence (e.g., Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998), and early adulthood (e.g., Waters,Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000), there is limited empirical research on how attachment mayaccount for stable and enduring individual differences in self-perception across the lifespan (Allen & Land,1999). Allen and his colleagues (1998/1999) suggest that exploring adolescence, which marks the criticalperiod in development in which an individual first acquires the capacity to logically and abstractly reflect on theself and attachment experiences, is crucial to expanding our understanding of how attachment operates overtime. Taking a step in this direction, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the extent to whichattachment may account for individual differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence.

Self-Perception versus Other-Perception

The present study will consider three issues regarding self-perception: 1) what the construct ofself-perception means, 2) what it signifies for an individual to be accurate versus distorted in their self-judgments,and 3) how individuals form self-perceptions.

Self-Perception

To begin with, what isself-perception? Classic theories in social psychology regard self-perception asan individuals self-knowledge or views of the self (Bem, 1972). While there is a vast body of theoretical

literature on self-perception, means of empirically assessing the accuracy of self-judgments are controversialsince there is no absolute, objective standard for measuring a persons traits, capabilities, emotions, and soforth. In the absence of an objective measurement of self-insight or self-perception, it is difficult to study theaccuracy of a persons self-views. Researchers have only recently begun to recognize the need for objectiveassessments of self-perception accuracy and to formulate methods for empirically measuring self-judgment.

Robins and John (1997) suggest that a growing number of researchers in the fields of personality andsocial psychology operationally define and measure accuracy of self-perception in terms of a social consensuscriteria. According to a social consensus criteria, accurate self-insight is seeing oneself as others see one.Kruglanski (1989), for instance, posits that an accurate self-judgment is a judgment that is congruent withjudgments by others. Similarly, Funder (1999) suggests that a realistic approach to objectively measuring

accuracy of self-perception is to examine the mutuality of self- and other-judgments.

Conceptualizing self-perception accuracy in terms of the congruence between self- and other-judgmentdoes provide a convenient means of assessing accuracy of self-perception. However, interpretations of thismeasurement must take into consideration 1) who is the otherjudge and 2) what is the domain of judgment.

First, it is important to consider whois making the other-judgment. How reliable is the other-judge?For instance, if a researcher is examining an adolescents accuracy of self-perception, is a parent or a close peera more valid judge of the adolescent? Is a mother versus a father a more accurate judge of the adolescent? Anumber of studies, for instance, indicate that the validity of person perception increases with acquaintanceship(see Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). In addition, the researcher cannot be the other-judge provides a more valid

3


4/44

standard of accuracy than the self-judge. Take, for example, a finding of disparity between adolescent- andmother-report of adolescent behavior problems. There are at least three possible explanations if the adolescentreports that s/he does not have behavior problems and the mother reports that her daughter/son does havebehavior problems: 1) the adolescent has a distortedself-perception of her/his problem behavior, or 2) theadolescent has an accurate self-perception, and the problem is a distortion in communication between motherand adolescent; the mother may have a distorted perception of the adolescents behavior, or 3) the twopreceding explanations are not mutually exclusive and the disparity in adolescent- and mother-report reflects

adolescent distorted self-perception anddistorted communication in the adolescent-mother relationship. Inorder to increase the probability that the other-report is in fact the more accurate judge, Kenny (1994) suggeststhat the most valid measurement of accuracy is obtained by averaging the judgments of all possible observers ofall possible behaviors being targeted.

A second factor to consider in utilizing the congruence of self- and other-report to infer accuracy ofself-perception is the domainof judgment. Is there a significant difference between investigating observablebehaviors versus non-observable emotions? Some personality researchers have hypothesized that overall, self-other agreement is higher for judgements of traits that are more visible in an individuals behavior (Funder &Dobroth, 1987; Marsh & Craven, 1991; Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). Is there a significant differencebetween investigating the mutuality of self- and other-report of personality traits versus internalizing or

externalizing symptoms? As Funder (1999) and van Aken and his colleagues (1996) posit, there are multiple,complex components of a self-concept that should be considered. In particular, there may be importantdifferences between examining the mutuality of self- and other-description of affective versus social attributesof an individual.

Self-Perception Accuracy versus Distortion

Another critical facet of self-perception accuracy is what it signifies for an individual to be accurateversus distorted in their self-judgments. Theories on self-perception suggest that self-insight or understandingones own self is important for healthy adjustment. In general, research has suggested that accuracy of self-perception is associated with positive psychological adjustment whereas distorted self-perception may beassociated with unhealthy adjustment. For instance, van Aken, van Lieshout, and Haselager (1996) found thatgreater congruence between self- and other-description was positively correlated with adolescent competence.

In addition, previous research has indicated that accuracy of self-perception may be related to individualdifferences in personality (Osberg & Shrauger, 1986; van Aken, van Lieshout, & Haselager, 1996). Colvin(1993), for example, found that adolescents who scored high on the personality dimension of neuroticism werelikely to have less mutuality of self- and other-report. Conversely, adolescents who scored high on thepersonality dimension of openness were significantly more likely to have interrater agreement.

These studies suggest that accuracy versus distortion in self-perception may be an important indicator ofpsychological adjustment, but more research is needed to determine what psychological processes promote thedevelopment of self-perception and the maintenance of accuracy versus distortion in self-judgment.

Development of Self-Perception

Given that accurate self-perception may be a significant factor for healthy adjustment, how individualsdevelop self-judgments is an important question for researchers. Kelly (1955) draws the analogy that just as thescientist uses facts and observations to develop empirically-based theories, the individual processes informationor cues from the environment to acquire a self-construct or a theory about the self and the world. Whiledevelopmental theories emphasize the effects of childhood experiences on individuals developing self-perceptions (see Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), research indicates that adolescence marks a critical period indevelopment in which in an individual first acquires the cognitive capacities to reflect on the self.

4


5/44

Self-Perception in Adolescence

Some of the most interesting changes in the self-system take place in adolescence (Harter, Marold,Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Steinberg, 1999). Most significantly, adolescence is characterized by the advent ofincreased cognitive capacities for logical and abstract thinking which allow an adolescent to perceive and reflecton the selfas existing separate and apart from others (Ricks, 1985; Allen & Land, 1999). Allen and hiscolleagues (1998) suggest that these developments result in substantial, increased differentiation between self in

an individuals self-representations.

A central developmental task of adolescence which builds on these gains in cognitive capacity is theestablishment of a self-concept (van Aken, van Lieshout, Haselager, 1996).

Harter and her colleagues (1996) have suggested that a normative part of this process involves roleexperimentation. According to Harter, adolescents may engage in false-self behavior, acting in ways that do notreflect ones true self, as a means of exploring their self-identity. However, research by Harter and Lee (1989)indicates substantial variability in adolescents usage of false-self behavior. Moreover, Harter (1996) foundsupport for a linkage between motivations for engaging in false-self behavior and adolescents perceptions ofparent and peer support. Normal role experimentation motivations for engaging in false-self behavior wereassociated with greater quality and level of perceived parent and peer support, whereas clinically debilitatingmotivations for engaging in false-self behavior were associated with perceptions of less parent and peer support.Along the same lines, research conducted by Benson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) suggests that securitymay be aprerequisite for the healthy establishment of a self-identity in adolescence. These findings suggest thatadolescents perceived familial and social support may be related to individual differences in the developmentof a self-concept and in self-perception accuracy.

Clearly, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of how individual differences inperceived support may affect adolescents development of self-perception, and conversely, how accurate versusdistorted self-perception may reflect individual differences in perceived support. Attachment theory, whichemphasizes the importance of interpersonal, attachment relationships in shaping an individuals views about theself and the world, provides a very interesting framework for pursuing these questions.

Attachment Theory

Attachment theorists stress the critical role of interpersonal relationships in the development ofindividuals perceptions of themselves and the world around them. Bowlby (1973) posited that an individualsdeveloping view of the self originates in infancy and is inextricably linked to early attachment experiences.Beginning in infancy, human attachment relationships are driven by a behavioral-motivational system thatregulates the physical proximity and psychological availability of a primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1979). As aresult of repeated interactions with a primary caregiver, an infants internal representation of self and othersevolves from his or her expectations of the caregivers availability and sensitivity (Bowlby, 1969/1982).Research conducted by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) with infants in the Strange Situation

indicated that variability in a caregivers availability and sensitivity to an infant resulted in secure (healthy) orinsecure (maladaptive) attachment relationships. Ainsworth et al. found that secure attachments are fosteredwhen children experience consistent caregiver warmth and availability. On the other hand, avoidant/dismissingattachments are cultivated through caregiving that is characterized by unavailability or insensitivity, andambivalent/preoccupied attachments develop through inconsistent or intrusive caregiving.

What is the importance of secure versus insecure infant attachment? A substantial and growing body ofresearch has demonstrated that there are impressive linkages between infant attachment and later psychosocialfunctioning in childhood (e.g., Eliker, Englund, & Sroufe, 1990), adolescence (e.g., Allen, Moore, Kuperminc,& Bell, 1998), and young adulthood (e.g., Waters, Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000).

5


6/44

According to attachment theorists, the affective infant-caregiver attachment bond impacts psychosocialadjustment beyond infancy through an internal working modelof self, others, and attachment relationships(Bowlby, 1969/1982; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Theoretically, internal working models are individualorganizations of attitudes, expectations, and feelings about attachment experiences, which serve as a frameworkfor future emotions, thoughts, and behaviors (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; Kobak & Cole, 1994; Weinfield,Ogawa, & Sroufe, 1997). Belsky & Cassidy (1994) have likened internal working models to socialpsychologists notions of expectancy confirmation. Similar to expectancy confirmation, internal working

models describe a partly conscious and partly unconscious affective-cognitive template that influences what anindividual attends to, encodes, and recalls.

While attachment in infancy and childhood can be assessed through observable behaviors (StrangeSituation, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), examining attachment representations in adolescence andadulthood involves the evaluation of internal or mental working models of attachment. The Adult AttachmentInterview, developed by George, Kaplan, and Main (1985), permits researchers to assess individuals reflectionand communication about parent-child attachment experiences and their ability to integrate specific memoriesinto a coherent understanding of attachment relationships. Theoretically, the Adult Attachment Interviewassesses an individualsstate of mind with regard to attachment. Attachment research suggests that individualswith an insecure-dismissing state of mind with regard to attachment devalue the importance of close

relationships and emphasize autonomy and separateness at the expense of intimacy and connectedness. Aninsecure-preoccupied attachment organization is associated with exaggeration of attachment issues anddiscomfort or fear of separateness and autonomy. Finally, individuals with secure-autonomous attachmentmodels have a healthy balance of recognizing, appreciating, and desiring both intimacy and autonomy, and bothseparateness and connectedness (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Main, 1990, Main & Goldwyn, in press; Main,Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

Research has demonstrated strong concordance between classification of maternal attachmentorganization on the Adult Attachment Interview and infant attachment security, as assessed in the StrangeSituation (Main et al., 1985; Posada, Waters, Crowell, & Lay, 1995; van Ijzendoorn, 1992; Waters, Hamilton, &Weinfield, 2000). In addition, studies have demonstrated significant predictive, concurrent, and retrospectiveagreement between parents state of mind with regard to attachment as assessed on the Adult AttachmentInterview and their infants attachment security, as assessed in the Strange Situation (Fonagy, Steele, & Steele,1991; Main et al., 1985, van Ijzendorn, 1992; Waters, Hamilton, & Weinfield, 2000). While these findings areimpressive, critics have pointed out that little data exists on whether individual differences in attachment remainconsistent over time. Several recent studies that have examined the stability of attachment in infancy toattachment representation in young adulthood indicate mixed results (Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Merrick,Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000). Waters et al. found that amongCaucasian, middle-class individuals, 72% of infants received the same secure versus insecure attachmentclassification in early adulthood. Weinfield et al. found no evidence for significant continuity between infantand adult attachment among individuals at high risk for poor developmental outcomes. However, continuousand discontinuous groups could be differentiated on the basis of significant, negative life events such as childmaltreatment, maternal depression, and family functioning in early adolescence. As Waters, Hamilton, andWeinfield (2000) have pointed out, malleability of attachment classification is, in fact, consistent with Bowlbys(1953) original hypotheses that significant, attachment-related life experiences do influence the stability orflexibility of individual attachment over time.

Do internal working models of attachment significantly account for individual differences in self-perception? Bowlby (1981) argued that attachment organization is critical to understanding an individualsmodel of self. Findings from a few recent studies suggest that there may be a relationship between individualdifferences in self-perception accuracy and attachment.

6


7/44

Prior research has suggested that attachment organization may be related to the development of self-perception in terms of aself-concept. Cassidy (1988), for instance, looked at the relationship between self-concept and attachment in childhood and found a moderate association between attachment classification andviews about the self. Along the same lines, Cooper, Collins, and Shaver (1998) examined individual differencesin attachment style and self-concept among adolescents and found that secure adolescents were the most well-adjusted, whereas preoccupied and dismissing adolescents had poorer self-concepts.

Research conducted by Kobak and Sceery (1988) on the affective and representational correlates ofattachment organization in late adolescence also suggests a relationship between self-perception accuracy andattachment. Kobak et al. found a lack of congruence between dismissing adolescents self-reports and peer-reports of adolescents social competence and distress. Although peers perceived dismissing adolescents as lesssocially competent and more distressed, dismissing adolescents self-reports did not differ from secureadolescents self-reports of perceived social competence and distress. Interestingly, dismissing adolescents alsosignificantly reported more loneliness and lack of support in their relationships. Congruent with other researchon features of dismissing attachment, these findings suggest that a dismissing attachment organization may berelated to distorted self-perception, characterized by less acknowledgment or even denial of distress.

Dozier and Lee (1995) conducted one of the only studies (to the authors knowledge) that specifically

focused on the relationship between attachment and discrepancy of self- and other-report. Dozier et al. lookedat incongruities between self- and other-report of psychiatric symptoms among adults with seriouspsychopathological disorders. Congruent with Kobak and Sceerys (1988) findings, they found that adultsemploying dismissing/deactivating attachment strategies self-reported significantly less symptoms incomparison with expert-ratings of symptoms. In addition, although experts rated adults withpreoccupied/hyperactivating strategies as having fewer symptoms in comparison with dismissing/deactivatingadults, adults with preoccupied/hyperactivating strategies self-reported significantly more symptoms. Thesefindings support the idea that individuals with dismissing attachment organization may distortedly deny self-perceptions of distress. Also, this study suggests that individuals with preoccupied attachment organizationmay distortedly amplify self-perceptions of distress.

These findings preliminarily suggest that there is a relationship between attachment organization andself-perception accuracy. It is possible that internal working models of self, others, and attachment experiencesprovide a useful framework for examining the causes and correlates of individual differences in thedevelopment of accuracy versus distortion in self-perception. Pursuing this direction of research may alsoenhance our understanding of the stability of internal working models of self, others, and attachmentexperiences across the lifespan. Since adolescence is a critical developmental period for transformations in theself-system (Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Steinberg, 1999), Allen and his colleagues (1999) havesuggested that adolescence may be a likely point in the lifespan when the internal working model becomes trulyinternal and stable.

The Current Study

The present investigation built on theory and contemporary research on self- versus other-perception andattachment organization. This study sought to extend theoretical inference and the work of previous research byfocusing on the relationship between attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent self- and other-judgment. The purpose of the current study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment theory mayexplain individual differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence.

The present study addressed the following questions:

1) Is attachment organization related to accuracy of self-perception in adolescence?

2) Is insecure attachment associated with disparity between adolescent self- and other-report?

7


8/44

3) Are preoccupied attachment and dismissing attachment related to accuracy or distortion of self-perception in different ways?

4) Will discrepancies between self- and other-reports be meaningful for adolescent versus motherreport? Adolescent versus father report? Adolescent versus close friend report?

5) In what domains will discrepancies between self- and other-reports be meaningful? Report of internal

distress? Report of externalizing behavior? Report of scholastic and social competence?

8


9/44

Method

Participants

The current study collected data from 95 male and 81 female adolescents, their mothers, their fathers,and their peers, as part of the Virginia Study of Teens and Families, a longitudinal study which investigated awide variety of adolescent psychosocial functioning in the family and with peers. In the present investigation,data from the first wave of data collection was explored. Adolescents were approximately 16 years (M = 15.93,SD = .81), with a range from 14 to 17 years. The self-identified racial/ethnic background of the sample was59.7% European American, 38.6% African American, and 1.7% other. 30% of adolescents were living withboth biological parents. The median family income was $25,000 (range was from less than $5,000 to greaterthan $60,000), and parents median education level was a high school diploma with some training post-highschool (range was from less than an eighth grade education to completion of an advanced degree).

Adolescents were recruited from primarily the 9th and 10th grades (9th N = 66, 10th N = 107, and 11th N =3) of two public school systems that represented rural, suburban, and urban populations. Participants wereselected for inclusion in the study based on the presence of at least one of four possible academic risk factors: 1)failing a single course for a single marking period, 2) any lifetime history of grade retention, 3) 10 or more

absences in one marking period, and 4) any history of school suspension. These broad selection criteria wereestablished to sample a sizable range of adolescents who could be identified from academic records as havingthe potential for future academic and social difficulties, including adolescents already experiencing seriousdifficulties and those who were performing adequately with only occasional, minor problems. As intended,these criteria identified approximately one-half of all ninth- and tenth-grade students as eligible for the study.

Each teen was also asked to name several friends who knew him or her well; two peers were recruitedfor each adolescent participant in the study. Close friends filled out measures concerning 136 of the targetadolescents. Peer participants were approximately 16 years (M = 16.32, SD = 1.37) and had knownparticipating teens for an average of five years (M = 5.21, SD = 3.73).

Procedure

After adolescents who met study criteria were identified, letters were sent to each family of a potentialparticipant explaining the investigation as an ongoing study of the lives of teens and families. These initialexplanatory letters were then followed by phone calls to families who indicated a willingness to be furthercontacted. If both the teen and the parent(s) agreed to participate in the study, the family was scheduled tocome to our offices for two 3 hr sessions. Approximately 50% of approached families agreed to participate.Families were paid a total of $105 for their participation. At each session, active, informed consent wasobtained from parents and teens. In the initial introduction and throughout both sessions, confidentiality wasassured to all family members, and adolescents were told that their parents would not be informed about any ofthe answers that they provided. Participants data were protected by a Confidentiality Certificate issued by the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services which protected information from subpoena by federal, state,and local courts. Transportation and child care were provided if necessary.

Active consent was also obtained from both peers and parents of peers participating in the study. Peerswere paid $10 to come in separately for a 1 hr session, during which they completed written questionnaires andused Q-sort techniques to rate the target adolescents in the study. As with study participants, peers were assuredthat all information would be kept confidential and in particular, were told that study participants would notlearn of their questionnaire responses.

Measures

9


10/44

Adult Attachment Interview and Q-set (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996). This structured interviewprobes individuals descriptions of their childhood relationships with parents in both abstract terms and withrequests for specific supporting memories. For example, participants were asked to list five words describingtheir early childhood relationships with each parent and then to describe specific episodes that reflected thosewords. Other questions focused on specific instances of upset, separation, loss, trauma, and rejection. Finally,the interviewer asked participants to provide more integrative descriptions of changes in relationships withparents from childhood to adolescence, as well as descriptions of the current state of those relationships. The

interview consisted of 18 questions and lasted 1 hr on average. Slight adaptations to the adult version weremade in order to make the questions more natural and easily understandable for an adolescent population (Ward& Carlson, 1995). Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed for coding.

The AAI Q-Set (Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993). This Q-set was designed toclosely parallel the Adult Attachment Interview Classification System (Main & Goldwyn, in press) but to yieldcontinuous measures of qualities of attachment organization. The data produced by the system nevertheless canbe reduced via an algorithm to classifications that largely agree with three-category ratings from the AAIClassification System (Borman-Spurrell, Allen, Hauser, Carter, & Cole-Detke, 1995; Kobak et al., 1993). Eachrater reads a transcript and provides a Q-sort description by assigning 100 items into nine categories rangingfrom most to least characteristic of the interview, using a forced distribution. All interviews were blindly rated

by at least two coders with extensive training in both the Q-sort and the Main Adult Attachment InterviewClassification System.

These Q-sorts were then compared with dimensional prototype sorts for:secure versus anxiousinterview strategies, reflecting the overall degree of coherence of discourse, the integration of episodic andsemantic attachment memories, and a clear objective valuing of attachment; preoccupied strategies, reflectingeither rambling, extensive but ultimately unfocused discourse about attachment experiences or angrypreoccupation with attachment figures; dismissing strategies, reflecting inability or unwillingness to recountattachment experiences, idealization of attachment figures that is discordant with reported experiences, and lackof evidence of valuing attachment; and deactivating versus hyperactivating strategies, which simply representsthe overall balance of dismissing and preoccupied styles. These dimensions had been previously validated(Kobak, Cole, Ferenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993), and using them, Kobak and colleagues report beingable to capture classifications form the AAI classification system with good accuracy. The correlation of the100 items of an individuals Q-sort with each dimension (ranging from 1.00 to 1.00) were then taken as theparticipants scale score for that dimension. The Spearman-Brown reliabilities for the final scale scores were .84, .89, .82, and .91 for the secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and hyperactivating versus deactivating scales,respectively. Although this system was designed to yield continuous measures of qualities of attachmentorganization rather than replicate classifications from the Main and Goldwyn (in press) system, when scalescores were reduced to classifications by simply using the largest Q-scale score above .20 as the primaryclassification (Kobak et al., 1993) and compared to a subsample (N= 76) of AAIs classified by an independentcoder with well-established reliability in classifying AAIs (U. Wartner), 74% of adolescents in this samplereceived identical codes (kappa = .56,p < .001), and 84% matched in terms of security versus insecurity (kappa= .68).

Mutuality of adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior

problems.

Adolescents completed the Youth Self-Report, a well-validated and normed measure of problematicadolescent behaviors (Achenbach, 1991). Adolescents were asked to rate how well a variety of descriptions ofsymptomatic behaviors applied to them during the previous 6 months, on a scale of 0 = not true, 1 = somewhator sometimes true, and 2 = very or often true. The internalizing scale and externalizing scale, which have bothbeen well validated, were used to assess adolescents self-perceptions of symptomatic behavior.

10


11/44

Mothers and fathers reported their adolescents internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors usingthe 120-item Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). This measure has been widely used inresearch and clinical applications with samples of normal and clinically referred youths and shows goodevidence of reliability and validity (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979, 1981). The internalizingand externalizingscales were used to measure parents judgments of adolescent symptoms. Although the Youth Self-Report andChild Behavior Checklist are slightly different, these measures are essentially measuring the same constructsince each measure compares the respondents reports to normative data. Comparisons of adolescent-report of

symptoms on the Youth Self-Report and parent-report of adolescent symptoms on the Child Behavior Checklistwere used to assess whether parents perceived their adolescents as more or less symptomatic (relative tonational norms) than adolescents perceived themselves.

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescentinternalizing and externalizing behavior problems were measured in two ways. First, the Simple Difference ofAdolescent Report minus Parent Reportwas calculated. This measurement was intended to determine if theadolescent overrated self internalizing or externalizing behavior problems in comparison to mother- and father-reports of their adolescent.

Second, theAbsolute Difference ofAdolescent Report minus Parent Reportwas calculated to assess the overall

disparity in both directions of adolescent- versus parent-report.

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholasticcompetence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality.

Adolescents also completed the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988). For each item, twosentence stems were presented side by side. For example, Some teenagers find it hard to make friends, butFor other teenagers its pretty easy. Adolescents were asked to decide which stem best described them andwhether the statement was sort of true or really true for them. This format was designed to reduce theeffects of a pull for social desirability. Five scales were examined in this study: behavior conduct, socialacceptance,scholastic competence, romantic appeal, andfriendship quality.

Peers completed a modified version of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988) describedabove, which was modified so that peers completed it as they thought it best described the target adolescent inthe study, using the same rating scales and summing procedures to produce the final scales.

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholasticcompetence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was measured in the same two ways as adolescent- versusparent-reports. First, the Simple Difference ofAdolescent Report minus Peer Reportof adolescent behaviorconduct, social acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was calculated. Thismeasurement was intended to determine if the adolescent overrated him/herself on each scale in comparison topeer-report of the target adolescent. Second, theAbsolute Difference ofAdolescent Report minus Peer Reportwas calculated to assess the overall disparity in both directions of adolescent- versus peer-report of adolescent

behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality.

11


12/44

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Sample means. The means and standard deviations of all measures used are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Means, frequencies, and standard deviations of adolescent attachment organization, adolescent-, mother-, andfather-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and adolescent- and close friend-report ofadolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance

Measure M SD n

Adult Attachment Interview

Security .22 .39 155

Dismissing .15 .40 155

Preoccupation .05 .21 155

Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms

Adolescent-Report 13.20 8.96 175

Mother-Report 11.16 8.21 169

Father-Report 10.08 7.92 70

Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms

Adolescent-Report 16.30 8.19 175

Mother-Report 15.21 10.07 170

Father-Report 13.31 8.68 70

Harter Self-Perception

Adolescent-Report

Behavior Conduct 2.64 .61 174

12


13/44

Scholastic Competence 2.88 .65 175

Romantic Appeal 2.82 .61 175

Close Friendship 3.27 .73 175

Social Acceptance 3.24 .64 175


Peer-Report of Adolescent

Behavior Conduct 2.73 .60 136

Scholastic Competence 2.91 .58 136

Romantic Appeal 2.90 .63 136

Close Friendship 3.16 .58 136

Social Acceptance 3.05 .64 136

13


14/44

Demographic effects. Demographic effects of adolescent gender, racial/ethnic minority status, andfamily income were examined for each measure used. Gender was represented by dummy variables (1 = male,2 = female), racial/ethnic minority status was represented by dummy variables (1 = racial/ethnic minority, 2 =Caucasian), and income was measured on a scale of 1 to 5 (less than $5,000 to more than $60,000). Aspresented in Table 2, secure attachment organization was slightly positively correlated with being female andhighly correlated tobeing Caucasian and to having a higher family income. Being male was moderately related

to having a dismissing attachment organization, and minority status and a lower family income were highlyassociated with a dismissing attachment organization. A preoccupied attachment organization was slightlyrelated to being female. Female adolescents overall were more likely than male adolescents to reportinternalizing symptoms. Adolescent minority status was slightly negatively correlated with mothers reports ofadolescent internalizing symptoms. Female adolescents and female close friends of adolescents were morelikely than male participants to report closer friendships. Being a male adolescent was slightly associated withself-report of greater scholastic competence, while being a female close friend was slightly associated withreport of greater adolescent romantic appeal.

Since adolescent gender, race, and family income factors did have an effect on several of the measuresused, these demographic variables were accounted for in further analyses.

14


15/44

Table 2

Correlations of adolescent attachment organization, adolescent-, mother-, and father-report of adolescentinternalizing and externalizing symptoms, and adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behaviorconduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance with adolescentgender, racial/ethnic minority status, and family income

Measure Gender

(1 = male,

2 = female)

Minority Status

(1 = minority,

2 = Caucasian)

Family Income

r n r n r n

Adult Attachment Interview

Security .17* 155 -.35*** 155 .28*** 153

Dismissing -.25** 155 .38*** 155 -.28*** 153

Preoccupation .16* 155 -.04 155 -.08 153

Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms

Adolescent-Report .33*** 175 -.12 175 .05 172

Mother-Report .07 169 -.15* 169 .13 166

Father-Report -.04 70 -.02 70 .07 70

Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms

Adolescent-Report .03 175 -.12 175 .05 172

Mother-Report -.00 170 -.05 170 -.04 167

Father-Report -.22+ 70 -.04 70 .13 70


Adolescent-Report

Behavior Conduct .10 174 .06 174 -.10 171

15


16/44

Scholastic Competence -.15* 175 -.12 175 .05 172

Romantic Appeal -.04 175 -.06 175 .05 172

Close Friendship .16* 175 -.08 175 .02 172

Social Acceptance .04 175 .10 175 -.07 172


Peer-Report of Adolescent

Behavior Conduct .14+ 136 .15+ 136 -.10 134

Scholastic Competence .11 136 .00 136 -.08 134

Romantic Appeal .17* 136 .05 136 -.10 134

Close Friendship .26** 136 -.07 136 .01 134

Social Acceptance .11 136 .13 136 -.12 134

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. +p < .10.

Mutuality of adolescent- and other-report. The simple and absolute differences between adolescent- andother-report of adolescent affective and social adjustment are reported in Tables 3, 4, and 5. In Tables 3 and 4,

the means and standard deviations are presented for simple and absolute differences of adolescent self- andmother-/father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In Table 5, the means andstandard deviations are reported for simple and absolute differences of adolescent self- and close friend-reportof adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and socialacceptance. Correlational analyses indicated that overall adolescent- and other-report were significantlycorrelated on each domain of perceived adolescent adjustment (see Tables 6, 7, and 8).

Table 3

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms

Mutuality of Adolescent- and Mother-Report M SD n

Internalizing Symptoms

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report) 2.16 9.42 168

16


17/44

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|) 7.60 5.94 168

Externalizing Symptoms

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report) 1.15 10.23 169

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|) 8.39 5.93 169

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

Table 4

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms

Mutuality of Adolescent- and Father-Report M SD n

Internalizing Symptoms

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report) 3.14 10.37 69

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|) 8.27 6.94 69

Externalizing Symptoms

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report) 2.64 9.63 69

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|) 8.22 5.58 69

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

17


18/44

Table 5

Mutuality of adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence,romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance

Mutuality of Adolescent- and Close Friend-Report M SD n

Behavior Conduct

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) -.01 .60 136

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) .47 .38 136

Scholastic Competence



Romantic Appeal



Close Friendship

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) .14 .82 136


Social Acceptance

Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) .20 .68 136


Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

Table 6

Correlations of adolescent self-report to mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms

18


19/44

Mother-Report of Adolescent Adolescent Self-Report

n

Internalizing .41*** 168

Externalizing .39*** 169

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

Table 7

Correlations of adolescent self-report to father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms

Father-Report of Adolescent Adolescent Self-Report

Internalizing .31**

Externalizing .30**

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=69

Table 8

Correlations of adolescent self-report to close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholasticcompetence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance

Close Friend-Report of Adolescent Adolescent Self-Report

Behavior Conduct .50***

Scholastic Competence .37***

Romantic Appeal .33***

Close Friendship .21*

19


20/44

Social Acceptance .42***

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=136

Primary Analyses

Primary analyses examined the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and mutualityof adolescent- and other-report of adolescent psychosocial functioning.

Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report. First,simple correlations of adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report wereexamined. As indicated in Table 9, preoccupied attachment was associated with greater discrepancy betweenadolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Specifically, asexpected, preoccupied adolescents reported significantly more internalizing and externalizing symptoms thanmothers reported about adolescent symptoms. In addition, a dismissing attachment organization was related togreater disparity between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms. Dismissing

adolescents reports of externalizing symptoms were overall significantly likely to be disparate (either above orbelow) from mothers reports of adolescent externalizing symptoms.

Table 9

Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent and mother reports of internalizing andexternalizing symptoms

Measure of MutualityAttachment

Preoccupied Dismissing

Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Mother Report)

Internalizing .29***

Externalizing .24**

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Mother Report|)

Externalizing .16* .19*

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=149

20


21/44

Next, preoccupation and dismissing attachment were examined as predictors of mutuality of adolescent-and mother-report, after accounting for gender, race, and family income. Analyses of results of hierarchicalregressions presented in Tables 10 and 11 indicated that preoccupied attachment organization remained apredictor of the simple difference between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing andexternalizing symptoms even after accounting for these other factors. Preoccupation did not remain a

significant predictor of the absolute difference of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms. After partialling out demographic effects, dismissing attachment organization was not a significantpredictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report.

21


22/44

Table 10

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report ofadolescent internalizing symptoms

(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report MotherReport)

Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender .22** . . . . . .

Race .03 . . . . . .

Family Income .00 . . . . . .

. . . .044** .044**

II:

Preoccupation .24** .099*** (-).055***

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

models. N = 145.

Table 11

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

22


23/44

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report ofadolescent externalizing symptoms


Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.03 . . . . . .

Race .04 . . . . . .


. . . .006 .006

II:

Preoccupation .24** .061* .055*


models. N = 146.

Finally, the effects of adolescent baseline symptomatology were examined in order to explore whetherthe findings merely reflected individual differences in baseline levels of symptoms. Adolescent internalizingsymptoms and adolescent externalizing symptoms, measured in terms of mother-report, were added into themodels in which adolescent attachment remained a significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report after accounting for demographic effects. As reported in Tables 12, analyses of hierarchical regressionsindicated that adolescent preoccupation did remain a very significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- andmother-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms even after controlling for adolescent internalizingsymptoms. In addition, after controlling for adolescent externalizing symptoms, preoccupied attachmentremained a very significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms.

23


24/44

Table 12

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report ofadolescent internalizing symptoms


Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender .25*** . . . . . .

Race .07 . . . . . .


. . . .064** .064***

II:

Adolescent Internalizing(Mother-Report)

-.49*** . . . . . .

. . . .295*** .231***

III:

Preoccupation .24*** .348*** .053***


models. N = 145.

24


25/44

Table 13

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report ofadolescent externalizing symptoms


Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.03 . . . . . .

Race .08 . . . . . .


. . . .007 .007

II:

Adolescent Externalizing(Mother-Report)

-.67*** . . . . . .

. . . .458*** .451***

III:

Preoccupation .28*** .530*** .072***


models. N = 146.

Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report. Next, therelationship between adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report wasexamined. As presented in Table 14, simple correlations of adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent-and father-report indicated that adolescent preoccupation was related to greater discrepancy betweenadolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. As expected, preoccupied

25


26/44

adolescents reported more internalizing and externalizing symptoms in comparison to father reports ofadolescent symptoms.

26


27/44

Table 14

Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of internalizing andexternalizing symptoms

Measure of MutualityPreoccupied

Attachment

Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Father Report)


Externalizing .36**

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Father Report|)


Externalizing .29*

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=58

Analyses of hierarchical regressions presented in Tables 15 and 16 revealed that preoccupation remained

a predictor of both the simple and absolute difference of adolescent- and father-report of adolescentinternalizing symptoms, after accounting for gender, race, and family income. Controlling for demographiceffects, a preoccupied attachment organization predicted the simple (but not the absolute) difference ofadolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms.

27


28/44

Table 15

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescentinternalizing symptoms

Simple Difference

(Adolescent Report FatherReport)

Absolute Difference

(|Adolescent Report FatherReport|)

Total

Predictors R2 R2 R2 R2

I:

Gender .16 . . . . . . .17 . . . . . .

Race -.08 . . . . . . .15 . . . . . .

Family Income -.02 . . . . . . -.22 . . . . . .

. . . .029 .029 . . . .097+ .097+

II:

Preoccupation .49*** .240** .211** .32* .187** .090**


models. N = 52.

28


29/44

Table 16

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report ofadolescent externalizing symptoms

(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report FatherReport)

Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.16 . . . . . .

Race -.25+ . . . . . .


II: . . . .089 .089

Preoccupation .48*** .286** .197**

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables

into models. N = 52.

Again, the effects of adolescent symptomatology were examined in order to explore whether thefindings reflected differences in baseline levels of adolescent symptoms. Accounting for adolescentinternalizing symptoms, assessed in terms of father-report, a preoccupied attachment organization remained a

significant predictor of both the simple and absolute mutuality of adolescent- and father-report (see Table 17).In addition, preoccupation also remained a very significant predictor of the simple mutuality of adolescent- andfather-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (see Table 18).

29


30/44

Table 17

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescentinternalizing symptoms

Simple Difference

(Adolescent Report FatherReport)

Absolute Difference

(|Adolescent Report FatherReport|)

Total

redictors R2 R2 R2 R2

Gender .21+ . . . . . . .17 . . . . . .

Race -.02 . . . . . . .15 . . . . . .

Family Income -.01 . . . . . . -.22+ . . . . . .

. . . .042 .042+ . . . .096+ .096+

:

Adolescent Internalizing(Father-Report)

-.34** . . . . . . .00 . . . . . .

. . . .152** .110** . . . .096 .000

I:

Preoccupation .48*** .355*** .203*** .32* .185** .089*


models. N = 52.

30


31/44

Table 18

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizingsymptoms from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report ofadolescent externalizing symptoms

(Simple Difference: Adolescent Report FatherReport)

Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.16 . . . . . .

Race -.12 . . . . . .


. . . .054 .054

II:

Adolescent Externalizing(Father-Report)

-.54*** . . . . . .

. . . .324*** .270***

III:

Preoccupation .421*** .477*** .153***


models. N = 52.

Relationships between adolescent attachment and mutuality of adolescent- and close friend-report.Finally, the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent- and closefriend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, andsocial acceptance was examined. As reported in Table 19, simple correlations between adolescent attachmentand mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report indicated that only dismissing attachment was related to greaterdiscrepancy between adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct. Dismissing adolescents weresignificantly more likely to over- or under-report in comparison to peer reports of adolescent behavior conduct.

31


32/44

Table 19

Correlations of adolescent attachment to mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of behavior conduct

Measure of MutualityAttachment

Dismissing

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report PeerReport|)

Behavior Conduct .27**

Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=127

Analyses of hierarchical regressions, presented in Table 20, revealed that dismissing attachmentremained a predictor of the absolute difference of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct,even after partialling out demographic effects. In addition, when adolescent baseline levels of behavior conduct(measured in terms of close friend-report) were accounted for, a dismissing adolescent attachment organizationremained a predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report (see Table 21).

32


33/44

Table 20

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conductfrom adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report ofadolescent behavior conduct

(Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report PeerReport|)

Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.11 . . . . . .

Race -.02 . . . . . .

Family Income -.12 . . . . . .

. . . .023* .023*

II:

Dismissing .21* .054* .031*


models. N = 120.

33


34/44

Table 21

Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conductfrom adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report ofadolescent behavior conduct

(Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report PeerReport|)

Total

Predictors R2 R2

I:

Gender -.13 . . . . . .

Race .02 . . . . . .

Family Income -.12 . . . . . .

. . . .026* .026

II:

Adolescent Behavior Conduct

(Peer-Report)

.17+ . . . . . .

. . . .054* .028+

III:

Dismissing .22* .091** .037*


models. N = 120.

Exploratory Analyses

The current study explored whether combinations of difference scores (adolescent- versus mother-report, adolescent- versus father-report, and adolescent- versus close friend-report) predicted adolescentattachment organization. Analyses indicated that when difference scores from several sources were enteredtogether to predict attachment organization, no improvement was obtained over predictions made from enteringjust a single variable as a predictor. This suggests that the relations reported between difference scores andattachment for different reporters each tapped the same aspect of adolescent attachment organization. For thisreason, the results of these analyses are not included in this paper.

34


35/44

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment theory mayaccount for individual differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence. In the present study, adolescentattachment organization was related to adolescents accuracy of self-perception, assessed in terms of mutualityof adolescent self- and other-judgment. Adolescents with insecure attachment organization were more likely to

have greater discrepancies between self- and other-reports of psychosocial symptoms. Adolescents who werepreoccupied with attachment were more likely to overrate their internalizing and externalizing symptoms incomparison to parent reports of adolescent symptomatology. A dismissing attachment organization was linkedto greater absolute disparity between adolescent self- and parent-report of internalizing and externalizingbehaviors. In addition, dismissing adolescents reports of behavior conduct were more likely to be incongruentwith close friend-reports of adolescent behavior conduct.

Insecure Attachment and Distorted Self-Judgment

The findings of the current investigation suggest that adolescent attachment organization does accountfor individual differences in self-perception. Specifically, insecure attachment was related to distorted self-judgment of psychosocial symptoms. This relationship fits with attachment theorists views on the critical role

of interpersonal relationships in the development of an individuals perception of self. According to Bowlby(1969), beginning in infancy, the availability and sensitivity of a primary caregiver shapes an individualsinternal representation of self and others. Beyond infancy, an internal working modelof self, others, andattachment experiences serves as a framework for future emotions, thoughts, and behaviors (Main, Kaplan, &Cassidy, 1985; Kobak & Cole, 1994). Since internal working models of attachment theoretically reflectexperienced interaction patterns between the individual and his or her caregiver, it follows that developingmodels of self and attachment figure(s) are complementary (Bretherton and Munholland, 1999). As research byBenson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) has suggested, adolescents who are securely attached, that is, adolescentswho perceive important others as being available and sensitive, may be more likely to establish a healthy,valued and competent self-identity in adolescence. Conversely, adolescents who perceive important others asproviding either unavailable (dismissing attachment) or inconsistent (preoccupied attachment) support may

develop maladaptive and/or distorted views of the self as devalued and incompetent (Bretherton et al.). Priorresearch has found that secure adolescents are more well-adjusted and have healthier self-concepts incomparison to adolescents with a preoccupied or dismissing attachment organization (e.g., Cooper, Collins, &Shaver, 1998).

The findings of the current study also suggest that preoccupation with attachment and dismissal ofattachment are differentially related to inaccuracy of self-perception.

A preoccupied attachment organization was associated with adolescent overreporting of symptoms incomparison with parent reports. As expected, this result replicates the pattern of previous findings by Dozierand Lee (1995) who found that among adults with serious psychopathological disorders, individuals with

preoccupied attachment strategies self-reported significantly more symptoms in comparison with expert ratings.This finding also fits with prior research that describes a preoccupied attachment organization as beingcharacterized by heightened or hyperactivated expressions of distress (Kobak, 1986). In particular, adolescentsemploying preoccupied attachment strategies may chronically deal with distress by exaggerating internalizingsymptoms and/or behavior conduct in an attempt to elicit a response from caregivers (Allen & Land, 1999).

The finding that preoccupation was associated with adolescent overreporting of symptoms hassignificant clinical implications. Preoccupied attachment may be one factor that explains why there is adiscrepancy between some adolescents self-reports of symptoms and their parents reports about adolescentadjustment. In addition, the discrepancy between adolescent self- and parent-report may indicate thatadolescents with preoccupied attachment strategies provide less accurate self-report of distress and problem

35


36/44

behavior. Alternatively, relying on parent-report of preoccupied adolescent symptoms may not provide anaccurate picture of adolescents self-perceptions of distress.

Adolescents with a dismissing attachment organization were more likely to have absolutegreaterdisparity between self- and other-report of psychosocial symptoms. In other words, dismissing adolescentsself-reports were incongruent overall, either above or below, from parent- and peer-reports of adolescentsadjustment. This pattern fits with findings by Kobak and Sceery (1988) and Dozier and Lee (1995) who also

found a lack of congruence between dismissing individuals self-reports and other-reports of dismissingindividuals distress. While the studies conducted by Kobak et al. and Dozier et al. both found that dismissingindividuals were likely to underreport symptoms in comparison to peer- and expert-report, the current study didnot find a directional disparity between dismissing adolescent self- and parent/peer-report of symptoms. In thepresent study, a dismissing attachment organization was linked to greaterabsolute discrepancy betweenadolescent- and other-report of psychosocial symptoms.

There are a number of possible explanations for this difference. First, in comparison to the Dozier et al.study, the current study employed both a very different sample and standard of other-report. Dozier et al.looked at discrepancies between self- and expert-report of psychiatric symptoms among adults with seriouspsychopathological disorders, whereas the present study investigated disparities between self- and parent/peer-

report in a community sample of adolescents. One possibility is that only experts can accurately detectdismissing individuals distress and problem behavior. Since dismissing attachment organization ischaracterized by a tendency be emotionally distant in significant interpersonal relationships (Cassidy & Berlin,1994; Main, 1990; Main & Goldwyn, in press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), parents and close friends maynot be aware of dismissing individuals symptoms. In comparison to the study by Kobak, the current studylooked at the mutuality of adolescent- and parent/peer-report on equivalent measures of psychosocialsymptoms, whereas Kobak et al. examined adolescent- and peer-report on different measures. Specifically,Kobak et al. found that although dismissing adolescents self-reports did not differ from secure adolescentsself-reports of perceived social competence and distress, dismissing adolescents were rated by peers as havinglower ego-resilience, higher anxiety, and higher hostility,. In addition, the study by Kobak et al. examined asample of college students, whereas the current study looked at high school students. This distinction inparticipant pools also may have partly accounted for the slightly different findings.

As with the association between preoccupied attachment and disparity of self- and other-report, thefinding that dismissing adolescents are more likely to have greater incongruence between self- and other-reportof symptoms and behavior conduct also has implications for relying on self-report assessment of symptoms.Researchers and clinicians should be wary that adolescents with dismissing attachment strategies may be morelikely to provide less accurate self-reports of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In addition, relying ontheir parents reports of dismissing adolescent symptoms or close friends reports of dismissing adolescentbehavior conduct may not provide an accurate depiction of dismissing adolescents adjustment.

Parents versus Close Friends as Other-Reporters

As discussed previously, the current study found that insecure attachment was related to greaterdisparity between adolescent self- and other-report of adolescent psychosocial symptoms. However,preoccupied adolescents were only more likely to overrate symptoms in comparison toparentreports, and therewas no significant incongruence between preoccupied adolescent self- and peer-report. One explanation is thatadolescents with a preoccupied attachment organization may have distorted self-perceptions of inflated internaldistress and behavior problems. Allen and his colleagues (1998), for instance, have suggested thatpreoccupation with attachment experiences in adolescence may be linked to strong expression of internalsymptoms, which serves as a call for help from attachment figures. Although preoccupation is generallyassociated with greater psychosocial difficulties in adolescence (Allen et al., 1998; Allen & Land, 1999; Kobak,Sudler, & Gamble, 1991), in this study, preoccupation predicted adolescent overreporting of symptoms after

36


37/44

accounting for adolescent baseline levels of symptoms. This suggests that the association betweenpreoccupation and adolescent overreporting of symptoms was not only a reflection of greater baselinesymptomatology. In addition, while studies have found a significant linkage between preoccupied attachmentorganization and internalizing symptoms (Allen et al., 1998; Kobak, et al.), preoccupied adolescents may alsoengage in delinquent behavior as another form of communication intended to elicit attention from parents(Allen et al., 1999). Findings from the present study that preoccupied adolescents overreported bothinternalizing and externalizing problems suggests that preoccupationmay in fact be associated with both typesof symptoms.

Another explanation is that since there was no significant discrepancy between adolescent- and closefriend-report, the disparity between preoccupied adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent symptoms reflectsinaccurate judgment on the part of parents of preoccupied adolescents about the distress or behavior problemsthat their son or daughter is actually experiencing. A number of studies suggest that parents of preoccupiedadolescents are likely to have an insecure attachment organization (e.g., Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; Levine,Tuber, Slade, & Ward, 1991; Main & Goldwyn, in press; van Ijzendoorn, 1995). Allen (in press) found that theaccuracy of mothers estimates of their adolescents reported self-perceptions was a strong predictor ofattachment security.

Finally, it is possible thatthe preceding explanations are not mutually exclusive. While the currentstudy cannot draw definitive conclusions about whether preoccupied adolescents or their parents are the more

inaccurate reporter, the findings do suggest that there is maladaptive communication problem between parentand preoccupied adolescent. As Allen (in press) has emphasized, despite the increased importance of peerrelationships in adolescence, adolescent attachment security is still integrally linked to the adolescent-motherrelationship.

A dismissing attachment organization was related to greater absolute disparity between adolescent- andparent-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, as well as adolescent- and peer-report ofadolescent behavior conduct. One explanation is that the discrepancy between dismissing adolescent self- andother-report reflects on overall tendency for dismissing adolescents to have inaccurate perceptions ofthemselves. As Kobak and Sceery (1988) and Dozier and Lee (1995) have suggested, individuals employingdismissing attachment strategies may have a tendency to not express or consciously acknowledge negativeaffect.

Again, the findings indicated that the linkage between dismissing attachment and disparity of self- and other-report did not merely reflect differences in baseline levels of symptoms since dismissing attachment predicteddisparity of adolescent- and other-report after accounting for adolescent baseline symptomatology.

Alternatively, since individuals with a dismissing attachment organization are likely to devalue theimportance of close relationships and emphasize autonomy and separateness at the expense of connectednessand intimacy (Cassidy & Berlin, 1992; Main, 1990; Main & Goldwyn, in press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy,1985), it may be difficult for persons close to dismissing individuals to judge how that person is feeling or

behaving. In other words, because dismissing adolescents tend to be emotionally cut-off from parents and closefriends, parents and peers may be poor judges of dismissing adolescents distress and behavior problems.

Again, it is possible that the current findings reflect a combination of these two explanations.Dismissing adolescents may concurrently have distorted self-perceptions andbe more difficult to judge by otherpeople.

Overall, the differences between insecure adolescents self-, parent-, and close friend-report ofadolescent psychosocial functioning highlight the importance of taking into consideration not only the accuracyofself-reports, but the potential accuracy or inaccuracy of the other-reporter. Interestingly, a considerablenumber of studies in personality research have suggested that the validity of other person-judgment increases

37


38/44

with acquaintanceship (e.g., Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). However, the current findings suggest that both thecharacteristics of the individual being judged, as well as the characteristics of the relationship between theindividual being judged and the reporter, may be significant factors to consider in assessing mutuality of self-and other-report.

Reports of Symptomatology versus Personality

In the current study, adolescent attachment organization was only related to the accuracy of self-judgment of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms and behavior conduct, but was not related tojudgments of adolescent social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, or friendship quality.This pattern is consistent with previous research that has emphasized attachment theory as a theory of affectiveregulation. As Cooper, Collins, and Shaver (1998) have pointed out, Bowlby (1969) argued that internalworking models are both conscious and unconscious cognitive schemas for guiding perceptions, regulatingemotion, and for processing or failing to process attachment-relatedinformation. Kobak and Sceery (1988)have also maintained that attachment theory can be understood in terms of individual differences in affectiveregulation. Whereas internal working models of secure attachment permit the acknowledgement of distress andturning to others for support, insecure attachments foster ways of regulating distress that are maladaptive.Specifically, a dismissing attachment organization is governed by rules that restrict acknowledgement of

distress as well as attempts to seek support, and a preoccupied attachment organization is organized by rulesthat focus attention on distress and attachment figures in a hypervigilant manner that restricts the developmentof autonomy and self-confidence (Kobak et al.).

The current study found no evidence that attachment organization accounts for individual differences inself-perceptions of personality characteristics of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, orfriendship quality. Although Bowlby (1981) originally conceived of attachment theory as a theory ofpersonality development, the present findings suggest that attachment may be more related to affectiveregulation than other personality characteristics per se. Interestingly, Eder and Mangelsdorf (1997) haveproposed that internal working models of attachment may only explain the development of a global, typicalversus atypical self-concept, and may not account for individual differences in normative personality. In theirview, the development of self-perception is derived from a combination of attachment relationships, individualtemperament, and the reactions of parental figures to a childs temperamental characteristics.

Mutuality of Self- and Other-Report as a Predictor of Attachment Organization

The current study found that incongruities between adolescent self- and other-report were predictive ofinsecure attachment organization. However, combining the mutuality of adolescent- versus mother-report andadolescent- versus father- or peer-report did not significantly augment the power of difference scores to predictadolescent attachment organization. This suggests that the disparities between adolescent- and mother-report,adolescent- and father-report, and adolescent- and close friend-report reflected similar meanings, andunfortunately, do not serve as strong prediction of adolescent attachment organization.

Limitations and Future Directions

One major limitation to the current study was that only speculative conclusions could be drawn aboutthe relationship between adolescent attachment organization and adolescent accuracy of self-perception,because adolescent accuracy of self-perception was assessed in terms of the mutuality of adolescent self- andother-report. There was no way of concluding whether the disparity between adolescent- and other-reportactually reflected inaccurate adolescent self-perception or inaccuracy on the part of the other-reporter. Futurestudies could begin to resolve this shortcoming by having an expert assess adolescent internalizing andexternalizing symptoms, and comparing expert-reports to adolescent self-, parent-, and close friend-reports.Another possibility would be to follow Kennys (1994) proposal that the most valid measurement of personperception should be obtained by averaging the judgements of all possible observers.

38


39/44

In addition, assessment of adolescent accuracy of self-perception could be expounded by administeringmeasures of adolescent self-concept or self-identity. While a number of prior studies have suggested thatattachment organization may be related to the development of self-concept (e.g., Benson, Harris, & Rogers,1992; Cassidy, 1988; Cooper, Collins, & Shaver, 1998), it would be interesting to examine whether adolescentself-concept is related to the mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report.

Another limitation to the present investigation was that comparisons of adolescent-, parent-, and close

friend-report were only explored using a few questionnaires. First, although the Child Behavior Checklist(Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) and Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988) are well-validated andrespected measures in the literature, it is possible nonetheless that the current findings were related to aspects ofthe measures themselves. Future work should examine the mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report usinga variety of different questionnaires. On a similar note, in the current study, adolescent-report and parent-reportwere compared on dimensions of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, whereas adolescent- and peer-report were compared on the different dimensions of behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal,close friendship, and social acceptance. It would interesting to examine both the mutuality of adolescent- andparent-report and adolescent- and peer-report on the same scales.

In addition, since the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile employed in this study only examined scales of

social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, and friendship quality, it would be very interestingto investigate the mutuality of self- and other-report on other dimensions of more traditionalpersonalitycharacteristics. For instance, researchers in personality psychology often examine personality in terms of theBig Five trait dimensions ofExtraversion,Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,Neuroticism, and Openness toExperience (orCulture). Although the current study did not find that adolescent attachment was related to thedisparity between self- and other-report of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, andfriendship quality, it is possible that attachment may account for individual differences in adolescent self-perception of other personality characteristics.

Finally, it is important to note that the current study can in no way draw causal conclusions. While thefindings indicated that adolescent attachment organization was associated with individual differences inadolescent self- and other-judgments of psychosocial symptoms, it is not clear whether attachment organizationcauses these disparities.

This study built on prior research by examining the relationship between adolescent attachmentorganization and mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report in a community sample of adolescents. Overall,the findings suggest that insecure attachment organization in adolescence is related to greater disparity betweenself- and other-judgment of adolescent psychosocial adjustment. In comparison to parent-reports, preoccupiedadolescents were more likely to overreport internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Dismissing adolescentswere more likely to have greater absolute disparity between self- and parent-report of internalizing andexternalizing symptoms, and between self- and peer-report of behavior conduct. The current study found nosignificant linkages between adolescent attachment organization and the mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, or friendship quality.

Taken together, these findings indicate that attachment theory may explain individual differences in thedevelopment of adolescents self-perceptions and in particular, their characteristic patterns for regulatingnegative affect. Furthermore, the present findings highlight the critical importance of cautiously interpreting theaccuracy of adolescent self- andparent/peer-report of adolescent adjustment. Both the accuracy of adolescentself-perception and the accuracy of other-judgment of adolescent symptoms may be related to adolescentattachment organization and the relationship or communication between adolescent and parent or close friend.These findings provide the impetus for further investigations of how attachment organization may account forindividual differences in the development of self-perception and the establishment of a healthy self-concept orself-identity in adolescence.

39


40/44

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: Universityof Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girlsaged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 223-233.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the child behavior checklist. Burlington:University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1981). Behavioral problems and competencies reported byparents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research inChild Development, 46(1, Serial No. 188).

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Apsychological study of the strange situation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ainworth, M. S., & Eichberg, C. G. (1991). Effects on infant-mother attachment of mothers unresolvedloss of an attachment figure or other traumatic experience. In P. Marris, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & C. Parkes(Eds.),Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 160-183). New York: Routledge.

Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver, et al. (Eds.),Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications. New York: The Guilford Press, 319-335.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocialfunctioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419.

Bem, D. J. (1972). Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior: Some thoughts on Alker'scritique of Mischel. Journal of Personality, 40(1), 17-26.

Benson, M. J., Harris, P. B., & Rogers, C. S. (1992). Identity consequences of attachment to mothersand fathers among late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2(3), 187-204.

Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment and close relationships: An individual-differenceperspective. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 27-30.

Borman-Spurrell, E., Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. C. (1995). Assessingadult attachment: A comparison of interview-based and self-report methods. Manuscript submitted forpublication.

Date post:	02-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cristina-toma
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Self-Perception by Lauren Berger

Documents