emilie paczkowski

Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors

The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors in

Normative versus High-Risk Samples

Emilie A. Paczkowski

Distinguished Majors Program

University of Virginia

Advisor: N. Dickon Reppucci

Second Reader: Joseph P. Allen

Running head: ATTACHMENT AND EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIORS

1


Abstract

This study examined how gender and sample type affect associations between attachment and

externalizing behaviors. Normative participants (87 male and 98 female; mean age 14.25) and

high-risk participants (166 male and 105 female; mean age 14.34) completed the Adolescent

Attachment Interview and Family Attachment Interview, respectively. The Youth Self-Report

(YSR) measured externalizing behaviors. Insecure attachment styles and externalizing behaviors

were more common among high-risk participants, but no gender differences were found on these

measures. Secure participants exhibited lower externalizing behaviors overall and within both

males and females. Confirmatory factor analytic techniques provided support for measurement

invariance across normative and high-risk samples on YSR externalizing subscales. While no

relationship was found between attachment security and externalizing behavior in the high risk

sample of youth, structural modeling techniques indicated the presence of this relationship within

the normative sample.

2


The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors in

Normative versus High-Risk Samples

Externalizing behavior problems are the single most common reason for which young

children are referred for psychological treatment (Richman, 1985). Severe externalizing

behaviors, such as aggression and attention problems that arise in early childhood are likely to

endure into later childhood and adolescence (Campbell, 1995). Additionally, many youths

become involved in some type of delinquent externalizing behavior over the course of

adolescence (Moffitt, 1993) at great cost to the individuals involved, as well as to the

community. Although the precise etiology of these behaviors is unknown, it is certain that these

problems do not develop in a vacuum. Rather, child and adolescent development is influenced

by multiple contexts, one of the most salient of which is the family. Since its inception,

attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) has served as a useful lens through which to examine

the influence of family factors on development in childhood and, more recently, adolescence.

Though previous research has investigated relationships between externalizing behaviors

and attachment style, few studies have examined the way these relationships may function

differently across groups. In particular, researchers have not grappled with the question of

whether the relationship between attachment style and the development of externalizing

behaviors changes form after a certain threshold. Specifically, the question of whether the

relationship between attachment style and externalizing behaviors differs across normative and

high-risk groups of adolescents has not been addressed. In addition, there is a growing body of

literature suggesting that findings based on normative versus clinical/forensic studies of girls’

externalizing behaviors are inconsistent. The goal of the present study, therefore, is to examine

the nature and the function of the relationship between attachment styles and levels of

3


externalizing behaviors across both group and gender. This objective will be accomplished

through secondary data analysis. The value of this approach lies in the ability to integrate

existing databases to fill an essential void in attachment research. With the advantage of having

access to both normative and high-risk samples of adolescent males and females, the present

study will build on previous research by testing for invariant relationships across samples and

gender. This research will also extend attachment literature that has dealt extensively with

children but has only recently begun to examine these issues in adolescence.

The review of the literature begins with an overview of attachment theory, including a

discussion of the assessment of attachment in adolescence as it relates to the classification

scheme used in the present study. Externalizing behavior is then addressed with a focus on the

measurement of the behaviors of interest, aggression, delinquency, and attention problems.

Next, research examining each of these constructs from the perspective of attachment theory is

reviewed. Differences in attachment style and levels of externalizing behaviors in males versus

females and normative versus high-risk samples are then explored with regard to how these

differences will drive the current research questions.

Attachment Theory

Bowlby’s (1969/1982) influential work in attachment theory was derived largely from

ethological studies of animal behavior. He claimed that attachment is an instinctual system that

operates to maintain proximity to the mother, contributing to the survival of the individual or the

species. Attachment behavior encompasses the actions a child takes to maintain proximity to the

attachment figure. Stressful situations that constitute a threat to the individual activate the

attachment system and elicit attachment behavior (Rice, 1990). Cicchetti, Cummings,

Greenberg, and Marvin (1990) elaborated on these aspects of attachment, defining its three

4


“essential features:” 1) its function, protecting children from danger, 2) its outcome, regulating

proximity to the attachment figure, and 3) its set goal, establishing a state of security.

Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) described the quality or security of attachment

relationships as dependent on the attachment figure’s responsiveness. Children whose caretakers

respond reliably and appropriately to their attachment behavior are generally securely attached,

whereas those whose caretakers are unresponsive or unreliably responsive are generally

insecurely attached. In addition to appropriate response in times of distress, parents of securely

attached children have also been found to facilitate their children’s independent exploration

(Ainsworth, 1989).

Ainsworth et al. (1978) developed a classification system for attachment in infancy that

categorized children as avoidant, secure, or ambivalent. An avoidant child is characterized by a

lack of exploration before separation from the attachment figure and the tendency to ignore the

mother when they are reunited. Children who are classified as securely attached willingly

explore when under minimal stress and seek contact when they experience distress. It is believed

that the secure child is able to derive comfort from this contact and is then able to return to play.

An ambivalent child engages in little exploration and seeks closeness to the attachment figure

when experiencing minimal stress prior to separation. Upon reunion the child remains unsettled

and will seek and resist contact with the attachment figure.

Attachment relations are believed to persist even when attachment figures are not present.

Ainsworth (1969) and Bowlby (1969/1982) have both noted this durability of attachment

relations and have theorized that it results from the formation of what Ainsworth (1969) referred

to as “intra-organismic structures,” and what Bowlby (1969/1982) referred to as “internal

working models.” Bowlby contended that a child internalizes representations of the attachment

5


figure and his/her relationship with the attachment figure. The cognitive structures derived from

these representations are hypothesized to allow individuals to understand and anticipate what

occurs in the world around them and to assimilate information relevant to themselves and their

relationships with others.

Defining and measuring attachment beyond infancy. Ainsworth and Bowlby contended

that the internal working models developed in infancy maintain themselves by biasing perception

and cognition and by influencing how the child shapes his/her own interpersonal environment

(Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973). Bowlby suggested that because of the endurance of working

models, attachment behavior in adolescence and adulthood is a direct extension of childhood

attachment behavior. The evaluation of attachment beyond childhood through instruments such

as the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), involves assessing the internal working models

established earlier in life (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). The AAI does not seek to elicit

objective memories of past attachment related events; rather it endeavors to infer the individual’s

strategies for regulating the attachment system through the analysis of his/her narrative of

childhood attachment experiences (Van Ijzendoorn, 1995). The interview assesses the security

of the individual’s attachment by examining the coherence of his/her depiction of attachment

experiences and how well he/she is able to incorporate specific memories into a broader

understanding of the parent-child relationship. Unlike assessments of attachment in infancy, this

interview does not evaluate the current security of attachments and is not relationship specific

(Main et al., 1985).

Main and colleagues (1985) identified three major patterns for classifying adult

attachment. Within this scheme, individuals who are able to discuss past attachment experiences

coherently and integrate these experiences into their representations of themselves in

6


relationships are classified as securely attached. These individuals also value attachment

relationships. Dismissing attachment is marked by incoherent discourse regarding attachment

experiences. These individuals may idealize attachment figures, claim they are unable to recall

attachment experiences, or dismiss the impact of non-supportive experiences. Individuals

classified as dismissing may further belittle the need for attachment or attachment figures.

Individuals who are identified as having a preoccupied attachment style often exhibit anger in

discussing attachment relationships, have trouble separating past and present relationships, and

waiver between positive and negative appraisals of attachment experiences. Though they are

given different names, the classifications of insecure adult attachment described above are

analogous to the aforementioned insecure attachment classifications for infants. In other words,

dismissing attachment in adulthood is the counterpart of avoidant attachment in infancy (Maio,

Finchman, & Lycett, 2000), and preoccupied attachment is the counterpart of ambivalent

attachment (Allen et al., 2002).

Bartholomew (1990) expanded upon these three categories of adult attachment, defining

four attachment classifications based on two dimensions of internal working models. These two

dimensions include a self-model, characterized by the self-worth and anxiety experienced in

attachment relationships, and an other-model, characterized by the tendency to seek out or avoid

support. In this system, secure attachment involves having positive self- and other-models,

which enables one to develop intimate relationships while maintaining autonomy. Those with a

preoccupied pattern of attachment have a negative self-model and a positive other-model,

leading to the anxious pursuit of intimacy and reassurance. Dismissing attachment consists of a

positive self-model and a negative other-model, which results in high self-esteem, coupled with a

desire to preserves one’s independence in relationships. The fourth category in this system,

7


fearful attachment, involves negative self- and other-models. Those with a fearful attachment

pattern are believed to avoid intimacy because they fear loss.

Externalizing Behaviors

The behavioral and emotional problems that past research has examined in relationship to

attachment fall into two major categories, known as “externalizing” and “internalizing” behavior.

Aggressive and delinquent behavior and, in some cases, attention problems and hyperactivity fall

into the externalizing domain, whereas anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and withdrawal

are classified within the internalizing grouping (Achenbach, 1985). The present research will

concentrate specifically on the relationship between the attachment patterns and externalizing

behavior, which previous studies have shown to be significantly higher in insecurely versus

securely attached children (Speltz, Greenberg, & Deklyen, 1990).

Why is it important to study externalizing behaviors? Externalizing behavior is of

particular interest for a number of reasons. This type of disruptive behavior is the most common

referral problem for preschool children brought to child psychiatry clinics (Richman, 1985).

Externalizing behavior that is present at age three or four years is also likely to persist into

elementary school and early adolescence (probability around 50%) (Campbell, 1995). Moffitt

(1993) recognized this stability specifically in serious antisocial behavior over the lifespan but

also noted the temporary increase in the number of people involved in serious acts of

delinquency in adolescence. These features of externalizing behavior make it a particularly

interesting construct to investigate in adolescence, especially as it relates to attachment, a

construct rooted in childhood and theorized to influence behavior over the lifespan. Both

externalizing behavior and attachment boast strong developmental theories and empirical

research to support the nature of their growth from childhood to adolescence, making a

8


compelling case for a line of inquiry, like that undertaken in this study, aimed at developing a

more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the two constructs.

Measuring externalizing behavior. As noted above, externalizing behavior is an umbrella

term, encompassing a variety of problem behaviors that have been defined both by clinical

diagnoses and empirically based problem behavior syndromes. Two of the most widely used and

validated measures of externalizing behavior are the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the

Youth Self Report (YSR) (Achenbach, 1987). The CBCL is a measure that allows parents to

report on the competencies and behavioral and emotional problems of 4-18 year olds. The YSR

is a self-report measure designed for children with a mental age of at least 10 years that allows

adolescents to report on their own competencies and problems. The items used on the two

measures are identical to a large degree and yield scores for specific scales, including Attention

Problems, Delinquent Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. The DSM diagnoses of attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), and oppositional defiant disorder

(ODD) have also been viewed as externalizing behavior problems (Hinshaw, 1992). Gould,

Bird, and Jaramillo, (1993) investigated the convergence between the behavior problem

syndromes derived from the CBCL and YSR and psychiatric diagnoses based on the DSM-III.

The authors found a strong linear relationship between scores on the Attention Problems scale

and ADD, F (1, 225) = 55.1, p < .001. Scores on the Delinquent scale were linearly related to a

diagnosis of either conduct disorder or oppositional disorder, F (1,306) = 86.5, p < .001. A

strong linear relationship was also found between a diagnosis of either conduct disorder or

oppositional disorder and scores on the Aggressive scale, F (1, 306) = 142.7, p < .001.

9


The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors

Research has shown that parental warmth and attachment may reduce the negative effects

of stress and promote adaptive functioning in children (Garmezy, 1983). Conversely, insecure

attachment has been identified as a risk factor that interacts with other factors within the family

and the child to increase the likelihood of childhood behavior problems (Greenberg & Speltz,

1988). Arguably, insecure attachment may lead to deviant behavior when children whose

parents are not responsive and supportive develop models of attachment characterized by anger

and hostility. These children are also likely to believe that the people in their lives will not meet

their needs (Loeber & Dishon, 1983). Toth and Cicchetti (1996) proposed a similar idea,

claiming that a “maladaptive pathway” may link early insecure attachment to the development of

negative models of relationship figures in later childhood. In addition to developing negative

internal working models of attachment relationships, insecure children may learn to over or

under regulate their affect and behavior in reaction to caretakers who selectively respond to their

emotional needs (Sroufe, 1983). Other research indicates that close and affectionate

relationships between children and caretakers facilitate children’s internalization of rules of

conduct and increase the likelihood that children will feel committed to the welfare of others.

(Kochanska, Tjebkes, & Forman, 1998). The maladaptive externalizing behaviors that may

ultimately result from insecure attachments to parents are the focus of the current study.

The relationship between aggression and attachment. Past researchers have explored the

aforementioned externalizing behaviors, including aggressive behavior, delinquent behavior, and

attention problems, within the framework of attachment theory. Studies of aggression in

children have built on Bowlby’s (1969/1982, 1973) idea that the maladaptive views of the self

and others that result from insecure parent-child relationships put a child at risk for aggression.

10


Main and Goldwyn (1984) found that insecurely attached infants acted more aggressively toward

their mothers than did securely attached infants. This greater aggressiveness has been shown to

carry over into childhood among children with an avoidant attachment classification from low-

income samples (Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989). Studies of

middle-income samples, however, failed to find the same association (Fagot & Kavanagh, 1990;

Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog, & Jaskir, 1984) with the exception of Teti and Ablard’s (1989)

sibling study, which found securely attached children to be less aggressive and more compliant

than insecure children. Aggression and attachment have also been examined among physically

abused, neglected, and nonabused/nonneglected children (Finzi, Ram, Har-Evan, Shnit, &

Weizman, 2001). This research found that abused children were significantly more likely to

have an avoidant attachment style and higher aggression scores than the other two groups,

whereas neglected children were significantly more likely to display ambivalent attachment and

lower aggression than abused children. Nonabused/nonneglected children were characterized by

a secure attachment style (68.6%) and low aggression.

Aggression and noncompliance in childhood have also been linked to antisocial behavior

in adolescence (Loeber & Dishon, 1983), which researchers have only more recently begun to

examine in relation to attachment. Many studies of adolescents’ attachment to parents, however,

have focused on current relationship quality rather than attempting to assess the adolescent’s

models of attachment relationships formed in childhood. For example, Simons, Paternite, and

Shore (2001) found that adolescents’ perceived quality of mother-adolescent attachment was

negatively correlated to self-reported aggression. Other research has used attachment theory to

investigate how attachment to parents carries over specifically into other intimate relationships.

For instance, insecurely attached adolescents have been found to be more likely to be engaged in

11


reciprocally aggressive dating relationships than are securely attached adolescents (Bookwala &

Zdaniuk, 1998). In terms of more global measures of aggression and other externalizing

behaviors, the child or adolescent’s internal working model of attachment relationships is

thought to be the link between poor parenting in childhood and problem behavior in adolescence

(Allen, Aber, & Leadbeater, 1990). The present research hopes to elucidate the nature of the link

between attachment representations formed in early childhood and general aggressive behavior.

The role of attachment in explaining delinquency. The study of delinquency as it relates

to attachment is rooted directly in Bowlby’s (1944) original conception of attachment theory,

which was developed in part to explain the personality of juvenile thieves. Bowlby posited that

these juveniles had developed internal working models of others as unworthy of trust, empathy,

and concern, leading to a callous interpersonal style. In Hirschi’s (1969) criminological theory

of delinquent behavior, attachment was described as an affective relationship that facilitates the

internalization of norms. Those with insecure attachments may lack the social bonds that would

cause them to identify with the social order.

More recent work has produced evidence to support these claims that attachment is

related to delinquency. For example, Arsenio, Shea, and Sacks (2000) found that juvenile

offenders were more likely to be insecurely attached than their peers, while Allen, Moore,

Kuperminc, and Bell (1998) found that a combination of adolescent-reported self-worth,

adolescent-reported attachment to mother, and mother-reported maternal control predicted

mother-reported delinquent behavior. It was posited that delinquency may be a form of rebellion

against attachment figures’ norms and controls among insecure-dismissing adolescents (Allen,

Moore, & Kuperminc, 1997). Among insecure-preoccupied adolescents, delinquency may act as

a dysfunctional form of attachment behavior, increasing the intensity of interaction with

12


attachment figures (Allen et al., 1998). In this scenario, the increasing autonomy that

characterizes parent-child interactions in adolescence is hypothesized to be particularly

threatening to preoccupied adolescents (Allen et al., 2002). This combination of increasing

autonomy and the pre-existing vulnerability of preoccupied attachment may help to explain the

great increase in delinquency that occurs in adolescence (Moffitt, 1993). The present research

will attempt to replicate and further clarify the link between delinquency and specific attachment

styles.

Exploring the relationship between attention problems and attachment. Though less

research has been devoted to exploring the relationship between attention problems and

attachment, a few studies have attempted to link these two constructs. Ladnier and Massanari

(2000) pointed out that behaviors characteristic of avoidant children are similar to symptoms of

ADHD, but failed to produce evidence that ADHD occurs with greater frequency among

children with an avoidant attachment style. Alternatively, another recent study found that the

type of attachment insecurity that was present in those children diagnosed with ADHD was

consistent with an ambivalent attachment style (Clarke, Ungerer, Chahoud, Johnson, & Stiefel,

2002). Smith (1994) posited a phenomenon he referred to as dis-attachment that results from a

failure of the mother to bond with a child who is very demanding and difficult to comfort.

Almost all of the children Smith studied who experienced this dis-attachment also exhibited

symptoms of ADHD. Rather than proposing that the lack of secure attachment causes ADHD,

however, he claimed that an underlying deficit in the neurotransmitter, serotonin, is responsible

for the symptoms of ADHD as well as those behaviors that prohibit proper parent-child bonding.

In a similar vein, Ladnier and Massanari (2000) described ADHD as a consequence of

“attachment deficits” that result from “bonding breaks.” A bonding break is an event that

13


prevents a child from forming a secure attachment to a caretaker. The trauma of failed

attachment interferes with neurological development, resulting in attachment deficits, or

shortcomings in the child’s emotional development. These deficiencies in emotional

development are reflected in the emotional and behavioral symptoms of ADHD.

The direction of this past research points to a connection between attention problems and

attachment style, but the work done thus far has failed to operationalize attachment in a

consistent and meaningful way and has looked only at attention problems as they are expressed

in those diagnosed with ADHD, ignoring those who may have subclinical levels of these

problems. Research examining attention problems as they exists on a continuum from the

perspective of attachment theory may be revealing of how attachment style relates to attention

difficulties in those who fall both above and below the clinical cutoff for a diagnosis of ADHD.

Does Gender Matter in the Examination of Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors?

Although researchers have drawn comparisons between male and females in the study of

attachment, these studies have focused almost exclusively on children. The present study seeks

to extend this research into adolescence. According to Bowlby’s (1969/1982) conception of

attachment, males and females are equally likely to be securely attached, yet he noted that

females were more likely to exhibit ambivalent attachment, whereas males were more likely to

exhibit avoidant attachment. Current research will examine whether this trend continues into

adolescence, with females more likely to exhibit preoccupied attachment and males more likely

to exhibit dismissing attachment.

With respect to externalizing behavior, previous research has consistently found males to

display higher levels of this behavior than females. An investigation of problem behavior in

childhood found that boys were more often placed in the clinical cut-off group for problem

14


behavior than were girls (Moss, Rousseau, Parent, St-Laurent, & Saintonge, 1998). Psychiatric

diagnoses of behavior disorders also differ between males and females. Boys outnumber girls

with a ratio of 3:1 for ADHD and with a ratio of 2:1 to 3:1 for CD (Robins, 1991). In a study

employing the CBCL, girls also received lower scores in delinquent and aggressive behavior

(Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). An exception to these findings is the fact that females who are

found in clinical/adjudicated populations often display a greater number of co-morbid problems

than males in these settings (Moretti & Odgers, 2002).

Still, few studies have examined these constructs in a way that allows for a direct

comparison of the relationship between attachment style and externalizing behavior in males and

females. Moreover, the research that exists has yielded conflicting findings. For example, some

evidence has pointed to a stronger relationship between problem behavior and insecure

attachment in boys than in girls (Lewis et al., 1984), showing that 40% of insecure males

compared to 6% of secure males scored above the 90th percentile on the CBCL Problem Total

score, while no significant effects of attachment security were found for girls. This same study,

however, found that boys classified as insecurely attached had more internalizing problems than

securely attached boys, whereas girls classified as insecurely attached had more externalizing

problems. Furthermore, another study found that girls who were categorized as insecure-

avoidant were rated as more difficult than securely attached girls and boys (Fagot & Kavanagh,

1990).

Unique Relationship in High-Risk Samples

Studies of attachment and externalizing behavior have also explored these constructs

within both normative and high-risk populations. The research presented thus far has included

work done with samples drawn from both of these populations. Clinical/high-risk samples

15


deserve special attention, however, as the prevalence of attachment insecurity and externalizing

behavior as well as the relationship between these two constructs in these groups may differ from

normative samples. Scharfe (2002) found that attachment could be reliably measured in a

clinical sample of adolescents. Nevertheless, the distribution of children and adolescents across

the attachment classifications varies between high-risk and normative samples. Among

preschool aged children, Speltz, Greenberg, and Deklyen (1990) found that only 20% of clinic

children exhibited secure attachments, whereas 72% of the comparison group was securely

attached. An investigation of attachment in an adolescent clinic sample revealed that 94% of the

sample was insecurely attached (Scharfe, 2002). The present study will seek to replicate these

findings.

Externalizing behavior has also been the focus of many studies comparing high-risk and

normative samples. Ramos-Marcuse & Arsenio (2001) found that these behaviors were greater

among clinic-referred children than among non-clinic-referred children. Moreover, comorbidity

rates of the externalizing behaviors currently under investigation may be higher in a clinical

sample than in a normative sample due to “Berkson’s bias” (Berkson, 1946). Berkson’s bias

refers to the higher probability that those with multiple disorders will be referred for mental

health services.

Despite a body of research that compares normative and high-risk samples with regard to

attachment style and externalizing behavior, past research has yet to explore how the relationship

between these constructs may differ between normative and high-risk samples. Although direct

comparisons between these two samples cannot be drawn from the research to date, studies of

high-risk samples of children have found a relationship between insecure attachment and

externalizing behavior (Renken et al., 1989) that studies of normative samples have failed to find

16


(Fagot & Kavanagh, 1990; Lewis et al., 1984). With the advantage of access to both a normative

and high-risk sample, the present research will improve upon these studies by testing for

invariant relationships across samples and exploring these questions among adolescents.

The research reviewed above has shown that adolescents’ attachment styles reflect the

relationships forged with their parents in early childhood (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Through the

adolescent’s internal working models of attachment relationships, poor parenting in childhood

may continue to influence problem behavior in adolescence (Allen, Aber, & Leadbeater, 1990).

Past research has established that certain groups, like males and females (Bowlby, 1969/1982)

and normative and high-risk populations (Speltz, Greenberg, and Deklyen, 1990; Scharfe, 2002),

vary in the prevalence of specific attachment styles. Additionally, males (Moss, Rousseau,

Parent, St-Laurent, & Saintonge, 1998; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997) and those drawn from high-

risk groups (Ramos-Marcuse & Arsenio, 2001) have been found to exhibit higher levels of

externalizing behaviors. Despite these bodies of research dealing separately with attachment and

externalizing behaviors in these groups, previous studies have yet to examine how the

relationship between these constructs may differ between males and females or normative and

high-risk samples. The present study will explore how the association between attachment style

and externalizing behaviors varies by gender and sample (normative versus high-risk).

Hypotheses

1. A greater proportion of the normative sample will be securely attached.

2. Males will display a dismissing attachment style more often than females, while females will display a preoccupied attachment style more often than males.

3.

1. High-risk participants will exhibit higher levels of attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behavior than normative participants.

17


4. Males will exhibit higher levels of attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behavior than females.

5. Insecure attachment will predict higher levels of each type of externalizing behavior.

6. Attachment insecurity will be a better predictor of externalizing behavior among females than among males.

7. Attachment insecurity will be a better predictor of externalizing behavior in a high-risk sample than in a normative sample. To test these hypotheses, the present research drew samples from larger studies of

normative and high-risk adolescents. Attachment and externalizing behaviors were examined

independently and in relation to one another within each sample. Externalizing behaviors were

assessed as three constructs, attention problems, aggressive behavior, and delinquent behavior.

In addition, samples were split by gender to allow for comparisons of males and females. By

these means, the current research sought to determine how gender and population from which

one is drawn (normative versus high-risk), may affect how attachment style relates to

externalizing behaviors.

Methods

Participants

Normative sample. This sample was drawn from a larger longitudinal investigation of

adolescent social development in familial and peer contexts. Participants included 186

adolescents (87 male and 98 female). The mean age of the adolescents was 14.25 years (SD =

0.82), with a range from 12 to 16 years. The racial/ethnic background of the sample was 60.8%

Caucasian, 38.7% minority, with 0.5% unreported. The sample was primarily (82.4%) of upper

middle and upper socioeconomic status.

Adolescents were recruited from a public middle school drawing from suburban and

urban populations in the Mid Atlantic United States. Recruitment consisted of an initial mailing

to all parents in the school along with follow-up contact efforts at school lunches. Participants

18


provided informed assent before each interview session, and parents provided informed consent.

All interviews took place in private offices within a university academic building.

High-risk sample. This sample was drawn from a larger longitudinal study of attachment

and antisocial behavior among high-risk adolescents. Participants included 271 adolescents (166

male and 105 female). The mean age of the adolescents was 14.34 years (SD = 1.49), with a

range from 10 to 18 years. The racial/ethnic background of the sample was 48% Caucasian, 14%

minority, with 38% unreported. Though 83.4% of the sample failed to report their

socioeconomic status, 88.9% of those who did report on SES were of lower and lower middle

status.

Adolescents were recruited from a mental health center that serves a largely urban

population in Western Canada. Participants were recruited upon entry to the mental health

center, either on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Active parental consent was obtained. All

interviews took place in private offices within the mental health center.

As these were convenience samples, they were not matched a priori with respect to

demographic characteristics. As such, the results must be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Measures

Adolescent Attachment Interview (AAI) (Carlson, 1989). Adolescents in the normative

sample were interviewed with the AAI, a modified version of the Adult Attachment Interview

(Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985) that maintains the same basic interview format. This semi-

structured interview was designed to investigate adult’s attachment representations by probing

for descriptions of early attachment relationships and specific memories that support and

contradict these descriptions. For example, participants were asked to list five words describing

their early childhood relationships with their parents and then to describe specific episodes that

19


reflected those words. Other questions focused on instances of distress, loss, separation, trauma,

and rejection. Lastly, the interviewer asked the participant to give descriptions of changes in

relationships with parents and the current state of those relationships. Scoring focused on the

individual’s state of mind regarding attachment by examining the accessibility of early

experiences to memory and the coherence of the participant’s narrative. Based on this interview,

adolescents were classified as secure, preoccupied, dismissing, or unclassifiable.

Family Attachment Interview (FAI) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Adolescents in

the high-risk sample were interviewed with the FAI. This interview was designed to assess

experiences and feelings in family relationships and the coherence of accounts of those

relationships. Participants were asked to describe their family history and their feelings about

the importance of family relationships. With regard to relationships with their caregivers,

participants were asked to describe their reactions to instances of separation or loss, feelings in

the relationship, and changes since childhood. Participants were classified as secure,

preoccupied, dismissing, fearful, or even split.

The various attachment classifications derived from the AAI and the FAI were combined

to create four common categories of attachment style for use in the present study. This course of

action is justifiable based on research that has found a 78% correspondence between the three

main categories of attachment in the AAI (secure, preoccupied, and dismissing) and the

corresponding categories for the FAI (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998). Those who were

unclassifiable based on the AAI were combined with those who were labeled even split based on

the FAI, as these categories have roughly the same meaning in their respective coding systems.

Those who were classified as fearful based on the FAI were labeled dismissing for the purposes

20


of this study, as both of these orientations to attachment drive avoidant behavior (Bartholomew,

Henderson, & Dutton, 2001).

Youth Self Report (YSR) (Achenbach, 1987). The YSR is a self-report measure designed

for children with a mental age of at least 10 years that allows adolescents to report on their own

competencies and problems. The original form of the YSR includes 112 items divided into 9

scales: Withdrawn, Somatic Complaints, Anxious/Depressed, Social Problems, Thought

Problems, Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. Participants

were asked to rate how well a number of descriptions of symptomatic behaviors applied to them

within the past 6 months, on a scale of 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 =

very often or often true. Both the normative and high-risk samples were given shortened

versions of the YSR. The present study employed only those items from the YSR that were

drawn from the Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior scales and

were administered to both samples.

Results

Analyses I: Prevalence of Attachment Styles by Sample and Gender

As illustrated in Table 1, the normative sample had a greater proportion of securely

attached participants, while the high-risk sample had a greater percentage of participants in each

of the other attachment classifications, even split, preoccupied, and dismissing. While no gender

differences were found in even split or secure attachment, a greater percentage of females were

classified as preoccupied, whereas a greater percentage of males were classified as dismissing.

Additional analyses yielded the same pattern of gender differences within the normative and

high-risk samples (see Table 2).

21


_____________________

Insert Tables 1 & 2 here

______________________

Analyses II: Levels of Externalizing Behavior

Univariate analyses of variance, reported in Table 3, examined whether levels of

externalizing behavior differed significantly between sample or gender groupings. The high-risk

sample exhibited greater attention problems, aggression, and delinquent behavior than the

normative sample. While no significant gender differences were found in attention problems,

aggressive behavior, or delinquent behavior in the combined sample or in the normative sample

alone (see Table 4), high-risk females exhibited significantly greater attention problems than did

their high-risk male counterparts.

______________________

Insert Tables 3 & 4 here

______________________

Analyses III: The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors

Additional univariate analyses of variance were performed to investigate possible

associations between the various attachment styles and externalizing behaviors. These analyses

were carried out with the entire sample and with each of the gender and sample groups

separately. Results for the combined sample (see Table 5) indicated that secure attachment was

associated with fewer attention problems and less aggressive and delinquent behavior.

Preoccupied attachment predicted greater attention problems and aggressive and delinquent

behavior. Dismissing attachment was associated only with greater delinquent behavior.

___________________

Insert Table 5 here

____________________

22


When the entire sample was split by gender, secure attachment was associated with fewer

attention problems and less aggressive and delinquent behavior in both males and females (see

Table 6). Preoccupied attachment was associated with greater attention problems and aggressive

and delinquent behavior in females, but predicted only greater attention problems and aggressive

behavior in males. Dismissing attachment was not associated with any difference in

externalizing behaviors except for greater attention problems in females.

______________________

Insert Table 6 here

______________________

With the exception of greater aggressive behavior among preoccupied normative

participants (F (1, 136) = 4.67, p = .032), the associations between attachment styles and

externalizing behaviors did not exist in the normative and high-risk samples when they were

analyzed separately. Males and females were also analyzed separately within each sample,

revealing greater aggressive behavior among normative females with a preoccupied attachment

style (F (1, 69) = 5.43, p = .023). This finding constituted the only significant association

between attachment style and externalizing behavior within the four sub-samples defined by

gender and sample type (see Table 7). In order to examine the nature of these relationships more

closely, a series of advanced statistical analyses were performed. Specifically the goals of these

analysis were to; (1) ensure that the same latent construct of aggression was being measured

across groups, and (2) test for the possibility that the decrease in statistical significance was due

the reduced sample size created by within group analyses.

______________________

Insert Table 7 here

______________________

23


Analyses IV: Structural Modeling

The first set of advanced analyses involved fitting a series of multigroup factor analytic

models and testing for invariance across the high risk and normative samples. This procedure

was used to test for measurement equivalence across the two groups. Although the same measure

of externalizing behavior was used (Youth Self Report), the possibility existed that that the

underlying construct that they were tapping into was qualitatively different (McArdle, 1996;

McArdle & Nesselroade, 1994). In order to determine that aggression had been measured

equivalently across the samples the factor loading patterns from observed indicators of

aggression to the latent constructs of aggression had to be equal across the samples. The items

used as indicators included I destroy other people's things, ‘destroy,’ I disobey at school,

‘school,’ I get in many fights, ‘fights,’ I have a hot temper, ‘temper,’ I threaten to hurt people,

‘threaten.’

The key question guiding this analysis was whether:

1. the factor structure of aggression was invariant across normative and high-risk samples. Previous research using similar measures has assumed that the structure of aggression is equivalent across gender and has simply summed the items to form subscales.

In order to determine the best model for the data, a series of confirmatory models were

fit. Prior to testing for invariance across the normative and high-risk samples, a baseline model

was established for each group separately. Alternative models were then fit separately. The fit of

the model that constrained both the variances and loadings to be equal was acceptable (χ2 = 35.2,

df = 14, RMSEA = .06). Specifically, there was no significant improvement in fit when

constraints were lifted.

______________________

Insert Figures 1 & 2 here

______________________

24


The second set of advanced analyses also involved fitting a series of multigroup

confirmatory factor analytic models. Here, the question was whether information could be gained

by using the true score of aggression within a factor model as the dependent variable in a

structural framework. This “true” score was free of measurement error and allowed for a more

precise estimation of the association between the independent and dependent variables.

The key questions guiding these analyses were whether:

2. the relationships between gender, attachment and aggression were better understood within a structural modeling framework, and whether

3. the relationship between gender, attachment, and aggression differed significantly between high-risk and normative adolescents.

In order to determine the best model for the data, a series of confirmatory models were fit.

Prior to testing for invariance across the normative and high-risk samples, a baseline model was

established for each group separately. Alternative models were then fit and evaluated against the

baseline model. The first model was the most restrictive and constrained all of the parameter

estimates and variances to be equivalent across the sample. While this model demonstrated an

acceptable level of fit (χ2 = 63.3. df = 33, RMSEA = .04), the fit improved significantly when the

regressions from ‘gender’ and ‘secure’ to ‘aggression’ were allowed to vary.

______________________

Insert Figures 3 & 4 here

______________________

Discussion

The present study sought to develop a greater understanding of how gender and the

nature of the sample (high-risk versus normative) may affect the relationships between

participants’ specific attachment styles and self-reported externalizing behaviors. This study has

yielded several significant differences between the groups in question and affirms the need for

25


research comparing normative and high-risk samples with respect to attachment style and

externalizing behavior.

The Role of Gender and Sample Type in the Prevalence of Specific Attachment Styles

It was expected that attachment security would be greater in the normative sample.

Findings supported this hypothesized difference in the frequency of various attachment styles

based on sample type, revealing that secure attachment was more common among normative

participants, while each of the other attachment styles, even split, preoccupied, and dismissing,

were found with greater frequency in the high-risk sample. These findings are consistent with

the findings of previous researchers (Speltz et al., 1990; Scharfe, 2002).

Hypotheses pertaining to gender predicted that males would be more likely to display

dismissing attachment than females, while females would be more likely to display preoccupied

attachment than males. Females were in fact more likely to be classified as preoccupied, while

males were more likely to be classified as dismissing. These results are in keeping with

Bowlby’s (1969) findings that female infants were more likely to exhibit ambivalent attachment,

while males were more likely to exhibit avoidant attachment. This finding provides evidence of

stability in gender differences in attachment style over the lifespan. The replication of this

gender difference also reaffirms the need to study the impact of gender on the relationship

between attachment style and its various correlates.

Is Aggression Qualitatively Different Across High-risk and Normative Youth?

Advanced statistical analyses were employed to determine whether the items used to

measure the externalizing behaviors were assessing the same three constructs in both the

normative and high-risk samples. The factor analytic techniques used to make this determination

could be employed only with the items measuring aggressive behavior, as the number of items

26


measuring delinquent behavior and attention problems were insufficient to perform the analyses.

Findings established that the construct of aggressive behavior that the selected YSR items were

attempting to measure was not qualitatively different across samples, despite the quantitative

differences in levels of aggressive behavior found in the two samples. This result holds promise

for the current and future research, in that the same measures can be used to measure this

construct in normative and high-risk samples, allowing for more straightforward comparisons of

these groups.

When was Gender of Importance in Predicting Externalizing Behavior?

As expected, high-risk youth had higher rates of externalizing behavior, however, there

were no significant gender differences found in any of the externalizing behaviors within the

combined sample. This finding is intriguing given that past research has consistently found

higher rates of externalizing behaviors in males (Moss, Rousseau, Parent, St-Laurent, &

Saintonge, 1998; Robins, 1991; Gjone & Stevenson, 1997). A possible explanation for the lack

of significant gender differences is the use of self-report measures. Such measures may yield

higher scores for externalizing behaviors among females, as they are free from the biases of

clinicians and other reporters who may be reluctant to give externalizing diagnoses or high

ratings on externalizing behaviors to females as these behaviors violate gender stereotypes.

Although no gender differences were found in the sample overall, separate analyses of

the high-risk and normative samples revealed gender differences within these groups. Univariate

analyses of variance found that high-risk females had higher levels of attention problems than

high-risk males, which could be explained by the idea that females who are found in a

clinical/adjudicated population often have more co-morbid problems than males in these settings

(Moretti & Odgers, 2002). Confirmatory factor analytic models revealed relationships that had

27


previously gone undetected; namely, that males within normative populations were more likely

to exhibit aggressive behavior. This finding could be a result of selection bias, since females may

need to have levels of externalizing behavior comparable to males’ to become part of the high-

risk sample.

The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors

Insecure attachment was hypothesized to predict higher levels of aggressive behavior,

delinquent behavior, and attention problems. When the sample was analyzed as a whole,

findings generally supported this hypothesis, with secure attachment associated with lower levels

of each behavior. These results are in line with previous research that has linked secure

attachment to lower levels of aggressive behavior (Main and Goldwin, 1984; Teti and Ablard’s,

1989; Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001; Bookwala & Zdaniuk, 1998), delinquent behavior

(Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, and Bell, 1998; Allen, Moore, & Kuperminc, 1997; Allen et al.,

2002), and attention problems (Ladnier and Massanari, 2000; Clarke, Ungerer, Chahoud,

Johnson, & Stiefel, 2002; Smith, 1994).

28


The role of preoccupied attachment style. Preoccupied attachment was associated with

higher levels of each externalizing behavior. This finding conforms to past research that has

found relationships between attention problems and preoccupied attachment (Clarke et al., 2002),

as well as between delinquent behavior and preoccupied attachment (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc,

and Bell, 1998; Allen, Moore, & Kuperminc, 1997; Allen et al., 2002). Conversely, the specific

association found between preoccupied attachment and higher levels of aggressive behavior,

coupled with a lack of association between dismissing attachment and aggressive behavior, was

inconsistent with past findings (Renken, Egeland, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroufe, 1989;

Finzi, Ram, Har-Evan, Shnit, & Weizman, 2001) linking aggression exclusively to avoidant

attachment. One potential explanation for these contradictory findings is the difference in the

ages of the samples being compared. Previous research has been done mainly with infants and

children, while the present study examined adolescents. The preeminence of preoccupied

attachment as a predictor of aggression among adolescents may be related to Allen and

colleagues’ (2002) idea that increasing autonomy in adolescence may be especially threatening

to preoccupied adolescents, causing an increase in their behavior problems at this age.

The implications of dismissing attachment style. Also in keeping with hypotheses and

past research (Allen, Moore, Kuperminc, and Bell, 1998; Allen, Moore, & Kuperminc, 1997;

Allen et al., 2002), a relationship was found between dismissing attachment higher levels of

delinquent behavior.

The Role of Attachment in Predicting Externalizing Behavior Among Males versus Females

Attachment insecurity was expected to be a better predictor of externalizing behavior

among females than among males. Partial support was found for this hypothesis, as preoccupied

and dismissing attachment styles were related to higher levels of a greater number of

29


externalizing behaviors in females than in males. Past research suggesting a stronger

relationship between externalizing behavior and insecure attachment in females than in males

(Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog, & Jaskir, 1984; Fagot & Kavanaugh, 1990) was echoed by the

discovery that insecure-preoccupied attachment predicted higher levels of all externalizing

behaviors for females, but failed to predict higher delinquent behavior in males. Additionally,

insecure-dismissing attachment failed to predict higher levels of any of the externalizing

behaviors for males, but did predict greater attention problems in females. One possible

interpretation of this finding draws on evidence from past research (Bowlby, 1969/1982), as well

as from the present study, that points to a lower proportion of females exhibiting dismissing

attachment. Studies have also found that females are less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD

(Robins, 1991). Thus, the association between dismissing attachment and attention problems

may be related to a third variable, gender role deviation.

Contrary to the hypothesis, however, the reverse relationship of secure attachment to

lower levels of externalizing behavior was not more prevalent among females, as this

relationship existed in both males and females when the sexes were analyzed separately. Beyond

providing further evidence that females’ externalizing behavior is better predicted by insecure

attachment than is males’ externalizing behavior, these findings indicate that externalizing

behaviors are associated with different types of insecure attachment in males versus females.

The Role of Attachment in Predicting Externalizing Behavior Among High-Risk Youth

Attachment insecurity was expected to be a better predictor of externalizing behavior in a

high-risk sample than in a normative sample. Univariate analyses of variance yielded no support

for this hypothesis, revealing that, despite a finding of greater aggressive behavior among

preoccupied normative participants, no associations were found between attachment style and

30


externalizing behavior when the normative and high-risk samples were examined separately.

Advanced analyses, however, found that, in the normative sample, aggressive behavior is lower

among those with a secure attachment style. No such relationship was found in the high-risk

sample. These findings are also contrary to the hypothesis and directly oppose past work that

has found a relationship between insecure attachment and externalizing behavior in a high-risk

sample (Renken et al., 1989), while studies of normative samples have failed to find such a

relationship (Fagot & Kavanagh, 1990; Lewis et al., 1984). A possible explanation for this

reversal of past findings is the distribution of participants in each sample over the attachment

classifications. Although the majority of normative participants in the present study were

classified as secure, this group showed greater variability in attachment classification than the

high-risk group, which was overwhelmingly insecurely attached (84.1%).

The current research replicated many of the findings of past studies, including the higher

levels of insecure attachment and externalizing behavior found in high-risk samples as well as

the relationship between secure attachment and lower levels of externalizing behavior found in

the combined sample. The failure to find a relationship between attachment style and

externalizing behavior in the high-risk sample, however, contradicted hypotheses and precluded

the possibility of comparing how that relationship might function differently in the normative

versus the high-risk sample. Still, these results should be considered a first step toward research

that allows such comparisons and should be viewed in light of the methodological weaknesses

inherent in any secondary data analysis.

Limitations

In the present study, data was brought together from two large-scale studies. Although

some of the same measurement instruments were employed in these studies, they were conducted

31


independently and for different purposes. Thus, the samples were not matched for demographic

characteristics, like socioeconomic status, living environment (small versus large urban area), or

ethnicity. Demographic dissimilarities between the samples present a problem, as they represent

other variables on which the samples differ. These other variables cannot be ignored as possible

explanations for any differences found between the two groups.

Other limitations of the present study center on the measurements of attachment

employed in each study. Different attachment interviews were used in the two samples and were

combined to create common categories of attachment style in which to classify each participant.

In doing so, benefits of each of the original measures of attachment may have been lost. The

Adolescent Attachment Interview yielded a continuous scale of attachment style that had to be

collapsed into categories, eliminating all variability that existed within each category of

attachment, which could have allowed for the analysis of relationships between levels of security

and insecurity and levels of externalizing behavior. The Family Attachment Interview included a

third type of attachment insecurity, fearful attachment. In combining the measures, this category

had to be merged with dismissing attachment. Although both fearful and dismissing attachment

are related to avoidant attachment behaviors, the fearful category is a well-validated

classification that does not overlap perfectly with any other insecure attachment style. Given

that the two insecure attachment styles were differentially associated with the three externalizing

behaviors in males versus females, the loss of this fourth category may have curtailed the ability

to find more specific relationships between externalizing behavior and different types of insecure

attachment in males and females.

Additionally, attachment interviews were not given to every individual in the samples.

ANOVAs were run to determine whether there was a significant difference in levels of

32


externalizing behaviors among those in each sample who were given attachment interviews

versus those who were not. These analyses revealed that high-risk participants who were given

the interview had higher levels of delinquent behavior (F (1, 245) = 4.90, p = .028) and that,

although the finding was not statistically significant, there was a trend showing normative

participants who were not given the attachment interview to be higher in aggressive behavior (F

(1, 171) = 2.91, p < .10).

Another limitation was the available measure of externalizing behaviors. These

constructs were assessed via items from the Youth Self report. Unfortunately, each study from

which data was drawn employed different shortened from of the YSR; therefore, only those

items that overlapped between the two studies could be used in the present study, leaving only

three markers of attention problems, three markers of delinquent behavior, and five markers of

aggressive behavior. Adding each participant’s scores on the items representing each of the

three externalizing behaviors created a score indicating the participant’s level of each behavior.

The small number of items available allowed for only a small possible range of scores defining

the levels of each externalizing behavior, reducing variability in those scores. Having only three

items to define attention problems and delinquent behavior also precluded the use of factor

analytic techniques to assess the quality of these items as measures of the intended constructs.

Implications, Recommendations, and Questions Raised by this Study

This study is a meaningful step toward research that is truly able to compare high-risk

and normative samples with regard to the relationship between attachment and externalizing

behavior. Future research should be designed with such comparisons in mind, bringing together

samples from each type of population, matched for various demographic confounds, and

assessed with the same measures of attachment and externalizing behavior.

33


Future research could also improve upon the current study by taking advantage of the

aforementioned benefits of the different measures of attachment and by adding measures of

externalizing behavior, like the CBCL and TRF, that would take into account the perspectives of

multiple reporters. Employing measures of internalizing behavior would also enhance future

research, as these behaviors may be less confounded with high-risk/clinical status and could,

therefore, yield greater variability within each type of sample.

Although the present findings partially support the idea that attachment is related to

externalizing behavior, the inability to draw causal conclusions from the available data raises a

question of causality that is worthy of further exploration. The externalizing behaviors measured

in this study may arise at different points in the life span but could also have precursors in

infancy that make the child more difficult to deal with. Attachment theory contends that

parenting behavior shapes the development of internal working models in infancy that are

expressed as secure or insecure attachment styles (Bowlby, 1969/1982). Insecure attachment has

been identified as a risk factor that interacts with other factors within the family and the child to

increase the likelihood of childhood behavior problems (Greenberg & Speltz, 1988). Further

research is necessary, however to determine whether parenting behavior works through

attachment to cause behavior problems or if early precursors of behavior problems alter

parenting behavior, resulting in different parent-child interactions that are later expressed as

various attachment styles.

The finding that stands out most in this investigation, however, is that secure attachment

is associated with lower levels of externalizing behavior in the normative sample yet not in the

high-risk sample. While normative adolescents’ internal models of attachment relationships are

significantly related to the likelihood that they will engage in externalizing behaviors, these

34


attachment representations do not predict behavior among high-risk adolescents. This finding

may indicate that, though high-risk adolescents are less likely to be securely attached, attachment

insecurity is not the key to understanding their high levels of externalizing behavior. These

results may point to a more far-reaching dissimilarity between normative and high-risk groups.

As such, work aimed at developing interventions to reduce problem behaviors in adolescence

should avoid generalizing from normative to high-risk samples and should focus treatments on

the unique needs of the targeted group. Though the present research is a first step in discovering

how these groups differ, far more work is needed to determine the various factors that influence

behavior among high-risk adolescents.

References

Achenbach, T.M. (1985). Assessment and taxonomy of child and adolescent psychopathology.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Achenbach, T.M. & Edelbrock, C. (1987). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and Profile.

Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Wittig, B.A. (1969). Attachment and the exploratory behavior of one-

year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.),, Determinants of infant behavior (Vol.

4, pp. 113-136). London:Methuen.

Allen, J.P., Aber, J.L., & Leadbeater, B.J. (1990). Adolescent problem behaviors: The influence

of attachment and autonomy. Psychiatry Clinics of North America, 13(3), 455-467.

Allen, J.P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K.B., Land, D., Jodl, K., & Peck, S. (2002).

Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and

35


delinquency during midadolescence. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology,

70(1), 56-66.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C. M., & Kuperminc, G. P. (1997). Developmental approaches to

understanding adolescent deviance. In S. S. Luthar & J. A. Burack (Eds.), Developmental

psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 548–567). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent

psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406–1419.

Arsenio, W., Shea, T., & Sacks, B. (2000). Juvenile offenders’ and comparison adolescents’

conceptions of the emotional consequences of victimization: Relations with attachment

and empathy. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.

Bartholomew, K., Henderson, A., & Dutton, D. (2001). Insecure attachment and abusive

intimate relationships. In C. Clulow (Ed.), Adult attachment and couple psychotherapy:

The ‘secure base’ in practice and research (pp. 43-61). London: Brunner-Routledge.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test

of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Berkson, J. (1946). Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data.

Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 47-53.

Bookwala, J., & Zdaniuk, B. (1998). Adult attachment styles and aggressive behavior within

dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 15, 175-190.

Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life. International

36


Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19-52.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

(Original work published 1969)

Campbell, S.B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 113-149.

Carlson, E.A. (1989). Individual differences in quality of representational organization of

attachment of high risk adolescent mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia

University, New York, New York.

Cichetti, D., Cummings, E.M., Greenberg, M.T., & Marvin, R.S. (1990). An organizational

perspective on attachment beyond infancy: Implications for theory, measurement, and

research. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the

preschool years: Theory, research and intervention (pp. 3-49). Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Clarke, L., Ungerer, J., Chahoud, K., Johnson, S., & Stiefel, I. (2002). Attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder is associated with attachment insecurity. Clinical Child

Psychology & Psychiatry, 7(2), 179-198.

Fagot, B.I., & Kavanagh, K. (1990). The prediction of antisocial behavior from avoidant

attachment classifications. Child Development, 61, 864-873.

Finzi, R., Ram, A., Har-Even, D., Shnit, D., & Weizman, A. (2001). Attachment styles and

aggression in physically abused and neglected children. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 30(6), 769-786.

Garmezy, N. (1983). Stressors of childhood. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping

37


and development in children (pp. 43-84). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gjone, H., & Stevenson, J. (1997). A longitudinal twin study of temperament and behavior

problems: Common genetic or environmental influences? Journal of the American

Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(10), 1448-1456.

Gould, M.S., Bird, H., Jaramillo, B.S. (1993). Correspondence between statistically derived

behavior problem syndromes and child psychiatric diagnoses in a community sample.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21(3), 287-313.

Greenberg, M.T., & Speltz, M.L. (1988). Contributions of attachment theory to the

understanding of conduct problems during the preschool years. In J. Belsky & T.

Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 177-218). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression:

Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting & Clinical

Psychology, 60(6), 893-903.

Hirschi, T. (1969). The causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kochanska, G., Tjebkes, T.L., & Forman, D.R. (1998). Children’s emerging regulation of

conduct: Restraint, compliance, and internalization from infancy to the second year.

Child Development, 69(5), 1378-1389.

Ladnier, R.D., & Massanari, A.E. (2000). Treating ADHD as attachment deficit disorder. In

T.M. Levy (Ed.), Handbook of attachment interventions (pp. 27-65). San Diego:

Academic Press, Inc.

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in six-

year-olds from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123-136.

38


Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review.

Psychological Bulletin, 93, 68-99.

Main, M. (1991) Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent)

vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: Findings and directions for future

research. In C.M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, et al. (Eds.), Attachment across the life

cycle. (pp. 127-159).

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from mother’s

representation of her own experience: Implications for the abused-abusing

intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203-217.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A

move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points

in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child

Development, 50, 66-104.

Maio, G.R., Fincham, F.D., & Lycett, E.J. Attitudinal ambivalence toward parents and

attachment style. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1451-1464.

McArdle, J. J. (1996). Current directions in structural factor analysis. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 5, 11-18.

McArdle, J. J. & Nesselroade, J.R. (1994). Structuring data to study development and change.

In, S.H. Cohen & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-Span developmental psychology:

methodological innovation (pp. 223-267). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A

developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.

Moretti, M., & Odgers, C. (2002). Aggressive and violent girls: Prevalence, profiles, and

39


contributing factors. In R.R. Corrado, R. Roesch, S.D. Hart, & J.K. Gierowski (Eds.),,

Multi-problem violent youth: A foundation for comparative research on needs,

interventions, and outcomes (pp. 116-129). Washington, DC: ISO Press.

Moss, E., Rousseau, D., Parent, S., St-Laurent, D., & Saintonge, J. (1998). Correlates of

attachment at school age: Maternal reported stress, mother-child interaction, and behavior

problems. Child Development, 69(5), 1390-1405.

Ramos-Marcuse, F., & Arsenio, W.F. (2001). Young children's emotionally-charged moral

narratives: Relations with attachment and behavior problems. Early Education &

Development, 12(2), 165-184.

Renekn, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L.A. (1989). Early

childhood antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrwal in early elementary school.

Journal of Personality, 57, 257-281.

Rice, K.G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Journal

of Youth and Adolescnce, 19(5), 511-538.

Richman, E.A. (1985). Disorders of preschool children. In M. Ruttner & L. Hersov (Eds.),

Child and adolescent psychiatry: Modern approaches. Boston: Blackwell Scientific

Publications.

Robins, L.N. (1991). Conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied

Disciplines, 32, 193-212.

Scharfe, E. (2002). Reliability and validity of an interview assessment of attachment

representations in a clinical sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17

(5), 532-551.

40


Simons, K.J., Paternite, C.E., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attachment and

aggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early adolescence, 21(2), 182-203.

Smith, C. A. (1994). Dis-attachment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28(4),

691-693.

Speltz, M.L., Greenberg, M.T., & Deklyen, M. (1990). Attachment in preschoolers with

disruptive behavior: A comparison of clinic-referred and nonproblem children.”

Development & Psychopathology, 2(1), 31-46.

Sroufe, L.A. (1983). Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The

roots of maladaptation and competence. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on

child psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 41-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Teti, D.M., & Ablard, K.E. (1989). Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A

laboratory study. Child Development, 60(6), 1519-1528.

Toth, S.L., & Cicchetti, D. (1996). Patterns of relatedness, depressive symptomology, and

perceived competence in maltreated children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 64, 32-41.

Van Ijzendoorn, M.H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and

infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment

Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387-403.

41


Tables & Figures

Table 1. Prevalence of Attachment Styles by Sample and Gender

%

High-risk(N = 170)

Normative(N = 143)

χ2 df p

Secure 6.5 58.0 98.31 1 .000

Preoccupied 24.7 7.7 15.98 1 .000

Dismissing 59.4 32.9 21.96 1 .000

Even split 9.4 1.4 9.20 1 .002

Male(N = 175)

Female(N = 138)

Secure 25.7 35.5 3.52 1 .061

Preoccupied 9.7 26.1 14.71 1 .000

Dismissing 57.1 34.8 15.48 1 .000

Even split 7.4 3.6 2.06 1 .151

42


Table 2. Prevalence of Attachment Styles by Gender within Samples

%High-Risk

Male(N = 105)

Female(N = 65)

χ2 df p

Secure 7.6 4.6 .44 1 .333

Preoccupied 15.2 40.0 .00 1 .000

Dismissing 66.7 47.7 .01 1 .011

Even split 10.5 7.7 .55 1 .376

NormativeMale

(N = 70)Female

(N = 73) Secure 52.9 63.0 .22 1 .144

Preoccupied 1.4 13.7 .01 1 .005

Dismissing 42.9 23.3 .01 1 .010

Even split 2.9 0 .15 1 .238

Table 3. Levels of Externalizing Behavior by Sample and Gender

43


M

High-risk Normative F p

Attention Problems t 3.2 1.6 110.02 .000

Aggressive Behavior t t 3.9 1.0 225.44 .000

Delinquent Behavior t 2.3 0.7 171.51 .000

Male Female



Delinquent Behavior t 1.7 1.5 3.28 .071t Scores are on a 0-6 scale

t t Scores are on a 0-10 scale

Table 4. Levels of Externalizing Behavior by Gender within Samples

M

Normative males Normative females F p




High-risk males High-risk females




t Scores are on a 0-6 scale


44


Table 5. Levels of Externalizing Behavior by Attachment Style

M

Secure Non-secure F p




Preoccupied Non-preoccupied




Dismissing Non-dismissing




45




Table 6. Levels of Externalizing Behavior by Attachment Style in Males and Females

Males Females

M M

Secure Non-secure F p Secure Non-secure F p

Attention Problems t

1.8 2.5 6.03 .015 1.6 3.1 28.65 .000

Aggressive Behavior t t

1.6 2.9 11.35 .001 1.0 3.2 34.32 .000

Delinquent Behavior t

1.1 1.9 10.02 .002 0.6 2.0 23.42 .000

Preoccupied Non-preoccupied Preoccupied Non-preoccupied


3.1 2.2 4.25 .041 3.2 2.4 6.25 .014


4.2 2.4 9.28 .003 3.6 2.0 12.96 .000


2.3 1.7 2.80 .096 2.3 1.2 10.61 .001

Dismissing Non-dismissing Dismissing Non-dismissing


2.3 2.3 0.01 .924 3.0 2.4 4.89 .029

46



2.6 2.5 0.19 .664 2.8 2.2 1.79 .183


1.9 1.5 1.96 .163 1.8 1.4 2.10 .150



Table 7. Levels of Externalizing Behavior by Attachment Style within Sub-Samples Defined by

Gender and Sample

MHigh-risk Normative

Male Female Male Female

Secure Non-secure Secure Non-secure Secure Non-secure Secure Non-secure


3.0 2.9 3.0 3.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 2.2


4.1 3.6 4.0 4.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1


2.3 2.4 1.7 2.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.7






3.3 2.8 3.5 3.5 0.0 1.5 2.5 1.7


4.3 3.6 4.5 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.6 0.8


2.5 2.4 2.8 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.6






2.7 3.2 3.6 3.4 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.7

Aggressive 3.4 4.2 3.9 4.4 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.9

47


Behavior t t


2.4 2.3 2.5 2.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6



Figure 1. Factor Model (Normative Sample, n = 186)

Figure 2. Factor Model (High Risk Sample, n =271)

48


Figure 3. SEM Model (Normative Sample)

Figure 4. SEM Model (High Risk Sample)

49

Gender


50

Gender

emilie paczkowski

Documents