1

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.

Abstract This study examined the relationship between attachment organization and accuracy of self-perception among 176 adolescents. Attachment organization was assessed with the Adult Attachment Interview. Accuracy of self-perception was measured in terms of mutuality of adolescent self- and parent/peer-report on measures of adolescent psychosocial functioning. Preoccupied adolescents overreported internalizing/externalizing symptoms in comparison to parent-reports. Dismissing adolescents were more likely to be discrepant from parent-reports of internalizing/externalizing symptoms, and from peer-reports of behavior conduct. These linkages remained after accounting for baseline levels of adolescent symptoms. The findings suggest that attachment theory may account for individual differences in self-perception of symptoms in adolescence.

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 know themselves 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 developmental psychology over the past thirty years (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), offers a particularly interesting perspective on the development of self-views. However, despite promising theoretical inference and a substantial body of research 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 may account 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 critical period in development in which an individual first acquires the capacity to logically and abstractly reflect on the self and attachment experiences, is crucial to expanding our understanding of how attachment operates over time. Taking a step in this direction, the purpose of the current study was to investigate the extent to which attachment 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 of selfperception 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 is self-perception? Classic theories in social psychology regard self-perception as an 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 controversial since there is no absolute, objective standard for measuring a persons traits, capabilities, emotions, and so forth. In the absence of an objective measurement of self-insight or self-perception, it is difficult to study the accuracy of a persons self-views. Researchers have only recently begun to recognize the need for objective assessments 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 and social psychology operationally define and measure accuracy of self-perception in terms of a social consensus criteria. 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 with judgments 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-judgment does provide a convenient means of assessing accuracy of self-perception. However, interpretations of this measurement must take into consideration 1) who is the other judge and 2) what is the domain of judgment. First, it is important to consider who is 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 peer a more valid judge of the adolescent? Is a mother versus a father a more accurate judge of the adolescent? A number 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

standard of accuracy than the self-judge. Take, for example, a finding of disparity between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent behavior problems. There are at least three possible explanations if the adolescent reports that s/he does not have behavior problems and the mother reports that her daughter/son does have behavior problems: 1) the adolescent has a distorted self-perception of her/his problem behavior, or 2) the adolescent has an accurate self-perception, and the problem is a distortion in communication between mother and adolescent; the mother may have a distorted perception of the adolescents behavior, or 3) the two preceding explanations are not mutually exclusive and the disparity in adolescent- and mother-report reflects adolescent distorted self-perception and distorted communication in the adolescent-mother relationship. In order to increase the probability that the other-report is in fact the more accurate judge, Kenny (1994) suggests that the most valid measurement of accuracy is obtained by averaging the judgments of all possible observers of all possible behaviors being targeted. A second factor to consider in utilizing the congruence of self- and other-report to infer accuracy of self-perception is the domain of judgment. Is there a significant difference between investigating observable behaviors versus non-observable emotions? Some personality researchers have hypothesized that overall, selfother 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 difference between 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 important differences between examining the mutuality of self- and other-description of affective versus social attributes of an individual. Self-Perception Accuracy versus Distortion Another critical facet of self-perception accuracy is what it signifies for an individual to be accurate versus distorted in their self-judgments. Theories on self-perception suggest that self-insight or understanding ones own self is important for healthy adjustment. In general, research has suggested that accuracy of selfperception is associated with positive psychological adjustment whereas distorted self-perception may be associated with unhealthy adjustment. For instance, van Aken, van Lieshout, and Haselager (1996) found that greater 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 individual differences 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 were likely to have less mutuality of self- and other-report. Conversely, adolescents who scored high on the personality 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 of psychological adjustment, but more research is needed to determine what psychological processes promote the development 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 individuals develop self-judgments is an important question for researchers. Kelly (1955) draws the analogy that just as the scientist uses facts and observations to develop empirically-based theories, the individual processes information or cues from the environment to acquire a self-construct or a theory about the self and the world. While developmental theories emphasize the effects of childhood experiences on individuals developing selfperceptions (see Masten & Coatsworth, 1998), research indicates that adolescence marks a critical period in development in which in an individual first acquires the cognitive capacities to reflect on the self.

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 of increased cognitive capacities for logical and abstract thinking which allow an adolescent to perceive and reflect on the self as existing separate and apart from others (Ricks, 1985; Allen & Land, 1999). Allen and his colleagues (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 the establishment 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 role experimentation. According to Harter, adolescents may engage in false-self behavior, acting in ways that do not reflect 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) found support for a linkage between motivations for engaging in false-self behavior and adolescents perceptions of parent and peer support. Normal role experimentation motivations for engaging in false-self behavior were associated with greater quality and level of perceived parent and peer support, whereas clinically debilitating motivations 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 security may be a prerequisite for the healthy establishment of a self-identity in adolescence. These findings suggest that adolescents perceived familial and social support may be related to individual differences in the development of a self-concept and in self-perception accuracy. Clearly, more research is needed to enhance our understanding of how individual differences in perceived support may affect adolescents development of self-perception, and conversely, how accurate versus distorted self-perception may reflect individual differences in perceived support. Attachment theory, which emphasizes the importance of interpersonal, attachment relationships in shaping an individuals views about the self 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 of individuals perceptions of themselves and the world around them. Bowlby (1973) posited that an individuals developing 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 that regulates the physical proximity and psychological availability of a primary caregiver (Bowlby, 1979). As a result of repeated interactions with a primary caregiver, an infants internal representation of self and others evolves 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) or insecure (maladaptive) attachment relationships. Ainsworth et al. found that secure attachments are fostered when children experience consistent caregiver warmth and availability. On the other hand, avoidant/dismissing attachments are cultivated through caregiving that is characterized by unavailability or insensitivity, and ambivalent/preoccupied attachments develop through inconsistent or intrusive caregiving. What is the importance of secure versus insecure infant attachment? A substantial and growing body of research has demonstrated that there are impressive linkages between infant attachment and later psychosocial functioning 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).

According to attachment theorists, the affective infant-caregiver attachment bond impacts psychosocial adjustment beyond infancy through an internal working model of self, others, and attachment relationships (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). Theoretically, internal working models are individual organizations of attitudes, expectations, and feelings about attachment experiences, which serve as a framework for 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 social psychologists notions of expectancy confirmation. Similar to expectancy confirmation, internal working models describe a partly conscious and partly unconscious affective-cognitive template that influences what an individual attends to, encodes, and recalls. While attachment in infancy and childhood can be assessed through observable behaviors (Strange Situation, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), examining attachment representations in adolescence and adulthood involves the evaluation of internal or mental working models of attachment. The Adult Attachment Interview, developed by George, Kaplan, and Main (1985), permits researchers to assess individuals reflection and communication about parent-child attachment experiences and their ability to integrate specific memories into a coherent understanding of attachment relationships. Theoretically, the Adult Attachment Interview assesses an individuals state of mind with regard to attachment. Attachment research suggests that individuals with 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. An insecure-preoccupied attachment organization is associated with exaggeration of attachment issues and discomfort or fear of separateness and autonomy. Finally, individuals with secure-autonomous attachment models have a healthy balance of recognizing, appreciating, and desiring both intimacy and autonomy, and both separateness and connectedness (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Main, 1990, Main & Goldwyn, in press; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Research has demonstrated strong concordance between classification of maternal attachment organization on the Adult Attachment Interview and infant attachment security, as assessed in the Strange Situation (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 retrospective agreement between parents state of mind with regard to attachment as assessed on the Adult Attachment Interview 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 are impressive, critics have pointed out that little data exists on whether individual differences in attachment remain consistent over time. Several recent studies that have examined the stability of attachment in infancy to attachment representation in young adulthood indicate mixed results (Hamilton, 2000; Waters, Merrick, Reboux, Crowell, & Albersheim, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, & Egeland, 2000). Waters et al. found that among Caucasian, middle-class individuals, 72% of infants received the same secure versus insecure attachment classification in early adulthood. Weinfield et al. found no evidence for significant continuity between infant and adult attachment among individuals at high risk for poor developmental outcomes. However, continuous and discontinuous groups could be differentiated on the basis of significant, negative life events such as child maltreatment, maternal depression, and family functioning in early adolescence. As Waters, Hamilton, and Weinfield (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 or flexibility of individual attachment over time. Do internal working models of attachment significantly account for individual differences in selfperception? Bowlby (1981) argued that attachment organization is critical to understanding an individuals model of self. Findings from a few recent studies suggest that there may be a relationship between individual differences in self-perception accuracy and attachment.

Prior research has suggested that attachment organization may be related to the development of selfperception in terms of a self-concept. Cassidy (1988), for instance, looked at the relationship between selfconcept and attachment in childhood and found a moderate association between attachment classification and views about the self. Along the same lines, Cooper, Collins, and Shaver (1998) examined individual differences in attachment style and self-concept among adolescents and found that secure adolescents were the most welladjusted, whereas preoccupied and dismissing adolescents had poorer self-concepts. Research conducted by Kobak and Sceery (1988) on the affective and representational correlates of attachment organization in late adolescence also suggests a relationship between self-perception accuracy and attachment. Kobak et al. found a lack of congruence between dismissing adolescents self-reports and peerreports of adolescents social competence and distress. Although peers perceived dismissing adolescents as less socially competent and more distressed, dismissing adolescents self-reports did not differ from secure adolescents self-reports of perceived social competence and distress. Interestingly, dismissing adolescents also significantly reported more loneliness and lack of support in their relationships. Congruent with other research on features of dismissing attachment, these findings suggest that a dismissing attachment organization may be related 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. looked at incongruities between self- and other-report of psychiatric symptoms among adults with serious psychopathological disorders. Congruent with Kobak and Sceerys (1988) findings, they found that adults employing dismissing/deactivating attachment strategies self-reported significantly less symptoms in comparison with expert-ratings of symptoms. In addition, although experts rated adults with preoccupied/hyperactivating strategies as having fewer symptoms in comparison with dismissing/deactivating adults, adults with preoccupied/hyperactivating strategies self-reported significantly more symptoms. These findings support the idea that individuals with dismissing attachment organization may distortedly deny selfperceptions of distress. Also, this study suggests that individuals with preoccupied attachment organization may distortedly amplify self-perceptions of distress. These findings preliminarily suggest that there is a relationship between attachment organization and self-perception accuracy. It is possible that internal working models of self, others, and attachment experiences provide a useful framework for examining the causes and correlates of individual differences in the development of accuracy versus distortion in self-perception. Pursuing this direction of research may also enhance our understanding of the stability of internal working models of self, others, and attachment experiences across the lifespan. Since adolescence is a critical developmental period for transformations in the self-system (Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996; Steinberg, 1999), Allen and his colleagues (1999) have suggested that adolescence may be a likely point in the lifespan when the internal working model becomes truly internal and stable. The Current Study The present investigation built on theory and contemporary research on self- versus other-perception and attachment organization. This study sought to extend theoretical inference and the work of previous research by focusing on the relationship between attachment organization and mutuality of adolescent self- and otherjudgment. The purpose of the current study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment theory may explain 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?

3) Are preoccupied attachment and dismissing attachment related to accuracy or distortion of selfperception in different ways? 4) Will discrepancies between self- and other-reports be meaningful for adolescent versus mother report? 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?

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 a wide 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 was 59.7% European American, 38.6% African American, and 1.7% other. 30% of adolescents were living with both biological parents. The median family income was $25,000 (range was from less than $5,000 to greater than $60,000), and parents median education level was a high school diploma with some training post-high school (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 were selected 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 were established to sample a sizable range of adolescents who could be identified from academic records as having the potential for future academic and social difficulties, including adolescents already experiencing serious difficulties 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 recruited for each adolescent participant in the study. Close friends filled out measures concerning 136 of the target adolescents. Peer participants were approximately 16 years (M = 16.32, SD = 1.37) and had known participating 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 potential participant explaining the investigation as an ongoing study of the lives of teens and families. These initial explanatory letters were then followed by phone calls to families who indicated a willingness to be further contacted. If both the teen and the parent(s) agreed to participate in the study, the family was scheduled to come 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 was obtained from parents and teens. In the initial introduction and throughout both sessions, confidentiality was assured to all family members, and adolescents were told that their parents would not be informed about any of the 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. Peers were paid $10 to come in separately for a 1 hr session, during which they completed written questionnaires and used Q-sort techniques to rate the target adolescents in the study. As with study participants, peers were assured that all information would be kept confidential and in particular, were told that study participants would not learn of their questionnaire responses. Measures

10

Adult Attachment Interview and Q-set (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996). This structured interview probes individuals descriptions of their childhood relationships with parents in both abstract terms and with requests for specific supporting memories. For example, participants were asked to list five words describing their early childhood relationships with each parent and then to describe specific episodes that reflected those words. 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 with parents 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 were made 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 to closely parallel the Adult Attachment Interview Classification System (Main & Goldwyn, in press) but to yield continuous measures of qualities of attachment organization. The data produced by the system nevertheless can be reduced via an algorithm to classifications that largely agree with three-category ratings from the AAI Classification System (Borman-Spurrell, Allen, Hauser, Carter, & Cole-Detke, 1995; Kobak et al., 1993). Each rater reads a transcript and provides a Q-sort description by assigning 100 items into nine categories ranging from 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 Interview Classification System. These Q-sorts were then compared with dimensional prototype sorts for: secure versus anxious interview strategies, reflecting the overall degree of coherence of discourse, the integration of episodic and semantic attachment memories, and a clear objective valuing of attachment; preoccupied strategies, reflecting either rambling, extensive but ultimately unfocused discourse about attachment experiences or angry preoccupation with attachment figures; dismissing strategies, reflecting inability or unwillingness to recount attachment experiences, idealization of attachment figures that is discordant with reported experiences, and lack of evidence of valuing attachment; and deactivating versus hyperactivating strategies, which simply represents the 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 being able to capture classifications form the AAI classification system with good accuracy. The correlation of the 100 items of an individuals Q-sort with each dimension (ranging from 1.00 to 1.00) were then taken as the participants 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 attachment organization rather than replicate classifications from the Main and Goldwyn (in press) system, when scale scores were reduced to classifications by simply using the largest Q-scale score above .20 as the primary classification (Kobak et al., 1993) and compared to a subsample (N = 76) of AAIs classified by an independent coder with well-established reliability in classifying AAIs (U. Wartner), 74% of adolescents in this sample received 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 problematic adolescent behaviors (Achenbach, 1991). Adolescents were asked to rate how well a variety of descriptions of symptomatic behaviors applied to them during the previous 6 months, on a scale of 0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very or often true. The internalizing scale and externalizing scale, which have both been well validated, were used to assess adolescents self-perceptions of symptomatic behavior.

11

Mothers and fathers reported their adolescents internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors using the 120-item Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983). This measure has been widely used in research and clinical applications with samples of normal and clinically referred youths and shows good evidence of reliability and validity (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979, 1981). The internalizing and externalizing scales were used to measure parents judgments of adolescent symptoms. Although the Youth Self-Report and Child Behavior Checklist are slightly different, these measures are essentially measuring the same construct since 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 Checklist were used to assess whether parents perceived their adolescents as more or less symptomatic (relative to national norms) than adolescents perceived themselves. Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report and mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems were measured in two ways. First, the Simple Difference of Adolescent Report minus Parent Report was calculated. This measurement was intended to determine if the adolescent overrated self internalizing or externalizing behavior problems in comparison to mother- and fatherreports of their adolescent. Second, the Absolute Difference of Adolescent Report minus Parent Report was 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, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality. Adolescents also completed the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988). For each item, two sentence stems were presented side by side. For example, Some teenagers find it hard to make friends, but For other teenagers its pretty easy. Adolescents were asked to decide which stem best described them and whether the statement was sort of true or really true for them. This format was designed to reduce the effects of a pull for social desirability. Five scales were examined in this study: behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality. Peers completed a modified version of the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988) described above, which was modified so that peers completed it as they thought it best described the target adolescent in the 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, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was measured in the same two ways as adolescent- versus parent-reports. First, the Simple Difference of Adolescent Report minus Peer Report of adolescent behavior conduct, social acceptance, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, and friendship quality was calculated. This measurement was intended to determine if the adolescent overrated him/herself on each scale in comparison to peer-report of the target adolescent. Second, the Absolute Difference of Adolescent Report minus Peer Report was 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.

12

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-, and father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and adolescent- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance

Measure Adult Attachment Interview Security Dismissing Preoccupation Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms Adolescent-Report Mother-Report Father-Report Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms Adolescent-Report Mother-Report Father-Report Harter Self-Perception Adolescent-Report Behavior Conduct

SD

.22 .15 .05

.39 .40 .21

155 155 155

13.20 11.16 10.08

8.96 8.21 7.92

175 169 70

16.30 15.21 13.31

8.19 10.07 8.68

175 170 70

2.64

.61

174

13

Scholastic Competence Romantic Appeal Close Friendship Social Acceptance Harter Self-Perception Peer-Report of Adolescent Behavior Conduct Scholastic Competence Romantic Appeal Close Friendship Social Acceptance

2.88 2.82 3.27 3.24

.65 .61 .73 .64

175 175 175 175

2.73 2.91 2.90 3.16 3.05

.60 .58 .63 .58 .64

136 136 136 136 136

14

Demographic effects. Demographic effects of adolescent gender, racial/ethnic minority status, and family 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). As presented in Table 2, secure attachment organization was slightly positively correlated with being female and highly correlated to being 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 highly associated with a dismissing attachment organization. A preoccupied attachment organization was slightly related to being female. Female adolescents overall were more likely than male adolescents to report internalizing symptoms. Adolescent minority status was slightly negatively correlated with mothers reports of adolescent internalizing symptoms. Female adolescents and female close friends of adolescents were more likely than male participants to report closer friendships. Being a male adolescent was slightly associated with self-report of greater scholastic competence, while being a female close friend was slightly associated with report of greater adolescent romantic appeal. Since adolescent gender, race, and family income factors did have an effect on several of the measures used, these demographic variables were accounted for in further analyses.

15

Table 2

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

Measure

Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) r n

Minority Status (1 = minority, 2 = Caucasian) r n

Family Income

Adult Attachment Interview Security Dismissing Preoccupation Adolescent Internalizing Symptoms Adolescent-Report Mother-Report Father-Report Adolescent Externalizing Symptoms Adolescent-Report Mother-Report Father-Report Harter Self-Perception Adolescent-Report Behavior Conduct .10 174 .06 174 -.10 171 .03 -.00 -.22+ 175 170 70 -.12 -.05 -.04 175 170 70 .05 -.04 .13 172 167 70 .33*** .07 -.04 175 169 70 -.12 -.15* -.02 175 169 70 .05 .13 .07 172 166 70 .17* -.25** .16* 155 155 155 -.35*** .38*** -.04 155 155 155 .28*** -.28*** -.08 153 153 153

16

Scholastic Competence Romantic Appeal Close Friendship Social Acceptance Harter Self-Perception Peer-Report of Adolescent Behavior Conduct Scholastic Competence Romantic Appeal Close Friendship Social Acceptance

-.15* -.04 .16* .04

175 175 175 175

-.12 -.06 -.08 .10

175 175 175 175

.05 .05 .02 -.07

172 172 172 172

.14+ .11 .17* .26** .11

136 136 136 136 136

.15+ .00 .05 -.07 .13

136 136 136 136 136

-.10 -.08 -.10 .01 -.12

134 134 134 134 134

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and other-report. The simple and absolute differences between adolescent- and other-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- and mother-/father-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In Table 5, the means and standard deviations are reported for simple and absolute differences of adolescent self- and close friend-report of adolescent behavior conduct, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance. Correlational analyses indicated that overall adolescent- and other-report were significantly correlated 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 Internalizing Symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report)

SD

2.16

9.42

168

17

Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|) Externalizing Symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Mother-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Mother-Report|) Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

7.60

5.94

168

1.15 8.39

10.23 5.93

169 169

Table 4

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

Mutuality of Adolescent- and Father-Report Internalizing Symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|) Externalizing Symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Father-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Father-Report|) Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

SD

3.14 8.27

10.37 6.94

69 69

2.64 8.22

9.63 5.58

69 69

18

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 Behavior Conduct Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) Scholastic Competence Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) Romantic Appeal Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) Close Friendship Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) Social Acceptance Simple Difference (Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent- - Close Friend-Report|) Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10.

SD

-.01 .47

.60 .38

136 136

-.01 .51

.66 .42

136 136

-.06 .55

.71 .45

136 136

.14 .65

.82 .52

136 136

.20 .54

.68 .46

136 136

Table 6

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

19

Mother-Report of Adolescent

Adolescent Self-Report n

Internalizing Externalizing

.41*** .39***

168 169

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 Internalizing Externalizing

Adolescent Self-Report .31** .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, scholastic competence, romantic appeal, close friendship, and social acceptance

Close Friend-Report of Adolescent Behavior Conduct Scholastic Competence Romantic Appeal Close Friendship

Adolescent Self-Report .50*** .37*** .33*** .21*

20

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

.42***

Primary Analyses Primary analyses examined the relationship between adolescent attachment organization and mutuality of 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 were examined. As indicated in Table 9, preoccupied attachment was associated with greater discrepancy between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Specifically, as expected, preoccupied adolescents reported significantly more internalizing and externalizing symptoms than mothers reported about adolescent symptoms. In addition, a dismissing attachment organization was related to greater 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 or below) from mothers reports of adolescent externalizing symptoms.

Table 9

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

Measure of Mutuality Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Mother Report) Internalizing Externalizing Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Mother Report|) Externalizing Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=149

Attachment Preoccupied Dismissing

.29*** .24**

.16*

.19*

21

Next, preoccupation and dismissing attachment were examined as predictors of mutuality of adolescentand mother-report, after accounting for gender, race, and family income. Analyses of results of hierarchical regressions presented in Tables 10 and 11 indicated that preoccupied attachment organization remained a predictor of the simple difference between adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing 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 externalizing symptoms. After partialling out demographic effects, dismissing attachment organization was not a significant predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report.

22

Table 10

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Mother Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income .22** .03 .00 ... II: Preoccupation .24**
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .044**

... ... ... .044**

.099***

(-).055***

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 145.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

Table 11

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

23

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Mother Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.03 .04 .07 ... II: Preoccupation .24**
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .006

... ... ... .006

.061*

.055*

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 146.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

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

24

Table 12

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Mother Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income .25*** .07 .04 ... II: Adolescent Internalizing (Mother-Report) -.49*** ... III: Preoccupation .24***
+

R2

R 2

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

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

... .295***

... .231***

.348***

.053***

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 145.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

25

Table 13

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and mother-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Mother Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.03 .08 .03 ... II: Adolescent Externalizing (Mother-Report) -.67*** ... III: Preoccupation .28***
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .007

... ... ... .007

... .458***

... .451***

.530***

.072***

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 146.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

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

26

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

27

Table 14

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

Measure of Mutuality Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Father Report) Internalizing Externalizing Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Father Report|) Internalizing Externalizing Note. *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. + p < .10. n=58

Preoccupied Attachment

.52*** .36**

.43*** .29*

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 adolescent internalizing symptoms, after accounting for gender, race, and family income. Controlling for demographic effects, a preoccupied attachment organization predicted the simple (but not the absolute) difference of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms.

28

Table 15

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Father Report) Total Predictors R2 R 2 R2 R 2 Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Father Report|)

I: Gender Race Family Income .16 -.08 -.02 ... II: Preoccupation .49*** .240**
+

... ... ... .029

... ... ... .029

.17 .15 -.22 ...

... ... ... .097+

... ... ... .097+

.211**

.32*

.187**

.090**

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 52.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

29

Table 16

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Father Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.16 -.25+ .08 ... ... ... ... ... ... R2 R 2

II: Preoccupation

... .48***
+

.089 .286**

.089 .197**

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. into models. N = 52.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables

Again, the effects of adolescent symptomatology were examined in order to explore whether the findings reflected differences in baseline levels of adolescent symptoms. Accounting for adolescent internalizing 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- and father-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (see Table 18).

30

Table 17

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent internalizing symptoms Simple Difference (Adolescent Report Father Report) Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Father Report|) Total Predictors R2 R 2 R2 R 2

I: Gender Race Family Income .21+ -.02 -.01 ... II: Adolescent Internalizing (Father-Report) -.34** ... III: Preoccupation .48*** .355***
+

... ... ... .042

... ... ... .042+

.17 .15 -.22+ ...

... ... ... .096+

... ... ... .096+

... .152**

... .110**

.00 ...

... .096

... .000

.203***

.32*

.185**

.089*

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 52.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

31

Table 18

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

Mutuality of adolescent- and father-report of adolescent externalizing symptoms (Simple Difference: Adolescent Report Father Report) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.16 -.12 .13 ... II: Adolescent Externalizing (Father-Report) -.54*** ... III: Preoccupation .421***
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .054

... ... ... .054

... .324***

... .270***

.477***

.153***

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 52.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

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

32

Table 19

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

Measure of Mutuality Absolute Difference (|Adolescent Report Peer Report|) Behavior Conduct

Attachment Dismissing

.27**

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

Analyses of hierarchical regressions, presented in Table 20, revealed that dismissing attachment remained 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 organization remained a predictor of mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report (see Table 21).

33

Table 20 Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for related covariates

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct (Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report Peer Report|) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.11 -.02 -.12 ... II: Dismissing .21*
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .023*

... ... ... .023*

.054*

.031*

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 120.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

34

Table 21 Hierarchical regressions predicting mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct from adolescent attachment organization after accounting for baseline report of symptoms

Mutuality of adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct (Absolute Difference: |Adolescent Report Peer Report|) Total Predictors I: Gender Race Family Income -.13 .02 -.12 ... II: Adolescent Behavior Conduct (Peer-Report) .17+ ... III: Dismissing .22*
+

R2

R 2

... ... ... .026*

... ... ... .026

... .054*

... .028+

.091**

.037*

Note: *** p < .001. ** p .01. * p < .05. models. N = 120.

p < .10. weights are those taken from entry of variables into

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

35

Discussion The purpose of the current study was to investigate how and to what extent attachment theory may account for individual differences in self-perception accuracy in adolescence. In the present study, adolescent attachment organization was related to adolescents accuracy of self-perception, assessed in terms of mutuality of 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 were preoccupied with attachment were more likely to overrate their internalizing and externalizing symptoms in comparison to parent reports of adolescent symptomatology. A dismissing attachment organization was linked to greater absolute disparity between adolescent self- and parent-report of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. In addition, dismissing adolescents reports of behavior conduct were more likely to be incongruent with 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 account for individual differences in self-perception. Specifically, insecure attachment was related to distorted selfjudgment 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 individuals internal representation of self and others. Beyond infancy, an internal working model of self, others, and attachment 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 reflect experienced interaction patterns between the individual and his or her caregiver, it follows that developing models of self and attachment figure(s) are complementary (Bretherton and Munholland, 1999). As research by Benson, Harris, and Rogers (1992) has suggested, adolescents who are securely attached, that is, adolescents who 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 as providing 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.). Prior research has found that secure adolescents are more well-adjusted and have healthier self-concepts in comparison 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 of attachment are differentially related to inaccuracy of self-perception. A preoccupied attachment organization was associated with adolescent overreporting of symptoms in comparison with parent reports. As expected, this result replicates the pattern of previous findings by Dozier and 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 being characterized by heightened or hyperactivated expressions of distress (Kobak, 1986). In particular, adolescents employing preoccupied attachment strategies may chronically deal with distress by exaggerating internalizing symptoms 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 has significant clinical implications. Preoccupied attachment may be one factor that explains why there is a discrepancy between some adolescents self-reports of symptoms and their parents reports about adolescent adjustment. In addition, the discrepancy between adolescent self- and parent-report may indicate that adolescents with preoccupied attachment strategies provide less accurate self-report of distress and problem

36

behavior. Alternatively, relying on parent-report of preoccupied adolescent symptoms may not provide an accurate picture of adolescents self-perceptions of distress. Adolescents with a dismissing attachment organization were more likely to have absolute greater disparity between self- and other-report of psychosocial symptoms. In other words, dismissing adolescents self-reports were incongruent overall, either above or below, from parent- and peer-reports of adolescents adjustment. 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 dismissing individuals distress. While the studies conducted by Kobak et al. and Dozier et al. both found that dismissing individuals were likely to underreport symptoms in comparison to peer- and expert-report, the current study did not find a directional disparity between dismissing adolescent self- and parent/peer-report of symptoms. In the present study, a dismissing attachment organization was linked to greater absolute discrepancy between adolescent- 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 serious psychopathological disorders, whereas the present study investigated disparities between self- and parent/peerreport in a community sample of adolescents. One possibility is that only experts can accurately detect dismissing individuals distress and problem behavior. Since dismissing attachment organization is characterized 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 may not be aware of dismissing individuals symptoms. In comparison to the study by Kobak, the current study looked at the mutuality of adolescent- and parent/peer-report on equivalent measures of psychosocial symptoms, 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 adolescents self-reports of perceived social competence and distress, dismissing adolescents were rated by peers as having lower ego-resilience, higher anxiety, and higher hostility,. In addition, the study by Kobak et al. examined a sample of college students, whereas the current study looked at high school students. This distinction in participant 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, the finding that dismissing adolescents are more likely to have greater incongruence between self- and other-report of 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 more likely to provide less accurate self-reports of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. In addition, relying on their parents reports of dismissing adolescent symptoms or close friends reports of dismissing adolescent behavior 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 greater disparity between adolescent self- and other-report of adolescent psychosocial symptoms. However, preoccupied adolescents were only more likely to overrate symptoms in comparison to parent reports, and there was no significant incongruence between preoccupied adolescent self- and peer-report. One explanation is that adolescents with a preoccupied attachment organization may have distorted self-perceptions of inflated internal distress and behavior problems. Allen and his colleagues (1998), for instance, have suggested that preoccupation with attachment experiences in adolescence may be linked to strong expression of internal symptoms, which serves as a call for help from attachment figures. Although preoccupation is generally associated 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

37

accounting for adolescent baseline levels of symptoms. This suggests that the association between preoccupation and adolescent overreporting of symptoms was not only a reflection of greater baseline symptomatology. In addition, while studies have found a significant linkage between preoccupied attachment organization and internalizing symptoms (Allen et al., 1998; Kobak, et al.), preoccupied adolescents may also engage 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 both internalizing and externalizing problems suggests that preoccupation may in fact be associated with both types of symptoms. Another explanation is that since there was no significant discrepancy between adolescent- and close friend-report, the disparity between preoccupied adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent symptoms reflects inaccurate judgment on the part of parents of preoccupied adolescents about the distress or behavior problems that their son or daughter is actually experiencing. A number of studies suggest that parents of preoccupied adolescents 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 the accuracy of mothers estimates of their adolescents reported self-perceptions was a strong predictor of attachment security. Finally, it is possible that the preceding explanations are not mutually exclusive. While the current study 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 parent and preoccupied adolescent. As Allen (in press) has emphasized, despite the increased importance of peer relationships in adolescence, adolescent attachment security is still integrally linked to the adolescent-mother relationship. A dismissing attachment organization was related to greater absolute disparity between adolescent- and parent-report of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms, as well as adolescent- and peer-report of adolescent behavior conduct. One explanation is that the discrepancy between dismissing adolescent self- and other-report reflects on overall tendency for dismissing adolescents to have inaccurate perceptions of themselves. As Kobak and Sceery (1988) and Dozier and Lee (1995) have suggested, individuals employing dismissing attachment strategies may have a tendency to not express or consciously acknowledge negative affect. Again, the findings indicated that the linkage between dismissing attachment and disparity of self- and otherreport did not merely reflect differences in baseline levels of symptoms since dismissing attachment predicted disparity of adolescent- and other-report after accounting for adolescent baseline symptomatology. Alternatively, since individuals with a dismissing attachment organization are likely to devalue the importance of close relationships and emphasize autonomy and separateness at the expense of connectedness and 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 close friends, 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 and be more difficult to judge by other people. Overall, the differences between insecure adolescents self-, parent-, and close friend-report of adolescent psychosocial functioning highlight the importance of taking into consideration not only the accuracy of self-reports, but the potential accuracy or inaccuracy of the other-reporter. Interestingly, a considerable number of studies in personality research have suggested that the validity of other person-judgment increases

38

with acquaintanceship (e.g., Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). However, the current findings suggest that both the characteristics of the individual being judged, as well as the characteristics of the relationship between the individual being judged and the reporter, may be significant factors to consider in assessing mutuality of selfand other-report. Reports of Symptomatology versus Personality In the current study, adolescent attachment organization was only related to the accuracy of selfjudgment of adolescent internalizing and externalizing symptoms and behavior conduct, but was not related to judgments 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 affective regulation. As Cooper, Collins, and Shaver (1998) have pointed out, Bowlby (1969) argued that internal working models are both conscious and unconscious cognitive schemas for guiding perceptions, regulating emotion, and for processing or failing to process attachment-related information. Kobak and Sceery (1988) have also maintained that attachment theory can be understood in terms of individual differences in affective regulation. Whereas internal working models of secure attachment permit the acknowledgement of distress and turning 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 rules that focus attention on distress and attachment figures in a hypervigilant manner that restricts the development of autonomy and self-confidence (Kobak et al.). The current study found no evidence that attachment organization accounts for individual differences in self-perceptions of personality characteristics of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, or friendship quality. Although Bowlby (1981) originally conceived of attachment theory as a theory of personality development, the present findings suggest that attachment may be more related to affective regulation than other personality characteristics per se. Interestingly, Eder and Mangelsdorf (1997) have proposed that internal working models of attachment may only explain the development of a global, typical versus atypical self-concept, and may not account for individual differences in normative personality. In their view, the development of self-perception is derived from a combination of attachment relationships, individual temperament, 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 of insecure attachment organization. However, combining the mutuality of adolescent- versus mother-report and adolescent- versus father- or peer-report did not significantly augment the power of difference scores to predict adolescent 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, and unfortunately, 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 about the 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- and other-report. There was no way of concluding whether the disparity between adolescent- and other-report actually reflected inaccurate adolescent self-perception or inaccuracy on the part of the other-reporter. Future studies could begin to resolve this shortcoming by having an expert assess adolescent internalizing and externalizing 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 person perception should be obtained by averaging the judgements of all possible observers.

39

In addition, assessment of adolescent accuracy of self-perception could be expounded by administering measures of adolescent self-concept or self-identity. While a number of prior studies have suggested that attachment 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 adolescent self-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 and respected measures in the literature, it is possible nonetheless that the current findings were related to aspects of the measures themselves. Future work should examine the mutuality of adolescent self- and other-report using a variety of different questionnaires. On a similar note, in the current study, adolescent-report and parent-report were compared on dimensions of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, whereas adolescent- and peerreport 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- and parent-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 interesting to investigate the mutuality of self- and other-report on other dimensions of more traditional personality characteristics. For instance, researchers in personality psychology often examine personality in terms of the Big Five trait dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (or Culture). Although the current study did not find that adolescent attachment was related to the disparity between self- and other-report of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, and friendship quality, it is possible that attachment may account for individual differences in adolescent selfperception of other personality characteristics. Finally, it is important to note that the current study can in no way draw causal conclusions. While the findings indicated that adolescent attachment organization was associated with individual differences in adolescent self- and other-judgments of psychosocial symptoms, it is not clear whether attachment organization causes these disparities. This study built on prior research by examining the relationship between adolescent attachment organization 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 between self- and other-judgment of adolescent psychosocial adjustment. In comparison to parent-reports, preoccupied adolescents were more likely to overreport internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Dismissing adolescents were more likely to have greater absolute disparity between self- and parent-report of internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and between self- and peer-report of behavior conduct. The current study found no significant linkages between adolescent attachment organization and the mutuality of adolescent- and peerreport of social competence, romantic appeal, scholastic achievement, or friendship quality. Taken together, these findings indicate that attachment theory may explain individual differences in the development of adolescents self-perceptions and in particular, their characteristic patterns for regulating negative affect. Furthermore, the present findings highlight the critical importance of cautiously interpreting the accuracy of adolescent self- and parent/peer-report of adolescent adjustment. Both the accuracy of adolescent self-perception and the accuracy of other-judgment of adolescent symptoms may be related to adolescent attachment 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 for individual differences in the development of self-perception and the establishment of a healthy self-concept or self-identity in adolescence.

40

References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1979). The child behavior profile: II. Boys aged 12-16 and girls aged 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 by parents of normal and disturbed children aged four through sixteen. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 46(1, Serial No. 188). Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ainworth, M. S., & Eichberg, C. G. (1991). Effects on infant-mother attachment of mothers unresolved loss 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, 319335. Allen, J. P., Moore, C., Kuperminc, G., & Bell, K. (1998). Attachment and adolescent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69(5), 1406-1419. Bem, D. J. (1972). Constructing cross-situational consistencies in behavior: Some thoughts on Alker's critique of Mischel. Journal of Personality, 40(1), 17-26. Benson, M. J., Harris, P. B., & Rogers, C. S. (1992). Identity consequences of attachment to mothers and fathers among late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 2(3), 187-204. Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment and close relationships: An individual-difference perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 27-30. Borman-Spurrell, E., Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Carter, A., & Cole-Detke, H. C. (1995). Assessing adult attachment: A comparison of interview-based and self-report methods. Manuscript submitted for publication. Bowlby, J. (1953). Child care and the growth of love. London: Pelican Books. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1981). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

41

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy, P. R. Shaver, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: The Guildford Press, 89-111. Cassidy, J. (1988). Child-mother attachment and the self in six-year-olds. Child Development, 59(1), 121-134. Cassidy, J., & Berlin, L. J. (1994). The insecure/ambivalent pattern of attachment: Theory and research. Child Development, 65(4), 971-981. Colvin, C. R. (1993). Childhood antecedents of young-adult judgability. J. Personal, 61, 612-635. Cooper, M. L., Collins, N. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1380-1397. Dozier, M., & Lee, S. W. (1995). Discrepancies between self- and other-report of psychiatric symptomatology: Effects of dismissing attachment strategies. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 217-226. Eder, R. A., & Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1997). The emotional basis of early personality development: Implications for the emergent self-concept. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.). Handbook of Personality Ppsychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 209-240. Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations of attachment during pregnancy predict the organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age. Child Development, 62(5), 891-905. Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418. George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1996). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley (3d ed.). Hamilton, C. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through adolescence. Child Development, 71, 690-694. Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the Adolescent Self-Perception Profile. Denver: Author. Harter, S., & Lee, L. (1989). Manifestations of true and not true selves in adolescents. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO. Harter, S., Marold, D. B., Whitesell, N. R., & Cobbs, G. (1996). A model of the effects of perceived parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development, 67, 360-374. Kelly, G. (1955). Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Kobak, R. R., & Cole, C. (1994). Attachment and meta-monitoring: Implications for adolescent autonomy and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti (Ed.), Rochester symposium on developent and psychopathology: Vol. 5. Disorders of the self (pp.267-297). Rochester: Rochester University Press.

42

Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen problem-solving: A control theory analysis. Child Development, 64, 231-245. Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135-146. Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development & Psychopathology, 3(4), 461-474. Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being "right": The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395-409. Levine, L. V., Tuber, S. B., Slade, A., & Ward, M. J. (1991). Mothers mental representations and their relationship to mother-infant attachment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 55, 454-469. Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development, 33(1), 48-61. Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment rating and classification systems. In M. Main (Ed.), A typology of human attachment organization assessed in discourse, drawing and interviews (working title). New York: Cambridge University Press. Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2), 66-104. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (1991). Self-other agreement on multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: Inferences by teachers, mothers, and fathers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 393-404. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1988). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205220. Osberg, T. M., & Shrauger, J. S. (1986). Self-prediction: Exploring the parameters of accuracy. Journal of Pesronality and Social Psychology, 51, 1044-1057. Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 816-824. Posada, G., Waters, E., Crowell, J. A., & Lay, K. (1995). Is it easier to use a secure mother as a secure base?: Attachment Q-sort correlates of the adult attachment interview. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(2-3), 133-145. Ricks, M. H. (1985). Social transmission of parental behavior: Attachment across generations. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.). Growing points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Chid Development, 50(1-2 Serial No. 9), 211-227. Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on accuracy and bias in self-perception. In R. Hogan & J. A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 649-679. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Rev. Educ. Res., 46, 407-441.

43

Steinberg, L. (1999). Adolescence (Ed. 5). New York: McGraw-Hill. van Aken, M. A. G., van Lieshout, C. F. M., & Haselager, G. J. T. (1996). Adolescents competence and the mutuality of their self-descriptions and descriptions of them provided by others. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(3), 285-306. 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. van IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Duyvesteyn, M. G. C. (1995). Breaking the intergenerational cycle of insecure attachment: A review of the effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant security. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 225-248. Ward, M. J., & Carlson, E. A. (1995). Associations among adult attachment representations, maternal sensitivity, and infant-mother attachment in a sample of adolescent mothers. Child Development, 66, 69-79. Waters, E., Hamilton, C. E., & Weinfield, N. S. (2000). The stability of attachment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General introduction. Child Development, 71(3), 678-683. Waters, E., Merrick. S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689. Weinfield, N. S., Ogawa, J. R., & Sroufe, L. A. (1997). Early attachment as a pathway to adolescent peer competence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(3), 241-265. Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a high-risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71(3), 695-702.

44

Acknowledgements Many thanks to my thesis advisor, Professor Joe Allen, who has been a tremendous help throughout this project. Thanks also to Brian Carreon for helping me with my statistical analyses. I would also like to acknowledge everyone in the KLIFF lab who has been extremely helpful and supportive throughout this yearlong project. In particular, many thanks to Penny Marsh. Finally, thanks to my friends and family whose encouragement I have greatly appreciated!