See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226783606

The Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment: Measuring Attachment in Families

Article  in  Contemporary Family Therapy · January 2003

DOI: 10.1023/A:1024563422543

CITATIONS READS
35 3,857

3 authors, including:

Lee N Johnson Scott A. Ketring

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Auburn University
52 PUBLICATIONS   451 CITATIONS    54 PUBLICATIONS   442 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marriage and Family Therapy Practice Research Network View project

CHAMPS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lee N Johnson on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE REVISED INVENTORY OF
PARENT ATTACHMENT:
MEASURING ATTACHMENT IN FAMILIES
Lee N. Johnson
Scott A. Ketring
Carla Abshire

ABSTRACT: This study develops the Revised Inventory of Parental

Attachment (R-IPA). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(IPPA, Armsden & Greendberg, 1987), was reworded to ask parents their
perspective of attachment towards their children. When used together
the R-IPA and the IPPA rate attachment scripts from parent and ado-
lescent’s perspectives. Results suggest the original factor structure of
the IPPA does not fit the data for parent’s ratings on the R-IPA or
adolescent’s ratings of mothers and fathers on the IPPA. Exploratory
factor analyses demonstrate a two-factor structure for both measures.
Reliability and validity of the two factors are presented. Reasons for
the factor structure change are discussed.
KEY WORDS: attachment scripts; measurement of attachment scripts; internal work-
ing models; family measurement.

The measurement of family functioning has long been a research

agenda in marriage and family therapy. Despite the volume of assess-
ments, the success of measuring family functioning has been question-
able. Many of the problems associated with measuring family function
hinge on methodological issues such as integrating multiple viewpoints
and making a determination of how those perceptions combine to create
a picture of family functioning (Wampler & Halverson, 1993). In addi-

Lee Johnson, PhD, Department of Child and Family Development, University of

Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (ljohnson@fcs.uga.edu). Scott A. Ketring, PhD, Department
of Human Development and Family Studies, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849.
Carla Abshire, MS, Department of Child and Family Development, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602. Correspondence should be addressed to the first author.

Contemporary Family Therapy 25(3), September 2003  2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 333
334

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

tion to the methodological issues there is an agreement among family

theorists and researchers that there is a definite lack of emphasis
on theory as a guide for measuring these relationships (Grotevant &
Carlson, 1989; Wampler & Halverson, 1993). One area of research that
could provide a wealth of knowledge and a guiding theory in measuring
family functioning is attachment theory. Attachment is an area with
theory and research that emphasizes interactions within intimate rela-
tionships, including family relationships.
Attachment develops over time within the context of daily interac-
tions between children and caregivers (Bretherton, Biringen, Ridgeway,
Maslin, & Sherman, 1989; Schiamberg, 1988) and promotes the devel-
opment of skills necessary for successful interaction with the world
(Bowlby, 1989; Cassidy, 1999; Hall, Lamb, & Perlmutter, 1988). Addi-
tionally, attachment is the main influence in the development of inter-
nal working relationship models. Individuals rely on internal working
models when interacting with people in all relationships, including
family members. These working models guide the individual’s behavior
toward others, enable the individual to interpret and anticipate the
behavior of others, and serve as prototypes for current and future
relationships (Bretherton et al., 1989; Bretherton & Munholland, 1999;
Crittenden, Partridge, & Claussen, 1991; Klohnen & Bera, 1998). These
internal working models also influence family relationships.
Within the context of parent-child relationships, there appears to
be an empirical association between mental organizations and repre-
sentations of early relationships, internal working models, and future
relationship development (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). In other
words, there is, in a sense, an intergenerational transmission of certain
aspects of the attachment relationship that can be attributed, at least
partially, to the early mental and emotional models established by
children in relation to adult caregivers. However, this does not mean
that later experiences do not greatly influence internalized models of
self and others. There is convincing evidence that attachment can vary
throughout life and that people often report experiencing different at-
tachment styles within various adult relationships (Baldwin, Keelan,
Fehr, Enns, & Koh-Rangarajoo, 1996; Davila & Karney, 1999). We also
know that the research concerning substance abuse, sexual abuse, rape,
and domestic violence offers evidence of long-term negative effects on
internal working models of the victim and of family members related
to the victim (Terr, 1994; Herman, 1992; Goodman, Koss, & Russo,
1993; Sheridan & Green, 1993).
Because the attachment style of an individual is malleable, it is
 335

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

possible that both healthy and unhealthy attachment changes can occur
at different stages of the life course (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992) and
influence family functioning. Research is beginning to evaluate the
impact attachment styles have on adult relationships and to a lesser
extent adolescent development (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Pietromonaco &
Carnelley, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Stern, 1983). Based on
the current attachment literature it is evident that attachment scripts
and internal working models are influential in family relationships
(Byng-Hall, 1995) and research on measuring attachment scripts simul-
taneously within families is necessary.
Discovering the attachment scripts of the parent and the adolescent
provides a picture of how the internal working models of each are be-
ing played out in the relationship. A self-report measure that could
tap both parent’s and children’s mental representations of their rela-
tionship would be helpful in determining not only whether these mental
representations are shared by both individuals in the relationship but
also how these mental representations might influence individual, dy-
adic, and family functioning. However, currently there is no self-report
measure of internal working models coming simultaneously from par-
ent and adolescent’s perspectives. The present study revised the Inven-
tory of Parent and Peer Attachment (Armsden & Greendberg, 1987),
in an attempt to incorporate the parental perspective of attachment
scripts towards the adolescent child, creating a comparable measure for
parents and adolescents to complete, thus being able to simultaneously
measure how family members’ attachment scripts are played out in
the relationship between adolescent and adult. To establish the psycho-
metrics of the Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment the following
research questions will be answered: 1) Does the Revised Inventory
of Parent Attachment have the same factor structure as the original
Inventory of Parent Attachment (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987); 2) Is
the Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment reliable and valid?

METHODOLOGY

Participants
Adult participants in this study are (N = 212; 135 mothers and 77
fathers), parents of families that were referred to a home-based family
therapy program carried out in a Midwestern state. Families were
referred because they were at risk of having one or more children or
336

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

adolescents removed from the home because of abuse, neglect, or juve-

nile offenses. The average age of participants was 35 with a range
of 18–68, with mothers comprising 64% of participants. Most of the
participants report being married (57%) while 21% report being di-
vorced. A majority of participants report being of White/Non Hispanic
origin (78%). Most participants report obtaining a high school education
or GED as their highest level of education (52%) and more than half
report incomes of less then $20,000 (54%).
Adolescent participants (N = 89; 44 male and 45 female) were mem-
bers of the families mentioned above, and their average age was 14.3.
Adolescent’s racial/ethnic background did not vary from adult partici-
pants.

Measures
The Revised Inventory of Parent Attachment (R-IPA), was derived
from the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987). With permission from the IPPA authors, the original
items from the adolescent version of the IPPA were rewritten so that
parents could complete the questionnaire on their attachment relation-
ships to their children. Five additional items were added to address
issues unique to parents and to increase face validity. Therefore, the
version of the R-IPA completed by parents in this study contained 30
items. The development of the R-IPA is the subject of this article and
information related to development, factor structure, reliability, and
validity are presented in the results section.
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) (Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987) is a 25-item scale designed to assess affective and
cognitive dimensions of the adolescent’s attachment relationship with
parents. For consistency the five items that were added to reflect par-
ents experiences were also added to the end of the IPPA. Each item is
rated on a 5-point Likert type scale. Internal consistency of the three
subscales, trust (mutual understanding and respect, mutual trust),
alienation (feelings of alienation and isolation), and communication
(extent and quality of verbal communication) ranged from .86 to .91.
The average test/re-test reliability over a three-week period was .93.
Construct validity was evidenced by correlations with measures of fam-
ily conflict, support and cohesion (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Scores
on these sub-scales can then be used to classify the adolescent’s attach-
ment style (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987; Vivona, 2000).
 337

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 (OQ-45.2); (Lambert et al., 1996)

is a self-report inventory comprised of 45 items scored on a 5-point
Likert-type scale with close to one-half of the items being reverse scored.
Responses range from “never” to “almost always.” The scale has three
subscales: symptom distress (SD; symptoms of anxiety and depression),
interpersonal relations (IR; conflict and inadequacy in relationships),
and social role (SR; dissatisfaction with roles at work, home, and leisure
life). The sub-scales and full scale have good test-retest reliability with
coefficients ranging from r = .78 to r = .84 and internal consistency with
coefficients ranging from alpha = .71 to alpha = .93. The authors also
provide evidence of the concurrent validity of the sub-scales (correla-
tions with other measures range from .43 to .88) and the full scale
(correlations with other measures range from .53 to .87).
The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) developed by (Straus, 1979) is a
self-report form that measures how well conflict is managed. The CTS
has three sub-scales: reasoning (4 items; use of an intellectual approach
to resolving the conflict), verbal aggression (5 items; use of verbal and
nonverbal acts which threaten or hurt), and physical aggression (5
items; use of physical force). The author reports good reliability for the
sub-scales ranging from alpha = .70 to .88. The scales have established
concurrent validity by correlating the CTS with family member’s re-
ports of violence with correlations ranging from −.12 to .64 with lower
correlations for the reasoning sub-scale (Straus, 1979). Additionally,
many studies have established the construct validity of the CTS
(Schumm, W. R., & Bagarozzi, D. A., 1989). Because this study exam-
ines reports of physical conflict related to parents’ and adolescents’
attachment, clients only completed the physical aggression sub-scale.

Procedures
Parents completed the R-IPA twice, once for each of their two oldest
children. If parents had only one child they completed the questionnaire
for that child. Children over the age of 12 completed the original parent
version of the IPPA. All participants (over the age of 12) completed the
OQ45.2 and the physical aggression scale of the CTS. Participants were
required to complete additional assessments not used in this study and
complete a similar set of questionnaires at the end of therapy. Because
the focus of this study is the reliability and validity of the R-IPA,
only the questionnaires completed prior to treatment and only the
assessments described above were used. In some instances parents had
338

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

more than one child. To allow ratings of attachment to be independent,

results for this study use parent ratings of their oldest child and the
oldest child’s ratings of their parents.

RESULTS

Factor Analysis
A confirmatory factor analysis was done using AMOS (Arbuckle &
Wothke, 1999). Additionally, a more conservative independence model
was used because the means of the observed variables could not be
zero as in the default (zero-intercept) model implemented in AMOS 4.0
(Davey & Szinovacz, In press). Because the R-IPA scale was adapted
from an existing scale this test was to determine if the R-IPA would
yield a similar factor structure to the IPPA. R-IPA items were divided
into the sub-scales of trust, alienation, and communication and entered
into the analysis. Results suggest that the original factor structure
of the IPPA does not fit the data for the R-IPA (χ2 = 735.32, p < .00;
CFI = 0.73; RMSEA = 0.09).
To further understand the factor structure of the R-IPA an explor-
atory factor analysis was performed using an Oblimin rotation. The scree
plot shows 2 main factors that explain 37.4% of the variance. A final
factor analysis was run limiting the number of factors to two. Items with
a factor loading <.40 were deleted from the final inventory, yielding 22
items. The results of the factor analysis are found in Table 1. Despite
the lack of fit in the confirmatory factor analysis the exploratory factor
analysis found two factors, one that closely corresponds to the construct
of trust/avoidance and another corresponding to communication.
Because the new constructed R-IPA did not fit the factor structure
of the IPPA, a confirmatory factor analysis of the original IPPA was
conducted to see if the IPPA’s factor structure would fit with the popula-
tion in this study. The confirmatory factor analysis was done using
AMOS (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) and a more conservative indepen-
dence model was used by Davey & Szinovacz (In press). The items were
divided into the sub-scales of trust, alienation, and communication and
entered into the analysis. Also, because children complete the IPPA on
their mother and father, separate analyses were done for each parent.
Results suggest that the original factor structure of the IPPA does not
fit the data for mothers (χ2 = 435.22, p < 0.00; CFI = 0.85; RMSEA =
0.08) or fathers (χ2 = 494.16, p < 0.00; CFI = 0.79; RMSEA = 0.09).
To further understand the factor structure of the IPPA for this
 339

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

TABLE 1
Factor Loadings of Revised Parental Attachment Inventory
(R-IPA) Items

Item Factor I Factor II

I get frustrated with my child −.760 .012

I am constantly yelling and fighting with my −.733 .106
child
My child trusts my judgment .709 .207
I trust my child .662 .115
My child respects my feelings .660 .276
I feel angry with my child −.650 .192
I get upset easily around my child −.632 .056
My child understands me .626 .381
My child cares about my point of view .613 .362
I don’t like being around my child −.568 .143
When I am angry my child often understands .559 .490
I don’t get much attention or credit from my −.543 .084
child
I feel my child is good .537 .037
My child accepts me as I am .506 .283
My child expects too much of me −.478 .171
I wish I had a different child −.457 .143
I talk to my child about my difficulties −.045 .594
If my child knows something is bothering me .270 .550
they ask me about it
I tell my child about my problems −.089 .550
I can count on my child when I need to get .207 .502
something off my chest
My child can tell when I’m upset about some- −.034 .415
thing
I like to get my child’s point of view on things I .319 .401
am concerned about
I get upset a lot more then my child know about −.400 .040
When I feel sad and lonely I spend time with .388 .127
my child
My child helps me understand myself better .374 .257
I don’t like my children to touch me −.301 .015
340

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Item Factor I Factor II

Talking over my problems with my children −.263 −.111

makes me feel ashamed or foolish
I feel it is no use letting my feelings show −.193 .092
around my child
My child has their own problems so I don’t −.173 −.113
bother them with my problems
My child doesn’t understand what I am going −.174 .247
through these days
Note. Factor I = trust/avoidance; Factor II = communication.

population an exploratory factor analysis using an Oblimin rotation

was performed separately for mothers and fathers. The scree plot shows
2 main factors that explain 49.1% of the variance for mothers and 2
main factors that explain 52.5% of the variance for fathers. A final
factor analysis was run limiting the number of factors to two. Items with
a factor loading <.40 were deleted from the final inventory, yielding 25
items for mothers and 28 items for fathers. The results of the factor
analysis are found in Table 2. Despite the lack of fit in the confirmatory
factor analysis the exploratory factor analysis found two factors, one
that closely corresponds to the construct of trust and another corre-
sponding to alienation.

Reliability and Validity

Reliability analysis was conducted by computing Chronbach’s
alpha for each of the R-IPA sub-scales. Reliability coefficients are as
follows: trust/avoidance α = 0.91 and communication α = 0.72. No addi-
tional tests for reliability were conducted. Reliability coefficients for
the two factors of the IPPA were also conducted. Reliability coefficients
are as follows: father’s trust α = .95, mother’s trust α = .95, fathers
avoidance α = .89, and mother’s avoidance α = .81. No additional tests
of reliability were conducted.
Validity analysis was conducted by correlating the subscale scores
of both the R-IPA and IPPA with outcomes related to attachment. To
increase the ability to replicate the findings, listwise correlations are
reported. Most coefficients did not differ drastically from pairwise coeffi-
 341

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

TABLE 2
Factor Loadings of Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)
Items for Mothers and Fathers

Mothers Fathers

Item* Factor I Factor II Factor I Factor II

1 .630 −.206 .675 −.178

2 .730 −.052 .726 −.183
3 −.321 .364 −.214 .605
4 .657 −.138 .692 −.233
5 .639 −.037 .524 −.121
6 −.010 .459 −.030 .517
7 .859 .254 .788 .049
8 .104 .292 .128 .373
9 −.032 .323 −.062 .635
10 −.066 .639 −0.27 .612
11 .090 .472 −.075 .534
12 .692 −.144 .734 −.150
13 .527 −.405 .535 −.299
14 −.241 .177 −.214 .257
15 .652 −.095 .692 −.172
16 .741 .047 .705 −.118
17 −.037 .776 −.034 .818
18 −.010 .308 .049 .571
19 .773 .042 .754 −.033
20 .721 −.301 .843 .090
21 .784 −.155 .857 .098
22 .708 −.172 .784 −.093
23 −.106 .429 .028 .538
24 .790 −.084 .789 −.043
25 .701 .131 .732 .023
I get frustrated with my
M/F −.172 .559 −.179 .469
I don’t like being around
my M/F −.453 .440 −.160 .673
I am constantly yelling and
fighting with M/F −.103 .670 −.032 .757
342

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

TABLE 2 (Continued)

Mothers Fathers

Item* Factor I Factor II Factor I Factor II

When I am sad and lonely

I spend time with my
M/F .778 .189 .623 .270
I don’t like touching my
M/F −.277 .470 −.041 .585
*The items for the IPPA were not provided; for a copy of the original scale contact the
authors.
Note. Factor I = trust; Factor II = alienation.

cients; large differences between listwise and pairwise correlations are

reported in the tables. The subscales scores were correlated with symp-
tom distress, social roles, interpersonal relations subscales from the
OQ 45.2, and physical aggression from the Conflict Tactics Scale. Due
to the fact that these constructs are not directly related to attachment
it was expected that the correlation analysis would yield moderate
significant correlations in the hypothesized direction. In looking at the
coefficients it appears that the subscales are measuring constructs
related to attachment. The only subscale that did not correlate with
outside measures was the communication subscale of the R-IPA. Corre-
lations can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.

TABLE 3
Correlations Between the R-IPA Subscales and Variables Related
to Attachment (n = 189 parents)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Trust/avoidance — .47** −.33** −.36** −.32** −.33**

2. Communication — .00 −.18* −.01 −.11
3. Symptom distress — .65** .68** .39**
4. Social role — .59** .27**
5. Interpersonal relations — .41**
6. Physical aggression —
*p < .05; **p < .01.
 343

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

TABLE 4
Correlations Between the IPPA Subscales and Variables Related
to Attachment

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

(n = 51 adolescents rating mothers)

1. Trust — −.70**a −.37** −.34* −.38** −.20
2. Avoidance — .31* .15 .35* .19
3. Symptom distress — .73** .76** .35*
4. Social role — .67** .12
5. Interpersonal relations — .23
6. Physical aggression —

(n = 45 adolescents rating fathers)

1. Trust — −.62**b −.54** −.41** −.55** −.24
2. Avoidance — .57** .35* .63** .19
3. Symptom distress — .72** .77** .33*
4. Social role — .54** .04
5. Interpersonal relations — .11
6. Physical aggression —
Note. Pairwise correlations a−.54**; b−.52**.
*p < .05; **p < .01.

After establishing the relationship between the attachment mea-

sures and established measures of violence, symptom distress, interper-
sonal relations, and social role, the authors sought to establish the
relationship between the parental views of attachment towards their
adolescent and the adolescent’s attachment view of the parent. How-
ever, the sample size did not permit this analysis.

DISCUSSION

The concept of internal working models and attachment scripts

show promise in how people form and view relationships, especially
within families. However, most of this research is focused on individuals
rather than two people in a relationship. Although useful, only seeking
information from one person is narrow in focus and does not provide
344

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

a picture of how the attachment scripts between parents and their

adolescent children interact. Gathering information from parents and
adolescents about their attachment scripts and internal working mod-
els introduces a relational component that has been missing in the
literature. The development of an instrument simultaneously measur-
ing attachment scripts from the perspective of the parent and adoles-
cent is necessary before any interaction could be ascertained.
This study used an established measure, the IPPA, to help facilitate
the process of developing an instrument that would be useful in measur-
ing parental attachment scripts to their children. Initial findings show
that the R-IPA did not have the same factor structure as the original
IPPA. Several conclusions could be drawn from the fact that the newly
created instrument did not match the original factor structure of the
IPPA. It could be assumed that the revised scale is measuring some-
thing inherently different, or the lower income, less educated popula-
tion is responding differently to the questions. However, the validity
analysis of the R-IPA provided initial evidence that the R-IPA measures
attachment constructs. If the population is the reason for lack of struc-
tural fit with the data then the original IPPA would also exhibit a
different factor structure. Taking the next logical step this study exam-
ined the IPPA to see if its original factor structure would fit the current
sample or if the factor loadings would be similar to the R-IPA. The
confirmatory factor analysis was run to re-establish the original factor
structure of the IPPA for mothers and fathers with poorer families who
are less educated.
The confirmatory factor analysis shows that adolescents from lower
income, less educated families responded differently to the IPPA. It
was apparent that previously established factor loadings for the IPPA
did not fit this particular population. These findings do not necessarily
exclude the possibility that the R-IPA needs to be improved and en-
hanced to more effectively measure the attachment scripts between
adolescents and parents, but they do lend support for the idea that the
original measure, which was established on a collegiate sample (63%
female, average age 18.9, 75% Caucasian; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987),
performs differently with these particular participants. A review of
the literature demonstrates that there is little research dedicated to
establishing reliability and validity of attachment measures with lower
income, less educated participants.
Additionally, it is common for attachment researchers to establish
measures using undergraduate participants. Brennan, Clark, and Shaver
(1998) recently conducted a study using many of the prominent self-
report attachment measures. Most of the measures used in measuring
 345

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

attachment were developed and validated using undergraduate re-

search participants (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan & Shaver,
1995; Carver, 1997; Collins & Read, 1990; West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994;
West, Sheldon, & Reiffer, 1987). Even the participants used to derive
common constructs were undergraduate students (Brennan, Clark, &
Shaver, 1998). While this is an acceptable research practice, and the
intention is not to diminish the value of the results, the data may not
generalize to other populations.
Participants in the current research are families who are substan-
tially less educated and living at lower levels of income. These families
are also participating in family therapy for abuse and adolescent de-
linquency. While there has been research on attachment and its rela-
tionship to child abuse or adolescent delinquency, there has been little
research on attachment involving a lower income clinical sample deal-
ing with these social issues. Establishing the type of attachment scripts
or internal working models that exist between a parent and an adoles-
cent child could be key in evaluating parent and adolescent conflict
and aggression, particularly in low-income families. It could also be a
factor in establishing the relationship between the successful comple-
tion of adolescent developmental tasks and parenting tasks.
Although, the original factor structure of the IPPA and the R-IPA
did not fit with the current population, the data suggest that the theo-
retical assumptions of the original IPPA continue to hold with the
current population. Exploratory factor analysis shows a two-factor
model with some overlap of the current ideas on assessing attachment
(Brennan et al., 1998). This provides a good starting point for further
theoretical and scale development.
In looking at the results of the reliability and validity, the scales
show promise. Prior to any revisions of the newly created inventory,
additional information is necessary in ascertaining the relationship be-
tween the R-IPA and measures of internal working models. Establishing
an attachment script or internal working model assessment that takes
into account the parent’s and adolescent’s perspective within the relation-
ship will be a major task. Before the task is undertaken it would be
valuable to address the limitations of the current study. Hopefully, future
research can address some of the concerns and limitations.

Limitations
As discussed earlier, more attention has been paid to the adoles-
cent’s perception of parental attachment. Subsequently little is known
about the congruence or disparity between children’s and parent’s per-
346

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

ceptions of their internal working models. This research made the

assumption that parent’s perceptions of attachment to their children
were similar to adolescent’s perceptions of attachment to their parents.
While this assumption may be accurate, it is possible that the power
differential between the parent and child and the differences in stages of
psychosocial development could affect functioning of internal working
models. Research has looked at the affect of abuse and neglect on
attachment development of children; however, no literature looks at
the effects of adolescent behaviors and attitudes have on their parents.
This is especially true when dealing with issues of drug use, illegal
activities, and a lack of societal support for parents with little resources.
We have little information about adolescent behaviors affecting paren-
tal internal models of self.
Age could potentially be another intervening variable that con-
founds the results of this study. Some attachment research provides
evidence that attachment or attachment scripts vary from person
to person or situation to situation. The IPPA was established on an
undergraduate population. Current participants are parents and their
adolescents ranging from ages twelve to seventeen. Although, the age
difference is only five years between the youngest and oldest child
participant, the psychosocial developmental tasks for 12- and 17-year-
olds could have an impact on findings. Attachment quality, type, and
script may vary for parents completing the same set of questions on
their attachment to their seventeen year-old adolescent child compared
with their 12-year-old children. It could be possible that attachment
from the perspective of a parent launching a 17-year-old adolescent
from home would be very different from a parent dealing with an
adolescent who is entering the awkward stage of puberty, sexual devel-
opment, and egocentric behaviors.
Finally, we need to address the fact that the sample in which the
parents and adolescents were chosen is unique because participant
families are receiving services for abuse and adolescent delinquency.
Most of these families are also living below the federal poverty level.
While there has been research on attachment and its relationship to
child abuse or adolescent delinquency, there has been little research
on attachment involving a lower income clinical sample dealing with
difficult family problems. Culturally, it would be safe to assume that
these families experience their environment very differently from col-
lege bound students. There are also different styles of parenting, com-
municating, and even different ways of showing and receiving affection.
Attachment scripts are a universal phenomena, but how these scripts
are measured might not be universal.
 347

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

Summary
Further research and theory building is needed in this area. Re-
search has been done on internal working models and how they influ-
ence multiple areas of people’s lives, while little has been done to see
how internal working models or attachment scripts of parents and
adolescents have not been compared or conjointly examined to see how
they help describe familial relationships and family functioning. We
are not aware of any research that has been completed on the relational
component of attachment with lower income less educated populations.
This type of research is greatly needed in the study of family
functioning and family therapy. By understanding the relationship
between parent and adolescent attachment scripts and their interper-
sonal conflict researchers can begin to establish which relationship
changes can have the most impact on different family member function-
ing. Attachment theory provides well-defined descriptions of how rela-
tionships form and how individual relationships impact future relation-
ship development. Additionally, attachment scripts and the concepts
of internal working models influence much more than mere relationship
development. They are related to certain types of mental disorders,
and how people view the world. Finally, this research will lead to
research that further improves treatment. Currently in individual ther-
apy settings there is research on the relationship between attachment
the working or therapeutic alliance (Mallinckrodt, 1991; Mallinckrodt,
Coble, & Gantt, 1995; Satterfield & Lyddon, 1995, 1998). Research on
measuring attachment in families is a necessary prerequisite to con-
ducting this type of reaching in a family therapy setting. Additional
research on attachment scripts and internal working models and how
to measure these constructs within families is a necessary step in
understanding how families function and how to help families change.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to thank Kansas Children’s Service League and

the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund Grant #981223 for finan-
cially supporting a portion of this project.

REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SmallWaters
Corporation.
Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment:
348

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adoles-

cence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.
Baldwin, M., Keelan, J., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social cognitive
conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility ef-
fects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226–244.
Bowlby, J. (1989). Attachment and loss, Volume III: Loss, sadness and depression. London:
Pimlico.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attach-
ment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regulation,
and romantic relationship functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21, 267–283.
Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway, D., Maslin, C., & Sherman, M. (1989). Attachment:
The parental perspective. Infant Mental Health Journal, 10, 203–221.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment
relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook
of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York:
Guilford Press.
Byng-Hall, J. (1995). Creating a secure family base: Some implications of attachment
theory for family therapy. Family Process, 34, 45–58.
Carver, C. S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new
measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865–883.
Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 3–20). New
York: Guilford Press.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663.
Crittenden, P. M., Partridge, M. F., & Claussen, A. H. (1991). Family patterns of relation-
ship in normative and dysfunctional families. Development & Psychopathology, 3,
491–512.
Davey, A., & Szinovacz, M. E. (in press). Dimensions of marital quality and retirement.
Journal of Family Issues.
Davila, J., & Karney, B. (1999). Attachment change processes in the early years of
marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783–802.
Goodman, L., Koss, M., & Russo, N. (1993). Violence against women: Mental health
effects. Part II: Conceptualizations of posttraumatic stress. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 2, 123–130.
Grotevant, H. D., & Carlson, C. I. (1989). Family assessment: A guide to methods and
measures. New York: Guilford Press.
Hall, E., Lamb, M. E., & Perlmutter, M. (1988). Child psychology today (2nd ed.). New
York: Random House.
Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
Herman, J. (1992). Trauma and recovery. New York: Basic Books.
Kirkpatrick, L., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-
year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123–142.
Kirkpatrick, L., & Shaver, P. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to romantic
love and religious belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 266–275.
Klohnen, E. C., & Bera, S. (1998). Behavioral and experiential patterns of avoidantly
and securely attached women across adulthood: A 31–year longitudinal perspective.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 211–223.
 349

LEE N. JOHNSON, SCOTT A. KETRING, AND CARLA ABSHIRE

Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., Umpress, V., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, J., Burlingame,
G. M., & Reisinger, C. W. (1996). Adminstration and scoring manual for the OQ-
45.2 (outcome questionnaire). Stevenson, MD: American Professional Credentialing
Services LLC.
Mallinckrodt, B. (1991). Clients’ representations of childood emotional bonds with par-
ents, social support, and formation of the working alliance. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 401–409.
Mallinckrodt, B., Coble, H. M., & Gantt, D. L. (1995). Working alliance, attachment
memories, and social competencies of women in brief therapy. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42, 79–84.
Pietromonaco, P., & Carnelley, K. (1994). Gender and working models of attachment:
Consequences for perceptions of self and romantic relationships. Personal Relation-
ships, 1, 63–82.
Satterfield, W. A., & Lyddon, W. J. (1995). Client attachment and perceptions of the
working alliance with counselor trainees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42,
187–189.
Satterfield, W. A., & Lyddon, W. J. (1998). Client attachment and the working alliance.
Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 407–415.
Schiamberg, L. B. (1988). Child and adolescent development. New York: Macmillian.
Schumm, W. R., & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1989). The conflict tactics scales. American Journal
of Family Therapy, 17, 165–169.
Sheridan, M., & Green, R. (1993). Family dynamics and individual characteristics of
adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Social Service Research, 17, 73–97.
Stern, D. (1983). The early development of schemas of self, other, and self with other.
In J. D. Lichtenberg & S. Kaplan (Eds.), Reflections of self psychology (pp. 49–85).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics
(CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Terr, L. (1994). Unchained memories: True stories of traumatic memories, lost and found.
San Francisco: Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute.
Vivona, J. M. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of attach-
ment relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 47, 316–329.
Wampler, K. S., & Halverson, C. F. (1993). Quantitative measurement in family research.
In P. G. Boss & W. J. Doherty & R. LaRossa & W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.),
Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 181–194). New
York: Plenum Press.
West, M., Sheldon, A., & Reiffer, L. (1987). An approach to the delineation of adult
attachment: Scale development and reliability. Journal of Nervous and Mental Dis-
ease, 175, 738–741.
West, L. W., & Sheldon-Keller, A. E. (1994). Patterns of relating: An adult attachment
perspective. New York: Guilford Press.

View publication stats