We want to emphasize that research papers
testing the validity of the model do not rely on these self-report
measures. Specifically, validation results in Bartholomew &
Horowitz (1991) relied on ratings obtained from the Peer Attachment Interview
(PAI). Further, validation of the attachment dimensions (Griffin
& Bartholomew, 1994) are based on multiple measures of attachment
including interview measures.
Self-Report Attachment Measures:
(RQ; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).
The RQ can either be worded in terms of general orientations to close relationships, orientations to romantic relationships, or orientations to a specific relationship (or some combination of the above). It can also be reworded in the third person and used to rate others' attachment patterns. For instance, we have had close same sex friends and romantic partners rate themselves and their friend or partner.
The RQ was designed to obtain continuous ratings of each of the four attachment patterns, and this is the ideal use of the measure. However, if necessary, the RQ can also be used to categorize participants into their best fitting attachment pattern. The highest of the four attachment prototype ratings can be used to classify participants into an attachment category. A problem arises when two or more attachment prototypes are rated equally high. To deal with this, we also ask participants to choose a single, best fitting attachment pattern. However, if they have not chosen a best fitting attachment pattern, the researcher can either delete the participant(s) from the data set, or use a method of randomly (perhaps flipping a coin) selecting one of the two prototypes as the attachment category. Unfortunately, if there is a 3-way tie for highest rating and a best fitting attachment pattern has not been chosen, then there is no option but to delete that participant's data. Although the RQ can be used categorically, we do NOT recommend doing so. A continuous approach, using prototypes or dimensions, is the best approach.
**It is important to administer BOTH the forced-choice paragraph (1st page of measure) AND the likert rating scales of the paragraphs (2nd page of measure), even if you will not use the RQ categorically. Completing the forced-choice paragraph first serves as a counterbalancing effect to minimize order effects when participants rank the degree to which each prototype is self-characterizing.
The underlying attachment dimensions can be derived from linear combinations of the prototype ratings obtained from the RQ (or the composite attachment measure, see below).
Self Model - patterns characterized by positive self models minus patterns characterized by negative self models [i.e. (secure plus dismissing) MINUS (fearful plus preoccupied)] . If you wish your results to correspond in the same direction to the ‘anxiety’ dimension often referred to in the attachment field, the calculation can be reversed [i.e. (fearful plus preoccupied) MINUS (secure plus dismissing)]. In the latter calculation, higher scores will refer to more negative models of self.
Other Model - patterns characterized by positive other models minus patterns characterized by negative other models [i.e. (secure plus preoccupied) MINUS (fearful plus dismissing)].
You are encouraged to read:
Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994).
In addition to obtaining the four-category model subscales of the RSQ (see below for the relevant items), the three Hazan & Shaver (1987) attachment styles can be obtained by simply going back to their original Adult Attachment Style measure and matching up the statements. Additionally, the three dimensions used by Collins and Read (1990) can also be obtained. Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, you can use the questionnaire to derive scales of the underlying two dimensions. This can be done two ways: 1) by conducting a factor analysis of the items or 2) by using the scores from the four prototype items to create linear combinations representing the self and other-model attachment dimensions. We recommend that you consult the Kurdek (2002) paper in JSPR which recommends the best approach for scoring the measure dimensionally.
Like the RQ, the RSQ can be worded in terms of general orientations to close relationships, orientations to romantic relationships, or orientations to a specific adult, peer relationship.
The RSQ is designed as a continuous
measure of adult attachment. The RSQ was NOT designed, nor intended to be
used, as a categorical measure of attachment. If, however, it is absolutely
necessary for you to classify participants into attachment patterns, you
must use standard scores. First, you would create the four subscales by
computing the mean rating of the items for each subscale. Then you would
transform those mean ratings into standard scores. This is a far from ideal
use of the RSQ and should be undertaken only as a last resort!
SCORING THE RSQ
Secure Items: 3,
9(Reverse), 10, 15, 28(Reverse).
DERIVING SELF-MODEL AND OTHER-MODEL ATTACHMENT DIMENSIONS FOR THE RSQ
We recommend that you consult the Kurdek
(2002) paper for a recommended derivation of the dimensions when using the
You are encouraged to read:
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P.
(1998). Measures of attachment: Do they converge? In. J.A. Simpson
& W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
Web page of Dr. Phil
RQ & RSQ COMPOSITE MEASURE OF ADULT ATTACHMENT
It is possible to administer the RQ and the RSQ and then combine the obtained scores to form a composite measure of adult attachment. First, attachment ratings on both the RQ and the RSQ need to be converted into standard scores (z-scores). Next, the standardized parallel RQ and RSQ scores are combined. For example, the now standardized RQ secure scores are combined with the now standardized RSQ secure scores to form a single, composite measure of secure attachment. Apply the same procedure to the remaining attachment pattern ratings. These composite scores can be used in all subsequent analyses. The composite attachment ratings can also be used to obtain the self-model and other-model attachment dimensions (see below).
For an example of this procedure see: Ognibene, T.C., & Collins, N.L. (1998). Adult attachment styles, perceived social support and coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 15(3), 323-345.