The Effect of Adolescent Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationship Quality Aashna A. Dhayagude & David E. Szwedo James Madison University Introduction Measures Adolescent Attachment Interview (AAI) (age 14) This is a semi-structured interview that assessed adolescent attachment. Participants were asked to describe their parents as caregivers, current relationship with their parents and how their parents typically responded to their distress. Friendship Quality Questionnaire (FQQ) (age 18) The validation and caring subscales were used from this measure. Participants rated on a 5 point Likert scale from Not At All True to Really True. Implicit Attitudes Task (IAT) (age 18) This measure was used to assess self- worth in terms of implicit rejection. Participants were presented with either words or pictures and they had to classify them into two categories using one of two computer keys. Self Perception Profile for Adolescents (Child HARTER) (age 18) The global self worth scale from this measure was used. Adolescents are asked to choose between two contrasting stem items and then rate that item as either "sort of true" or "really true" about themselves. Multi-Item Measure of Adult Romantic Attachment (MAR) (age 20- 22) A 36 item survey with items drawn from multiple measures of attachment, personality, social behavior, touch and sex. The Avoidance scale was used from this measure. The Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) (age 20 -22) This measure was used to assess differences in teens’ relationship quality with romantic partners in terms of satisfaction, companionship and emotional support. Participants rated on a 5 point Likert scale where1 = Little or None and 5 = The Most. Attachment is broadly defined as the bond between two people. It generally starts with a parent-child bond that is thought to affect attachment in future romantic relationships and friendships. The four attachment styles are Secure (low avoidance, low anxiety & positive view of the self and others), Preoccupied (low avoidance, high anxiety & negative view of the self but positive view of others), Dismissing-Avoidant (low anxiety, high avoidance & positive view of self but negative view of others) and Fearful-Avoidant (high anxiety, high avoidance & negative view of the self as well as others). Individuals with a secure attachment style tend to feel “a sense of worthiness” and believe that most other people are accepting and responsive. Securely attached individuals also reported higher levels of self-confidence, higher intimacy in friendships and higher levels of involvement in romantic relationships. Attachment experiences are repetitive and hence individuals internalize these memories which in turn lead to personal expectations about support received from significant others. (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Kho et. al, 2015). Children have higher self-worth as adults if they experience strong friendships as children and friendship quality is predictor of global self-worth (Sümer, 2015). Individuals securely attached to their romantic partners were also more likely to have higher levels of romantic relationship satisfaction as compared to avoidant or anxiously attached individuals (Alexandrov, Cowan & Cowan, 2005; Davila, Bradbury & Fincham, 1998;Simpson, 1990). Figure 1. The interaction between security and validation and caring, in which lower security and validation and caring predict lower levels of teen companionship in romantic relationships. Figure 2: The interaction between security and implicit rejection (self-worth) in which higher security and higher implicit rejection (lower self worth) predict higher levels of teen companionship in romantic relationships. Results Analyses revealed strong positive correlations between validation & caring and gender, self worth and a strong negative correlation with teen avoidance and validation & caring as well as with self worth. Correlations between primary variables are presented in Table 1 below. Regression equations were used to examine secure attachment as a predictor of (romantic outcomes) and also included gender and total household income as covariates. Interactions between security and self-worth and security and caring and validation in friendships were also included. Hypotheses Figure 3: The interaction between security and validation and caring, in which higher security and lower validation & caring predict higher levels of romantic partner avoidance. Individuals with a secure attachment style will report greater levels of future romantic satisfaction, emotional support and companionship and lower levels of avoidance. These associations will be moderated by levels of self-worth and levels of validation and caring in previous friendships. It is hypothesized that for individuals with less secure attachment, having greater self worth and greater validation and caring will predict more positive romantic outcomes as compared to individuals with lower self worth and validation and caring in friendships. Discussion Table 1. Univariate statistics and inter-correlations between primary constructs Teens who exhibited low secure attachment but high validation and caring in friendships scored higher on companionship than those with low secure attachment & low validation and caring. This could presumably be because the people with low security that did not receive validation & caring sought companionship less because they were already not being validated. (Figure 1) Individuals who showed higher security & higher implicit rejection (lower self worth) scored higher on companionship potentially because they sought more companionship due to the fact that they had lower self worth. Individuals who had high security & low implicit rejection (high self-worth) scored the lowest on companionship possibly because they were more confident & hence did not need companionship as much. (Figure 2) For individuals who showed higher security, but lower levels of validation & caring in friendships, their romantic partners scored higher on avoidance, possibly because the teen had exhibited less care toward the partner & validated them less, prompting the partner to be avoidant. (Figure 3) Method Participants N = 184 Gender Ethnicity Income 86 males 107 Caucasian Median = $40,000 - $59,000 98 females 53 African American 24 Mixed/Other