The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 755(4), 471-486

The Adult Attachment Interview and

Questionnaires for Attachment Style,
Temperament, and Memories of
Parental Behavior

MARCEL A. DE HAAS
MARIAN J. BAKERMANS-KRANENBURG
MARINUS H. VAN IJZENDOORN
Center for Child and Family Studie s
Leiden University, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT. Relations between Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) outcomes and

data from questionnaires on attachment style, temperament,and memories of paren-
tal caregiving behavior were investigated to examine theoretical and methodological
specificity of the AAI. The participants were 83 mothers of 1-year-olds. No differ-
ences between the three AAI classifications (autonomous, dismissing, or preoccupied)
were found. Correlations between scales yielded few significant relations, with the
exception of strong relations between some AAI scales for experiences and self-
reported memories of parental behavior. The self-report questionnaires for attach-
ment style and memories of parental behavior were therefore found to be not suitable
for obtaining Information about attachment working models äs assessed by the AAI.
Furthermore, attachment working models appear independent of temperament.

ALTHOUGH BOWLBY (1969) conceived of attachment theory äs covering

life-span personality development, attachment research has focused mainly
on the first years of life. The introduction of a Standard observation proce-
dure for the assessment of attachment relationships between babies and their
attachment figures (the Strange Situation: Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978) led to an explosion of research in that area. However, halfway
through the 1980s, George, Kaplan, and Main (1985) developed the Adult
Attachment Interview (AAI), which enabled researchers to assess attachment
representations in adolescence and adulthood äs well. In this interview, re-
spondents reflect on their childhood attachment experiences and evaluate
possible impacts of these experiences on their own personality and behavior.

471
472 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Parallel to the attachment classifications in childhood, the AAI coding sys-

tem (Main & Goldwyn, 1985/1991) identifies secure and insecure patterns
of adult attachment on the basis of three main classifications: autonomous,
preoccupied, and dismissing. These classifications reflect differences in men-
tal representations that are based on differences in the organization of attach-
ment experiences. To stress the dynamic nature of these mental representa-
tions, Bowlby (1969, p. 80) called them the "internal working models."
Internal working models are defined äs sets of conscious and unconscious
rules for the organization of attachment Information and for accessing that
Information (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
There is an important distinction between attachment experiences (pri-
marily with parents) that have probably taken place in the past and the way
in which these experiences are represented (the state of mind with respect to
attachment). The AAI coding system provides measures for both aspects.
First, the system contains rating scales for judging if, and to what extent,
childhood experiences were probably characterized by parental love, rejec-
tion, neglect, pressure to achieve, and role reversal. Second, the representa-
tion of experiences is assessed by nine rating scales that discriminate between
the autonomous, preoccupied, and dismissing AAI classifications (Main &
Goldwyn, 1985/1991). Examples of such state-of-mind scales are the extent
to which parents are idealized, the extent of anger toward the parents, and
the coherence of the interview.
The AAI classifications primarily reflect state of mind with respect to
attachment. First, autonomous attachment refers to emotional openness to-
ward attachment experiences. During the interview autonomous respondents
provide balanced and coherent pictures of attachment experiences. Negative
aspects of the relationship with parents are not withheld. Second, the dis-
missing pattern of attachment is characterized by an attitude of devaluing
attachment. This means, for example, that one's own attachment history is
presented in a more positive light than it probably actually was, or that the
impact of attachment experiences on personality and child rearing is denied
(Main & Goldwyn, 1985/1991). Contradictions between positive evaluations
of the relationship with the parents and, at the same time, the inability to

This study was supportedby a PIONEER grantfrom the Netherlands Organization

for Scientific Research (NWO, Grant PCS 59-256) to Marinus H. van IJzendoorn.
We gratefully acknowledge the help of Corine de Ruiter, Marianne de Wolff, Stella
van Rijsoort, Hylda Zwart- Woudstra, and Mariska Zwinkels in collecting and cod-
ing dato. We also thank Francisco Bijkerk, Bart Bosman, Dineke den Boer, Ciska
Dijkstra, Bertilla van den Bovenkamp, and Adinda van Veenfor transcribing the in-
terviews.
Address correspondence to Marinus H. van IJzendoorn, Center for Child and
Family Studies, Leiden University, P. O. Box 9555, NL-2300 RB Leiden, The Nether-
lands.
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Uzendoorn 473

recall positive events, give rise to the impression that the respondent is ideal-
izing the parents. Finally, the preoccupied pattern of insecure attachment
characterizes a person who is still enmeshed in negative childhood experi-
ences. The preoccupied respondent often manifests anger against parents,
and events are described in disorderly and incoherently ways. The AAI classi-
fication seems to be independent of intelligence, autobiographic memory, or
social desirability (Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Uzendoorn, 1993; Cro-
well et al., 1993; Sagi et al., 1994).
In several studies (for a review, see Van Uzendoorn, 1992) an impressive
correspondence was found between AAI classifications of parents and the
quality of attachment relationships with their babies (Strange Situation clas-
sifications; Ainsworth et al., 1978). These studies show that autonomous
parents mostly have secure relationships with their children, whereas chil-
dren are often attached ambivalently to preoccupied parents and attached
avoidantly to dismissing parents. For a substantial part this transmission of
attachment patterns can be explained by differences in sensitive respon-
siveness. In general, autonomous adults respond in a more sensitive way
to Signals from their children (e.g., Crowell & Feldman, 1988; Grossmann,
Fremmer-Bombik, Rudolph, & Grossmann, 1988; for a review, see Van IJ-
zendoorn, 1992). Apparently an open and balanced organization of attach-
ment experiences provides an adequate matrix for openness toward children's
attachment Signals.

Purpose of This Study

The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) is a time-consuming measure.
Administering the interview takes about l hr; the audiotape must be tran-
scribed verbatim; and coding the interview takes at least 4 hr. Coding can be
done reliably only after extensive training. At least two questions should be
asked considering the AAI: First, can the AAI be replaced by a less time-
consuming Instrument? Second, what is the specificity of the AAI compared
with other measures of personality? The first question is especially important
for big research projects in which it is almost impossible to use the AAI.
Thus, because the AAI focuses on experiences with parents, one could rea-
sonably suggest the use of questionnaires about behavior of parents during a
person's childhood. However, we already pointed at the importance of ideal-
ization and coherence for the identification of attachment patterns. For that
reason we doubt the usefulness of questionnaires in this respect.
The second question concerns implications of attachment representa-
tions for personality. Although the AAI does not provide measures of per-
sonality or social competence, theoretically the internal working model of
attachment may affect personality to some degree (Bowlby, 1973). This im-
pact could, according to Bowlby, be ascribed to the image of the seif in terms
474 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

of the feeling that one is loved and valued. This self-image directs one's be-
havior in interactions with others. Securely attached children have positive
images of themselves and, therefore, differ from insecurely attached children
in social competence. Several studies confirm this hypothesis for children
(e.g., Fagot, 1993; Sroufe, 1983; Waters, Wippman, & Sroufe, 1979) and for
adolescents (Kobak & Sceery, 1988). Whether these results may be general-
ized to working models of adults is still unclear.
Personality covers a broad domain, and certain aspects of personality
(e.g., temperament), are said to be inherited, stable, and thus little affected
by experiences (Buss & Plomin, 1984). Because temperament is seen äs an
important brick in the building of personality, it is necessary to rule out that
the internal working model of attachment is just a matter of temperament.
Although an interaction between temperament and attachment is plausible
(see also Vaughn et al., 1992), a large overlap between attachment and tem-
perament would cause one to question the specificity of the concept and
measure of the internal working model of attachment. According to Hazan
and Shaver (1987), attachment experiences should find expression in one's
attachment style, that is, one's way of forming close relationships with other
adults. A secure attachment style would mean that a person gets involved in
close relationships easily, has few problems with mutual dependency, and is
not afraid of being abandoned or becoming too close. An anxious avoidant
attachment would appear from uncomfortable feelings in close relationships,
whereas an anxious ambivalent attachment would appear from one partner's
clinging to the other partner because of fear of losing him or her. Attachment
style is assessed in this study by a questionnaire (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
In the present study we focused on relations between AAI classifications
and rating scales, on the one hand, and questionnaires for attachment styles,
temperament, and memories of parental behavior, on the other hand. Pre-
suming that temperament and attachment are mutually influencing, but
nonetheless different constructs, we expected that temperament would show
at most a moderate association with the AAI. From a theoretical point of
view attachment style should, however, show at least a modest relation with
attachment representations and experiences. In addition, we expected that
the AAI scales for attachment experiences would show some convergence
with memories of parental behavior äs assessed by questionnaires. This con-
vergence in fact concerns the agreement between the respondent and the AAI
coder about the respondent's childhood experiences.

Method
Participants
In this study (part of a larger project on the intergenerational transmission
of attachment; Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Uzendoorn, 1993) 83 Dutch
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Uzendoorn 475

mothers participated. The mothers' mean age was 27 years 4 months; the
youngest mother was 19, and the oldest mother was 33 years old (SD — 2.6).
On average, the mothers did work out of home for 6.7 hr per week (SD =
8.5); the maximum was 24 hr per week. All lived together with a partner in
Leiden or its neighboring villages and had a first-born child of 12 months of
age (43 sons and 40 daughters). The mean educational level was 3.7 (SD =
.90) on a scale ranging from l (less than 6 years of schooling) to 6 (at least
16 years of schooling). The participants visited the laboratory twice, with a
2-month interval. During the first visit they were interviewed with the AAI
and completed questionnaires about temperament, attachment style, and
memories of parental behavior. During the second visit the AAI was again
administered, and the participants were given the same questionnaires about
memories of parental behavior to be completed at home. Except for test-
retest reliability, no use was made of the data collected at the second time
of measurement.

Measures

The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). The AAI is a semistructured inter-

view that is used to evoke descriptions of relationships with parents in child-
hood, specific memories, and descriptions of current relationships with par-
ents. The Interviews took about l hr and were transcribed verbatim. Then
the protocols were coded according to scales for attachment experiences (e.g.,
loving, rejecting, role reversing) and for state of mind with respect to attach-
ment (idealization, anger, recall, coherence, metacognition, derogation, fear
of loss, and some scales for unresolved loss or other trauma that are not
included in this report). Agreement between two coders was satisfactory for
the most important scales concerning the childhood experiences with the
mother. The mean intercoder agreement (r) for the six scales that are most
important and that were used in this study (loved versus unloved by mother,
rejection by mother, role reversal with mother, idealization of mother, anger
toward mother, and coherence of transcript) was .78 (ränge = .65-. 90; n =
16). In addition, the Interviews were classified into one of the three adult
attachment categories: autonomous (F), preoccupied (E), and dismissing
(Ds) attachment. Percentage of agreement on 16 transcripts was 81% (Í =
.72); the test-retest reliability for the whole sample was 78% (Í = .63).

Memories of maternal behavior. Participants' memories of their mothers'

behavior were assessed with two questionnaires. The first questionnaire, the
'Egna Minnen Beträffende Uppfostran' (EMBU), was designed in Sweden
by Perris, Jacobsson, Lindström, Von Knorring, and Perris (1980) to assess
memories of parental rearing behavior. Items are scored on a 4-point scale
476 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

separately for each parent. The EMBU contains four subscales: rejecting (26
items), emotional warmth (18 items), overprotecting (16 items), and favoring
subject (4 items). Arindell, Emmelkamp, Brilman, and Monsma (1983) re-
ported good reliability and validity for the EMBU in the Netherlands. In our
study, test-retest coefficients (r) between .65 and .88 were found, and internal
consistency (a) ranged from .65 to .94.
The second questionnaire, the Parental Adjective Scale (PAS), was de-
veloped on the basis of the adjectives with which the participants described
their parents (based on the AAI coding system). The PAS consists of 34
adjectives describing the participant's mother in relation to himself or herseif
äs a child. On a 4-point rating scale, respondents were asked to indicate their
agreement with the descriptions. Three a priori scales—Loving, Rejecting,
and Incompetence—containing 10 adjectives each, could be derived (test-
retest reliability ranged from .72 to .87, and internal consistency ranged from
.69 to .90). A fourth scale (Overprotection) was not reliable. Because of the
overlap between the PAS scales for Loving and Rejecting and the EMBU
scales for Emotional Warmth and Rejecting, the only PAS scale we used was
Incompetence.

Adult attachment styles. Hazan and Shaver's (1987) measure for Adult at-
tachment styles was designed from a translation of Ainsworth et al.'s (1978)
descriptions of infants' attachment classifications (ambivalent, secure, and
avoidant) into terms appropriate for adult love relationships. A fourth de-
scription was added later (Mayseless, 1990) to cover the disorganized/disori-
ented infant-attachment category (Main & Solomon, 1986). The participants
were asked to indicate which description best described their feelings. Four
continuous 7-point scales were added to indicate how strongly respondents
identified with each one of the four descriptions. Because analyses showed
that the description of the disorganized pattern could not be distinguished
from the ambivalent description, the four scales were reduced to the original
three scales. Hazan and Shaver (1987) reported satisfactory psychometric
qualities of their self-report Instrument.

Temperament. Temperament of the participants was assessed on the dimen-

sions of Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability (EAS; Buss & Plomin, 1984).
Emotionality was further divided into three subscales; Fear, Anger, and Dis-
tress. Individual differences on these dimensions are proposed to have genetic
roots, to be manifest at a very young age, and to affect subsequent personal-
ity development (Buss et al., 1984). The EAS dimensions seem to be related
to the five-factor model of personality (the Big Five), but the structure of this
relation is not obvious (John, 1990). Internal consistency (a) of the five scales
(Fear, Anger, Distress, Activity, and Sociability) ranged in our study from .57
to .67. This moderate reliability might be due to the small number of items
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Uzendoorn 477

per scale (the EAS questionnaire consists of only 20 five-point items). For
test-retest reliabilities, Buss et al. (1984) reported correlations between .75
and .85.

Background variables. To examine potential effects of third variables on as-

sociations, we included four relevant background variables. First, perfor-
mance IQ was assessed with Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven,
1958), which was validated in the Netherlands by Van der Giesen (1957) and
Van Weeren (1968). Second, to assess the participants' tendency to provide
socially desirable answers, we used a shortened version of the Marlowe-
Crowne social desirability scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), which was val-
idated in the Netherlands by Nederhof (1981). This shortened version con-
sisted of 10 Statements concerning attitudes and traits, each with two
response categories (true or false). Seven items loaded on the first principal
component, and this one-dimensional scale showed a moderate reliability
(a = .67). Educational level of the respondent was assessed according to
Dutch Standards on a scale ranging from has not completed elementary
school (1) to university degree (6). In addition, the participant's age was
added to this set of background variables.

Results
Associations between measures and background variables (educational level,
social desirability, intelligence, and age) were examined. Significant differ-
ences between AAI classifications were found only for age, F(2, 80) = 4.72,
p = .01. The mean age of the autonomous group was somewhat higher than
that of both insecure groups (see also Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Uzen-
doorn, 1993). Product-moment correlations between the 19 scales and the
four background variables were calculated. Because these calculations re-
sulted in 76 correlation coefficients, a Bonferroni correction was applied,
leading to an alpha level of .01. According to this criterion, only 11 (14%) of
the 76 correlations seemed to be significant, with a mean correlation (r) of
.32. The significant correlations were equally spread over background vari-
ables and scales. These results made us decide not to apply any correction
for effects of background variables in subsequent analyses.

AAI Classifications and Scales

Forty-six (55%) Interviews were classified äs autonomous, 20 (24%) äs
dismissing, and 17 (20%) äs preoccupied. This distribution approximately
equals distributions that were found in other samples from "normal" popula-
tions (Van Uzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, in press). The AAI classi-
fications were strongly related to AAI scales for state of mind with respect to
478 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

attachment (this result was also estabhshed m the study of Fonagy, Steele, &
Steele, 1991) One-way multivanate analyses of vanance (MANOVAs), with
the three state-of-mmd scales äs dependent variables, yielded a significant
mam effect, Pillai's = 79, approximate F(6, 154) = 16 8,/? < 001 All three
umvanate F tests were also significant (see Table l, ANOVA) Coherence of
transcnpt showed the strengest association with the AAI classifications, F(2,
80) = 39 5, p < 001, and anger the weakest association, F(2, 78) = 11 4, p
< 001
The scores of the three AAI categones were different on the AAI expen-
ence scales äs well, but to a somewhat lesser extent than the state-of-mmd
scales The one-way MANOVA with the expenence scales äs dependent vari-
ables yielded a Pillai's = 58, approximate F(6, 156) = 10 6, p < 001 The
umvanate F tests also seemed significant (see Table l, ANOVA) However,
state of mind and expenences were not independent from each other (see
Table 2) For example, the coherence of transcnpt showed a quite strong
positive relationship with lovmg expenences (r = 60, p < 001) and a nega-
tive relation with rejectmg expenences (r = — 47, p < 001)
We exammed whether these correlations between state-of-mmd and ex-
penence scales could account for the differences among the AAI classifi-

TABLE l
Mean Scale Score Ratings and Standard Deviations of Adult Attachment
Classification (AAI) Scales, Grouped by AAI Classiflcation

AAI Classification
L.'S j jt ANOVA ANCOVA'
Scale M SD M SD M SD F F

Probable
expenenceb
Lovmg 28 08 50 15 38 13 18 6*** 30
Rejectmg 51 15 27 15 36 22 13 2*** 28
Role
reversmg 17 10 24 12 39 16 13 6*** 12 j***
State of mmd
Ideahzmgb 46 15 25 11 27 10 20 8*** 10 8***
Current
angerb 19 19 14 07 37 27 11 4*** 9 0***
Coherence
of transcnpt 33 09 55 13 35 08 39 g*** 20 3***

Note Ds = dismissmg (7V = 20), F = autonomous (7V = 46), E = preoccupied (7V = 17)
a
All three state-of-mmd scales arc covanates when probable expenence scales are dependent
variables, and vice versa b Concernmg mother of participant
**> < 001
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn 479

cations for the experience scales. For that purpose, the aforementioned
MANOVAs were performed with the following covariates: First, in the MA-
NOVA with the experience scales äs dependent variables, the three state-of-
mind scales were included äs covariates. These covariates caused a reduction
in the main effect, but this effect remained significant, Pillai's = .30, approxi-
mate F(6, 148) = 4.5,p < .001. However, univariate Ftests for loving experi-
ences and rejecting experiences (see Table l, analysis of covariance [AN-
COVA]) seemed no longer significant, F(2, 75) = 3.0, p = .06, F(2, 75) =
2.8,/? = .07, respectively. The univariate Ftest for role-reversing experiences
remained significant, F(2, 75) = 12.1, p < .001. The other way around, that
is, MANOVA with state-of-mind scales äs dependent variables and experi-
ence scales äs covariates, yielded a reduced but significant main effect äs
well, Pillai's = .60, approximate F(6, 148) = 10.7,/? < .001. However, group
differences on the separate state-of-mind scales also remained significant (see
Table l, ANCOVA). These results confirm that AAI classifications primarily
reflect mental representations of attachment, in particular, the coherence of
the interview.

AAI and Memories of Parental Behavior

ANOVAs were performed to examine relations between AAI classifications

and the five scales for participants' memories of their mothers' parental be-
havior, derived from the questionnaires. No significant group differences be-

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Adult Attachment Interview Scales

Probable experience·' State of mind

Role Current Coherence of
Scale Rejecting reversing Idealizing'' anger·1 transcript

Probable experience·1
Loving -.84*** .10 -.38*** -.28* .60***
Rejecting — -.16 .38*** .27* _ 47***
Role reversing — -.21 .14 .05
State-of-mind
Idealizing·' — -.30** -.58***
Current anger1 -.27*
Coherence of
transcript —

•'Concerning molher of participant.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
480 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

TABLE 3
Mean Scale-Score Ratings and Standard Deviations of Attachment Style,
Temperament, and Memories of Maternal Behavior,
Grouped by AAI Classiflcation

AAI Classificaüon
Ds
Questionnaire M SD M SD M SD 7^(2,80)

Memories of mother
Rejecüon 34 47 34 65 39 142 263 08
Warmth 56 108 58 77 53 130 210 13
Overprotection 35 56 36 58 37 64 043 65
Favormg subject 6 22 6 15 7 28 1 00 37
Incompetence 15 47 14 40 16 49 071 50
Attachment style
Avoidant 39 17 36 21 33 19 040 67
Ambivalent 21 12 24 14 25 13 056 58
Secure 45 21 45 21 41 21 021 81
Temperament
Sociability 31 77 35 71 32 75 250 09
Activity 26 80 29 83 26 62 140 26
Fear 23 69 20 64 22 81 100 90
Anger 26 62 24 91 22 56 075 48
Distress 18 73 19 64 18 71 006 95

Note Ds = dismissmg (N = 20), F = autonomous (N = 46), E = preoccupied (N = 17)

tween the autonomous, preoccupied, and dismissmg participants were found
(see Table 3)
This result might be mterpreted äs a lack of association between state
of mmd with respect to attachment and actual memones of attachment ex-
penences Nonetheless, we found correlations between AAI state-of-mmd
scales and AAI expenence scales (Table 2) The picture becomes more clear
when we examine the correlations between AAI scales and scales for memo-
nes of parental behavior (see Table 4, Bonferrom-corrected alpha level)
While AAI classifications did not show any sigmficant association with mem-
ones of parental behavior, AAI scales did Correlations were found between
the AAI scale for loving expenences, on the one hand, and memones of
emotional warmth (r = 53, p < 001) and memones of rejection (r = - 38,
p < 001), on the other hand (see Table 4) For the AAI scale for rejectmg
expenences, these correlations (r) were — 57 (p < 001) and 43 (p < 001), re-
spectively
Likewise, the AAI scales for state of mmd showed some relations with
memones of parental behavior (see Table 4) These relations, however, con-
cerned only the scale for anger toward mother, which correlated with memo-
 De Haas, Bakeimans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn 481

TABLE 4
Product-Moment Correlations Between Adult Attachment Interview Scales and
Attachment Style, Temperament, and Memories of Maternal Behavior

Probable expenence ' State of mmd

Role Current Coherence
Questionnaire Lovmg Rejectmg reversmg Ideahzation1 anger1 transcnpt

Memones of
mother
Rejection - 38*** 43*** 07 -28 59***t -05
Warmth 53*** - 57*** 04 06 - 42***c 21
Overprotec- -08 12 11 - 16 08 13
tion
Favormg - 01 -07 27 -05 16 -06
subject
Incompe- - 18 14 13 -01 18 -01
tence
Attachment
style
Avoidant - 14 22 -06 18 -07 -02
Ambivalent - 14 07 21 00 16 00
Secure 00 02 -22 - 16 00 12
Temperament
Sociabihty 24 -26 03 - 11 - 15 20
Activity 12 00 -03 09 06 13
Fear -25 29* 07 -02 33** - 13
Anger -04 04 -03 01 -01 09
Distress -08 08 03 - 12 16 17

Note Bonferromzed sigmficance levels *01,** 002,*** 0002 (two-tailed)

Motherc of subject bAfter the effect of rejectmg expenences has been partialled out, / = 54, p
< 001 After the effect of lovmg expenences has been partialled out, r = — 33,p < 01

nes of rejection (r = 59, p < 001) and memones of emotional warmth (r =

— 42, p < 001) After partiallmg out the mutual correlations with rejectmg
expenences (m the case of memones of rejection) and lovmg expenences (m
the case of memones of emotional warmth), these two correlations remamed
significant (r = 54, p < 001, and r - - 33, p < 01, respectively) Thus, the
relation between anger toward mother and reported memones of warmth
or rejection cannot be explamed by the mutual relations with expenences
However, anger toward mother seemed less important m determintng the
AAI classification (compared with the two other state-of-mmd scales, see
Table 1) As stated before, the coherence of the transcnpt was more im-
portant m this respect, and this scale did not have any relation with memones
of parental behavior (see Table 4) In summary, AAI scales for expenences
converged partly with the self-reported memones of emotional warmth and
482 The Journal oj Genetic Psychology

rejection, whereas the associations with the state-of-mind scales were less
prominent.
Adult Attachment, Attachment Style, and Temperament
Significant associations between AAI classifications on the one band, and
attachment styles and temperament on the other hand, were absent (see Table
3). Only sociability showed a slight trend, F(2, 80) = 2.5, p = .09, in favor
of the autonomous participants. Likewise, the state-of-mind scales showed
hardly any association with temperament and no association at all with at-
tachment style. Only anger toward mother seemed to be positively related
with a fearful temperament (r = .33, p < .001). The same applied to the AAI
scales for experiences (see Table 4): Of these scales, only rejecting experiences
correlated with a fearful temperament (r = .29, p < .01).

Discussion
Attachment theory postulates that internal working models of attachment
are constructed from attachment experiences and that they concern interre-
lated mental models of seif and social life (Bowlby, 1973). The AAI is used
to try to assess to what extent these experiences were probably characterized
by emotional warmth, rejection, neglect, pressure to achieve, or role reversal,
and, more important, the state of mind of the respondent regarding these
attachment experiences. Individual differences in state of mind with respect
to attachment are supposed to spring from differences in the mental organi-
zation of Information relevant to attachment. This organization becomes ap-
parent by the way in which respondents reflect on childhood attachment ex-
periences during the AAI, and coherence of discourse is one of the most
important indicators of an open and balanced organization.
Our study shows that AAI scales reflecting the form rather than the
content of the transcribed interview do not converge with self-reported mem-
ories of parental behavior (in one's own childhood). Thus, self-report Instru-
ments, such äs the EMBU and the PAS, seem to yield little or no Information
about the state-of-mind dimension of attachment. The internal working
model of attachment might indeed reflect deeper representations of attach-
ment. This notion was suggested by Bretherton (1990), who distinguished
Information that is easily accessible, on the one hand, and Information that
is difficult to access to consciousness, on the other hand. The easily accessible
Information is supposed to be verbally transmitted by parents, whereas the
less accessible Information is supposed to be based on the original experi-
ences. This latter kind of Information may not become accessible unless a
clinically oriented in-depth interview such äs the AAI is conducted. However,
longitudinal research is needed to decide to what extent adults' states of mind
with respect to attachment are rooted in their actual past attachment experi-
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn 483

ences. In Germany (Grossmann et al., 1988), äs well äs in the United States

(Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), samples of children who were studied from
their Ist year of life will soon reach adulthood. Only then will it be possible
to connect actual attachment experiences in childhood to attachment repre-
sentations in adulthood.
Neither attachment experiences nor state of mind regarding attachment
seems to be expressed in one's attachment style; we did not find relations
between the AAI and the Hazan and Shaver (1987) attachment styles. Similar
results were found in the Crowell et al. (1993) study. Compared with the AAI,
the attachment style questionnaire seems to yield a rather general personality
measure. Strong relations were found between attachment styles and work
orientation (Hazan & Shaver, 1990), religious orientation (Kirckpatrick &
Shaver, 1992), and the "Big Five" personality traits (Shaver & Brennan,
1992). Furthermore, the methodological differences between the AAI and
the attachment-style measure are immense. As stated before, administering
and coding the AAI implies labor-intensive and time-consuming procedures.
Depth is obtained because of the semistructured nature of the interview. Sub-
jectivity (biases such äs social desirability) is minimalized by focusing on
coherence and contradictions in the interview, rather than on the content.
The attachment style questionnaire is an Instrument that is administered and
coded very easily. Respondents are supposed to choose out of three or four
short descriptions the attachment style that fits their ideas best. This way,
classification and ratings might measure only the easily and directly acces-
sible perception of the respondent. For research in the future it will be inter-
esting to examine whether a less direct and more open measure for attach-
ment style (e.g., an AAI-like interview) leads to different results.
Finally, we found, äs expected, almost no association among AAI scales
and temperament. Moreover, no temperament differences were found be-
tween the three patterns of attachment—autonomous, preoccupied, and dis-
missing. The contribution of temperament to the construction of internal
working models of attachment has been a topic of debate for many years.
Vaughn et al. (1992) combined several studies on the relation between tem-
perament and attachment in children. One of the important conclusions was,
"Although our data provide evidence of overlap between temperament and
attachment domains, the degree of association is not high enough to suggest
more than a modest redundancy" (p. 469). Furthermore, when there seemed
to be a relation between temperament and attachment, the mother was usu-
ally the informant for both variables. Our results might be interpreted äs
support for the hypothesis that temperament and attachment are two
relatively independent constructs in adulthood äs well. However, the
methodological differences (self-report questionnaire versus interview)
should also be taken into account. Nevertheless, it is clear that the EAS
temperament dimensions, assessed by self-report methods, provide hardly
484 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

any Information about the state of mind with respect to attachment (and vice
versa).
The Adult Attachment Interview has been developed to identify differ-
ences in parents' attachment representations that could account for differ-
ences in the quality of the attachment relationships with their children. In
behavioral terms, several studies pointed at the importance of sensitive re-
sponsiveness for the development of a secure relationship with the child. De-
terminants of differences in sensitive responsiveness were searched for in the
Personality of the parents (Ainsworth, 1979; Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981;
Skinner, 1985), in particular in those aspects that were supposed to build on
the parents' own developmental histories (e.g., Belsky, 1984). The AAI en-
ables researchers of attachment to focus on a specific aspect of personality,
that is, on the state of mind with respect to attachment (working models).
Different states of mind seem to predict (a) differences in sensitive respon-
siveness and (b) the quality of the attachment relationship with their own
children. Our study showed that attachment representations are not associ-
ated with attachment style or with temperament, and we concluded that in
future research on attachment representations, the current available self-
report questionnaires should not be the first choice.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Attachment äs related to mother-infant interaction. In

J. S. Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, C. Beer, & M. Busnel (Eds.), Advances in the study
ofbehavior (Vol. 9, pp. 2-51). San Diego: Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attach-
ment: A psychological study of the stränge Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Brilman, E., & Monsma, A. (1983). Psycho-
metric evaluation of an inventory for assessment of parental rearing practices. A
Dutch form of the EMBU. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 163-177.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. I, & Van Uzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A psychometric
study of the Adult Attachment Interview: Reliability and discriminant validity. De-
velopmental Psychology, 29, 870-879.
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Develop-
ment, 55, 83-96.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment andloss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic.
Bretherton, I. (1990). Commimication patterns, internal working models, and the in-
tergenerational transmission of attachment relationships. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 11, 237-251.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early developingpersonality traits.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crowell, J. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1988). Mothers' internal models of relationships and
children's behavioral Status: A study of mother-child interaction. Child Develop-
ment, 59, 1273-1285.
Crowell, J. A., Waters, E., Treboux, D., Posada, G., O'Conner, E., Colon-Downs, C.,
 De Haas, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn 485

Felder, O., Fleischman, M., Gao, Y, Golby, B., Lay, K.-L., & Pan, H. (1993,
March). Validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: Does it measure what it
should? Poster Symposium presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Crowne, D. P, & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent
of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Fagot, B. (1993, March). Attachment classification äs a predictor ofpeer relation-
ships at age 7. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.
Fonagy, R, 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, 891-895.
George, C, Kaplan, N, & Main, M. (1985). Adult Attachment Interview. Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Rudolph, J., & Grossmann, K. E. (1988). Ma-
ternal attachment representations äs related to patterns of infant-mother attach-
ment and maternal care during the first year. In R. A. Hinde & I Stevenson-Hinde
(Eds.), Relations between relationships within families (pp. 241-260). Oxford, UK:
Clarendon Press.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized äs an attachment pro-
cess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspec-
tive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 270-280.
John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in
the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford Press.
Kirckpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to
romantic love and religious belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18, 266-275.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models,
affect regulation and representation of seif and others. Child Development, 59,
135-146.
Lamb, M. E., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1981). Individual differences in parental sensi-
tivity: Origins, components, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod
(Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations (pp. 127-
153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1985/1991). Adult attachment scoring and classification
system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adult-
hood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing points of attachment: Theory and research (pp. 66-104) (Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 50, 1-2, Serial no. 209). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disori-
ented attachment pattern. In M. Yogman & T. B. Brazelton (Eds.), Affective devel-
opment in infancy (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NY: Ablex Press.
Mayseless, O. (1990, July). Attachment patterns of adults: New findings and a new
scale. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Personal Relation-
ships, Oxford, England.
Nederhof, A. J. (1981). Beter onderzoek. Bestrijding van foutenbronnen in sociaal-
wetenschappelijk onderzoek [How to diminish biases in social research]. 's-
486 The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Gravenhage, The Netherlands: Vuga.

Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindström, H., Von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). De-
velopment of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behav-
iour. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 6l, 265-274.
Raven, J. C. (1958). Standard progressive matrices: Sets A, B, C, D, and E. Lon-
don: Lewis.
Sagi, A., Van Uzendoorn, M. H., Scharf, M., Koren-Karie, N., Joels, T., & Mayseless,
O. (1994). Stability and discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview:
A psychometric study in young Israeli adults. Developmental Psychology, 30, 988-
1000.
Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1992). Attachment styles and the "Big Five" person-
ality traits: Their connections with each other and with romantic relationship out-
comes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 536-545.
Skinner, E. A. (1985). Determinants of mother sensitive and contingent-responsive
behavior: The role of childrearing beliefs and socioeconomic Status. In I. Sigel
(Ed.), Parental helief-systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp.
51-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Infant-care-giver attachment and patterns of adaptation in the
preschool: The roots of competence and maladaptation. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),
Development andpolicy concerning children with specialneeds. Minnesota Sympo-
sium on Child Psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 41-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van der Giesen, R. W. (1957). Enkele aspecten van het probleem der predictie in de
Psychologie, speciaal met het oog op de selectie van militair personeel [Some as-
pects of the problem of prediction in psychology, especially in consideration of
selecting rnilitary staff]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets en Zeitlinger.
Van Uzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Intergenerational transmission of parenting: A review
of studies in non-clinical populations. Developmental Review, 12, 76-99.
Van Uzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (in press). Attachment rep-
resentations in mothers, fathers, adolescents, and clinical groups: A meta-analytical
search for normative data. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology.
Van Weeren, P. (1968). Uitkomsten van het psychologisch onderzoek omtrent milieu,
schoolkcuze en schoolgeschiktheid in Amsterdam, Twente, Friesland en Noord-
Brabant [Results from psychological research on social class, school choice, and
school adequacy in Adam etc.]. In F. van Heek (Ed.), Het verborgen talent (pp.
126-151). Meppel, The Netherlands: Boom.
Vaughn, B. E., Stevenson-Hinde, J., Waters, E., Kotsaftis, A., Lefever, G. B.,
Shouldice, A., Trudel, M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Attachment security and tempera-
ment in infancy and early childhood: Some conceptual clarifications. Develop-
mental Psychology, 28, 463-473.
Waters, E., Wippman, J., & Sroufe, L. A. (1979). Attachment, positive affect, and
competence in the peer group: Two studies in construct validation. Child Develop-
ment, 50, 821-829.

Received June 4, 1994