Articol_Experience_in_close_relationships_scale

Journal of Personality Assessment
ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale

(ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor
Structure
Meifen Wei , Daniel W. Russell , Brent Mallinckrodt & David L. Vogel
To cite this article: Meifen Wei , Daniel W. Russell , Brent Mallinckrodt & David L. Vogel (2007)
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor
Structure, Journal of Personality Assessment, 88:2, 187-204, DOI: 10.1080/00223890701268041
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041
Published online: 05 Dec 2007.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2316
View related articles
Citing articles: 180 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
Download by: [University Paris X] Date: 29 September 2016, At: 07:39

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 88(2), 187–204
Copyright
C 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale

(ECR)-Short Form: Reliability, Validity, and Factor
Structure
Meifen Wei
Department of Psychology
Iowa State University
Daniel W. Russell
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
Brent Mallinckrodt
Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology
University of Missouri-Columbia
David L. Vogel
We developed a 12-item, short form of the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR;
Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) across 6 studies. In Study 1, we examined the reliability
and factor structure of the measure. In Studies 2 and 3, we cross-validated the reliability,
factor structure, and validity of the short form measure; whereas in Study 4, we examined test-
retest reliability over a 1-month period. In Studies 5 and 6, we further assessed the reliability,
factor structure, and validity of the short version of the ECR when administered as a stand-
alone instrument. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that 2 factors, labeled Anxiety and
Avoidance, provided a good fit to the data after removing the influence of response sets. We
found validity to be equivalent for the short and the original versions of the ECR across studies.
Finally, the results were comparable when we embedded the short form within the original
version of the ECR and when we administered it as a stand-alone measure.
In 1987, Hazan and Shaver developed a self-report adult at- ment style (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Of course, a single-item
tachment questionnaire based on the three types of infant measure is fraught with psychometric problems. As a result,
caregiver attachment (i.e., secure, anxious, and avoidant) researchers in subsequent attachment studies created multi-
identified by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) item inventories to assess adult attachment (e.g., Collins &
from observational research. Subsequently, adult attachment Read, 1990; Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994; Simpson,
has become a major focus of research in personality, social, 1990). The proliferation of self-report inventories appears
clinical, counseling, and developmental psychology. Given to have largely come to a halt with Brennan, Clark, and
the strong and growing empirical interest in adult attachment, Shaver’s (1998) seminal factor analysis. In Brennan et al.’s
researchers have made efforts to develop a psychometrically (1998) study, they included items from all of the available
sound measure of the construct. The original adult attach- self-report measures of adult attachment as well as items from
ment measure consisted of three paragraphs, each describing some instruments that appeared only in conference presenta-
one type of adult attachment, and one question asking respon- tions (14 measures, 60 subscales, 323 items). Brennan et al.
dents to choose a type that best represents their adult attach- (1998) presented these items to nearly 1,100 undergraduate
188 WEI, RUSSELL, MALLINCKRODT, VOGEL
students. The subsequent factor analysis identified two rela- Mallinckrodt, 2003; Wei, Heppner, Russell, & Young, 2006),
tively orthogonal dimensions that were labeled Anxiety and maladaptive perfectionism (Wei, Mallinckrodt, et al., 2004;
Avoidance by Brennan et al. (1998). The 18 items among Wei et al., 2006), negative mood (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt,
the 323 that loaded highest on each of these two factors & Zakalik, 2004), and depression (Zakalik & Wei, 2006) but
were retained. The resulting 36-item adult attachment mea- negatively associated with social self-efficacy and emotional
sure was called the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale self-awareness (Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005) and basic psy-
(ECR). chological need satisfaction (Wei, Shaffer, Young, & Zakalik,
There now appears to be a consensus that adult attach- 2005) in college student samples. One group of researchers
ment consists of these two dimensions: Anxiety and Avoid- (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) suggested additional items
ance (Mikulincer, Shaver, & Pereg, 2003). Attachment anx- that may improve the sensitivity of the ECR across a wider
iety is defined as involving a fear of interpersonal rejection range of adult attachment, but we could not find a single
or abandonment, an excessive need for approval from others, published study that developed a shorter measure based on
and distress when one’s partner is unavailable or unrespon- the ECR.
sive. Attachment avoidance is defined as involving fear of Although the ECR appears to be a highly reliable and valid
dependence and interpersonal intimacy, an excessive need measure that has been widely used to assess adult attachment,
for self-reliance, and reluctance to self-disclose. People who the length of the ECR (36 items) can be problematic in some
score high on either or both of these dimensions are as- research applications. For example, if the ECR is adminis-
sumed to have an insecure adult attachment orientation. By tered to populations other than college students (e.g., older
contrast, people with low levels of attachment anxiety and adults), it may be difficult for research participants to re-
avoidance can be viewed as having a secure adult attach- main focused for the length of time required to complete
ment orientation (Brennan et al., 1998; Lopez & Brennan, the large number of items contained within it. Similarly, if
2000; Mallinckrodt, 2000). The ECR instructions state, in the ECR is employed in survey research (e.g., mail survey,
part, “We are interested in how you generally experience internet survey, or telephone interview), the large number
relationships, not just in what is happening in a current re- of items in the measure may decrease the research compli-
lationship” (Brennan et al., 1998, p. 65). Thus, the scale is ance rate and participants’ motivation in responding to the
designed to assess a general pattern of adult attachment as questionnaire. Therefore, it appeared worthwhile to develop
independently as possible from idiosyncratic influences of a short version of the scale based on the original ECR. We
respondents’ current circumstances. These instructions also conducted six studies for developing a short version of the
allow respondents who are not currently in a close romantic ECR and comparing this new short version with the original
relationship to provide valid responses. version of the scale in terms of reliability, validity, and factor
Brennan et al. (1998) reported that the ECR had a high structure.1
level of internal consistency in a sample of undergraduates,
with coefficient alphas of .91 and .94 for the Anxiety and
Avoidance subscales, respectively. Results from other stud- STUDY 1
ies of undergraduates (e.g., Lopez & Gormley, 2002; Lopez,
Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, & Berger, 2001; Lopez, Mitchell, The purpose of Study 1 was to (a) select the best items to
& Gormley, 2002; Vogel & Wei, 2005; Wei, Mallinckrodt, include in a short version of the ECR, (b) evaluate the internal
Russell, & Abraham, 2004) also indicated a high level of reliability of the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales from the
internal consistency for the Anxiety subscale (α ranges from short version of the ECR for a college student sample, and (c)
.89 ro .92) and the Avoidance subscale (α ranges from .91 to compare the factor structure of the original and short versions
.95). Two studies have administered the ECR to samples of of the scale through a confirmatory factor analysis.
college students and reported test-retest reliability. One was
conducted by Brennan, Shaver, and Clark (2000), and they re-
ported that test-retest reliabilities over a 3-week interval were
.70 for both the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales. The other
1 Note that data we used in Studies 2 and 3 were also used in previous
study by Lopez and Gormley (2002) indicated that the test-
retest reliabilities over a 6-month period were .68 and .71 for publications (Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, & Zakalik, 2005; Wei, Vogel, Ku,
& Zakalik, 2005). The purposes of those two articles were to examine
the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales, respectively. In terms whether excessive reassurance seeking (Wei, Mallinckrodt, et al., 2005) and
of validity, Brennan et al. (2000) expected the ECR subscales emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff (Wei, Vogel, et al., 2005) mediated
to correlate with touch aversion, and indeed, their results the relations between attachment and psychological outcomes. The purpose
were consistent with the expectation. Other studies using the of Studies 2 and 3 in this article was to examine the reliability, validity, and
ECR have also provided support for its validity. For example, factor structure of the new short version of ECR and compare those results
to findings based on the original version the ECR. As such, the findings we
attachment anxiety and avoidance have been found to be pos- report in this article are unique and have not been published previously. We
itively associated with self-concealment and personal prob- collected all other data sets included in Studies 1, 4, 5, and 6 for the purposes
lems (Lopez et al., 2002), ineffective coping (Wei, Heppner, of this research.
ECR-SHORT FORM 189
Method tral/mixed. Of the 36 items, 9 are reverse keyed (8 items from

the Avoidance subscale and 1 item from the Anxiety sub-
Participants and Procedure scale). Participants rate how well each statement describes
their typical feelings in romantic relationships. As mentioned
Undergraduate students (N = 851) enrolled in psychol- previously, the results of a factor analysis by Brennan et al.
ogy classes at a large public university completed the ECR. (1998) identified two relatively orthogonal continuous at-
The sample included 442 (52%) women, 407 (48%) men, tachment dimensions labeled Anxiety (18 items) and Avoid-
and 2 participants who did not indicate their sex. Over half ance (18 items). Higher scores on the Anxiety and Avoidant
of the participants were 1st-year students (58%), followed subscales indicate higher levels of attachment anxiety and
by sophomores (24%), juniors (11%), and seniors (7%). attachment avoidance, respectively.
Their ages ranged from 18 to 45 years (M = 20.36 years;
SD = 2.04). Participants’ ethnic self-identification was pre- Results and Discussion
dominantly White (90.6%), followed by African American
(2.1%), Asian American (2.4%), Hispanic American (1.5%), Item Selection
non-U.S. citizen (1.2%), Native American (0.1%), and Mul-
tiracial American (0.7%). In terms of current relationship We used a combination of rational (the conceptualization
status, most of the participants (94%) were single. Partici- perspective) and empirical (the statistical perspective) meth-
pants received extra course credit for their participation. ods to select which of the 36 original ECR items should be
included in the short form of the scale, which is called the
Instrument ECR Scale-Short Form (ECR-S). We began by examining
published descriptions of the adult attachment anxiety and
Adult attachment was measured with the ECR (Brennan avoidance constructs (cf. Brennan et al., 1998; Mikulincer
et al., 1998). The ECR is a 36-item self-report measure. Re- et al., 2003). We then conducted exploratory factor analyses
spondents use a 7-point, partly anchored, Likert-type scale separately for each set of 18 subscale items to identify pos-
ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) to sible item domains within the two subscales. We conducted
respond to the items. Point 4 on the scale is anchored by neu- a principal axis factor extraction with a promax (oblique)
TABLE 1
Corrected Item-Total Correlations and Factor Loadings for the Avoidance Subscale of the Experiences in
Close Relationship Scale
Avoidance
Item Total
Item Correlation Factor 1 Factor 2
1. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. .57 .38 .28
3 R. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. .47 .32 .21
5. Just when my partner starts to get close to me I find myself pulling away. .66 .81 −.05
7. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close. .65 .78 −.04
9. I don’t feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. .64 .65 .09
11. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back. .68 (.68) .86 −.07
13. I am nervous when partners get too close to me. .66 (.66) .86 −.09
15R. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. .49 .06 .50
17. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner. .68 (.67) .77 .02
19R. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. .61 .28 .43
21. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. .55 .56 .08
23. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners. .73 .69 .15
25R. I tell my partner just about everything. .68 .10 .71
27R. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. .67 (.67) .02 .79
29R. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. .57 .07 .60
31R. I don’t mind asking romantic partners for comfort, advice, or help. .64 −.04 .81
33R. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. .62 (.60) −.09 .86
35R. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance. .65 (.63) −.07 .87
Eigenvalue (after rotation) 4.90 4.25
Proportion of variance (after rotation) 27.24 23.59
Note. N = 851. Boldfaced items and factor loadings mean that these items were selected for the short version. Numbers outside of parentheses are the item
total correlation with a total score for the full subscale (18 items). Numbers within parentheses are the item total correlation with a total score for a subset of
items (12 items) that are on the full subscale (18 items) but omitted from the short form (6 items). Note. The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale is from
Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (p. 65), by J. A. Simpson and W. S. Rholes (Eds.), 1998, New York: Guilford. Copyright 1998 by The Guilford
Press. Reprinted with permission. R = reversed item.
rotation (see discussion by Russell, 2002). Based on the re- [loading = .71] and 27 [loading = .79]) shared similar word-
sult of the scree plot, two factors with eigenvalues > 1.0 ing (reluctance to self-disclose). Also, Items 31 (loading =
emerged from the factor analysis of the 18 avoidance items .81), 33 (loading = .86), and 35 (loading = .87) shared similar
(see Table 1). The first factor accounted for 46% of the vari- wording (reluctance to depend on others). To retain both of
ance in the items, whereas the second factor accounted for these aspects of attachment in the short scale, we decided to
an additional 12% of the variance prior to rotation. Factors drop Items 25 and 31, which had the lowest factor loadings,
1 and 2 were found to correlate .59 with one another after and retain Items 27, 33, and 35. Keeping these negatively
rotation. The items with the five highest factor loadings on worded items allowed three negatively worded items to be re-
the first factor (i.e., Items 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17) were positively tained and thereby reduced the effects of response sets on the
worded, contained the word close, and expressed variations total scores of the measure. Each of these three items loaded
on the theme of discomfort with becoming too close to one’s > .79 on the second factor. All six items retained for the ECR-
partner. As shown in Table 1, we judged Items 5 (loading = S had corrected item total correlations of .62 or higher with
.81) and 11 (loading = .86) to have had very similar wording the total score from the original version of the Avoidance sub-
(pulling away from his or her partner) and had high inter- scale. This set of six items we selected for the ECR-S Avoid-
item correlations (r = .71). Of these two, we dropped Item ance subscale also sampled three domains that our readings
5, and we retained Item 11, which had the higher loading. of the theoretical literature had suggested were critical com-
Similarly, Items 7 (loading = .78) and 13 (loading = .86) ponents of attachment avoidance: (a) fear of interpersonal
shared similar wording (feel uncomfortable or nervous with intimacy or closeness (Items 11, 13, and 17), (b) reluctance
closeness) and high inter-item correlations (r = .66). From to depend on others or excessive need for self-reliance (Items
this pair, we dropped Item 7, and we retained Item 13 because 33 and 35), and (c) reluctance to self-disclose (Item 27).
of its higher loading. Thus, we retained Items 11, 13, and 17 Similarly, we conducted a principal axis factor analysis
to represent the first factor/domain. (with oblique rotation) on the Anxiety (18 items) subscale.
The second factor extracted from the Avoidance items From the scree plot result, we extracted three factors with
consisted exclusively of items that were negatively worded. eigenvalues > 1.0, which accounted for 43%, 9%, and 7% of
The items loading highest on the second factor (Items 25 the total variance, respectively, prior to rotation. Results of
TABLE 2
Corrected Item Total Correlations and Factor Loadings for the Anxiety Subscale of the Experiences in
Close Relationship Scale
Anxiety
Item Total
Item Correlation Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
2. I worry about being abandoned. .68 .81 .01 −.05

4. I worry a lot about my relationships. .65 .65 .01 .07
6. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them. .69 (.70) .68 −.03 .15
8. I worry a fair amount about losing my partner .72 .73 .02 .01
10. I often wish that my partner’s feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him/her. .66 .53 −.07 .32
12. I often want to merge completely with romantic partners, and this sometimes scares them away. .55 .05 −.07 .75
14. I worry about being alone. .69 .74 .05 −.01
16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. .56 (.56) −.08 .01 .84
18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner. .66 (.67) .25 .52 .02
20. Sometimes I feel that I force my partners to show more feeling, more commitment. .59 −.06 .35 .46
22R. I do not often worry about being abandoned. .56 (.57) .67 −.05 −.09
24. If I can’t get my partner to show interest in me, I get upset or angry. .55 .07 .51 .12
26. I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like. .61 (.61) .11 −.03 .70
28. When I’m not involved in a relationship, I feel somewhat anxious and insecure. .57 .27 .24 .17
30. I get frustrated when my partner is not around as much as I would like. .59 −.06 .81 .01
32. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them. .52 (.54) −.07 .87 −.13
34. When romantic partners disapprove of me, I feel really bad about myself. .51 .25 .52 −.16
36. I resent it when my partner spends time away from me. .52 −.04 .54 .18
Eigenvalue (after rotation) 3.57 2.69 2.22
Proportion of variance (after rotation) 19.81 14.95 12.30
Note. N = 851. Boldfaced items and factor loadings mean that these items were selected for the short version. Numbers outside of parentheses are the item
total correlation with a total score for the full subscale (18 items). Numbers within parentheses are the item total correlation with a total score for a subset of
items (12 items) that are on the full subscale (18 items) but omitted from the short form (6 items). The order of the final 12-item short version is 33R, 18, 11,
26, 35R, 16, 17, 22R, 27R, 32, 13, and 6 based on the random ordering of items for each subscale. Note. The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale is from
R = reversed item. Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (p. 65), by J. A. Simpson and W. S. Rholes (Eds.), 1998, New York: Guilford. Copyright 1998
by The Guilford Press. Reprinted with permission.
ECR-SHORT FORM 191
this analysis are shown in Table 2. The correlations between 12-item ECR-S was embedded within items from the 36-
the factors after rotation ranged from .52 (Factors 2 and item ECR for Studies 1 through 4. In Studies 5 and 6, how-
3) to .70 (Factors 1 and 3); Factors 1 and 2 correlated .65 ever, we administered the 12-item ECR-S as a stand-alone
with each other. The items with the highest loading on the measure.
first factor tapped fears of abandonment (i.e., Items 2, 4, 8,
14, and 22) and participants’ perceptions of their partners’ Reliability
responses toward them (i.e., Items 6 and 10). We wanted to
retain items representing both of these facets of attachment The internal consistencies for the subscales of the short
anxiety. Although Item 22 (loading = .67) was not the highest and original versions of the ECR are shown in Table 3. Co-
loading item in this cluster, we retained it because it was efficient alphas were .78 (Anxiety) and .84 (Avoidance) for
the only negatively worded item from the 18-item Anxiety the 12-item ECR-S and .92 (Anxiety) and .93 (Avoidance)
subscale and thereby could lessen the effects of response for the 36-item ECR in this sample. Although lower than the
sets. In the pair of Items 6 (loading = .68) and 10 (loading = values for the original version of the measure, it appeared that
.53), we kept Item 6 because it had the higher factor loading. the coefficient alphas of the 12-item ECR-S were acceptable
Therefore, we retained Items 6 and 22 to represent the first for use in college student samples.
factor. Correlations between the Anxiety and Avoidance sub-
Items with the highest loading on the second factor as- scales were r = .19 (12-item short version) and r = .17
sessed two additional aspects of attachment anxiety. One (36-item original version), which indicated that these two
aspect was related to “need for reassurance” (i.e., Items 18 measures reflected distinct dimensions of attachment. To ex-
and 34). The other aspect pertained to “feelings of frustration amine whether the correlation between the two subscales for
or anger when one’s partner is unavailable” (i.e., Items 24, the 12-item ECR-S was equivalent to the correlation between
30, 32, and 36). The two Items 18 and 34 were related to the two subscales for the 36-item ECR, we conducted struc-
need for assurance, and both had factor loadings of .52. We tural equation analyses to compare two models, the “free”
decided to keep Item 18 (“I need a lot of reassurance that I model and the “equal” model. In the free model, the correla-
am loved by my partner)” because it directly tapped the need tion between Anxiety and Avoidance for the 12-item ECR-S
for reassurance. Among the four items related to feeling of was freely estimated. By contrast, in the equal model, the cor-
frustration and anger when one’s partner is unavailable, we relation between these two subscales for the 12-item ECR-S
decided to keep Item 32 (“I get frustrated if romantic partners was set to be equal to the correlation between these two sub-
are not available when I need them)” because of its highest scales (i.e., r = .17) for the 36-item ECR. We then used a
loading. Therefore, we kept Items 18 and 32 to represent chi-square difference test to determine whether these cor-
the second factor. Finally, the highest loading items on the relations were equivalent. The results were not statistically
third factor reflected two themes. The first theme pertained significant, χ 2 (1, N = 851) = .20, p = .65, which indicated
to the fear that one’s desire for closeness may scare people that the correlations between the Anxiety and Avoidance sub-
away (i.e., Items 12 [loading = .75] and 16 [loading = .84]). scales were not significantly different for either version of the
From this pair, we retained Item 16 because it had the high- ECR. We also conducted analyses to examine the correlation
est factor loading. The remaining theme was related to one’s between the short and the original Anxiety measures and the
partner not being as close as one would like (i.e., Item 26). correlation between the two versions’ Avoidance measures.
We therefore retained Item 26 to represent the third factor. Both pairs of measures were found to correlate .95 with one
The six items retained for the ECR-S Anxiety subscale another. The high correlations between scores on the short
all had corrected, item total correlations > .52 with the to-
tal scores on the original version of the Anxiety subscale.
We believe that these items provide a good representation of
TABLE 3
the three domains that adult attachment theorists have sug- Coefficient Alphas With 6 and 18 Items for
gested are essential components of the attachment anxiety the Anxiety and Avoidance Subscale
construct (Brennan et al., 1998; Mikulincer et al., 2003; P.
Shaver, personal communication, July 26, 2004), namely, 6 items 18 items
(a) fear of interpersonal rejection or abandonment (Items 6, Study N Anxiety Avoidance Anxiety Avoidance
16, 22, and 26), (b) an excessive need for approval from
others (Item 18), and (c) distress when one’s partner is un- 1 851 .78 .84 .92 .93
2 425 .78 .88 .93 .94
available or unresponsive (Item 32). Thus, we developed a
3 229 .79 .87 .92 .93
12-item (6 per subscale) version of the ECR-S. In the next 4 (Time 1) 122 .81 .88 .93 .95
section, we examine the reliability and factor structure of 4 (Time 2) 122 .81 .87 .94 .95
these two subscales and compare the reliability and factor 5 257 .77 .78
6 (Time 1) 65 .84 .85
structure of the 12-item short version with the 36-item orig- 6 (Time 2) 65 .86 .88
inal version of the ECR. It is important to note that the
and original versions of the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales loaded on the Avoidance factor. In Model 3, we added two
from the ECR provide further evidence that both versions of orthogonal response sets factors (i.e., a positively worded
the subscales assess the same underlying construct. factor and a negatively worded factor) to Model 1 for the
12-item ECR-S (e.g., 12 additional paths would be freely
estimated from two orthogonal response sets factors to the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis 12 items for Model 3; see Figure 1). Finally, in Model 4,
we added the same two orthogonal response sets factors
As part of a confirmatory factor analysis, we considered to Model 2 for the 36-item ECR (e.g., 36 additional paths
the possible influence of systematic errors or response sets would be freely estimated from two orthogonal response
that might be due to the direction (i.e., positive and negative) sets factors to the 36 items for Model 4). Similar to Rus-
of item wording. That is, participants may have a systematic sell’s (1996) study, the two response sets factors included
way of responding to the negatively and positively worded in Models 3 and 4 were not only uncorrelated with each
items, irrespective of item content. In a study of the fac- other but were also uncorrelated with the Anxiety and Avoid-
tor structure of the University of California, Los Angeles ance factors. However, we allowed the Anxiety and Avoid-
(UCLA), Loneliness Scale (Version 3) reported by Russell ance factors to correlate with one another in all four models.
(1996), results reflected the influence of response sets due (Note that we did not allow any error terms to correlate in
to the direction of item wording (i.e., positively and nega- Models 1–4.)
tively worded items). Russell (1996) removed this confound To evaluate the fit of these models to the data, we con-
by specifying two orthogonal factors that corresponded to ducted confirmatory factor analyses using the maximum like-
the negatively and positively worded items, with the negative lihood estimation method in LISREL (Version 8.54). As sug-
items loading on one factor and the positive items loading on a gested by Hu and Bentler (1999), three indexes were used to
second factor. In this study, we employed this procedure to re- assess the goodness of fit of the models: the comparative fit
move response sets when we evaluated the factor structure of index (CFI; values of .95 or greater indicate a model that fits
the short (12-item) and the original (36-item) versions of the the data well), the root mean square error of approximation
ECR. (RMSEA; values of .06 or less indicate a model that fits well),
We tested four different models via confirmatory factor and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; val-
analyses to evaluate their fit to the data (see Table 4). In ues of .08 or less indicate a good fitting model). The results
Model 1, we hypothesized a two-factor oblique model for indicate that Models 1 and 2 did not fit the data well, with
the 12-item ECR-S, with 6 items loading on the Anxiety fac- CFIs = .78 and .91, RMSEAs = .21 and .13, and SRMRs =
tor and 6 items loading on the Avoidance factor. Model 2 .14 and .11, respectively (see results from Study 1 in Table
involved the same two-factor oblique model for the 36-item 4). However, the fit of Models 3 and 4 to the data was im-
ECR; 18 items loaded on the Anxiety factor and 18 items proved, with CFIs = .95 and .96, RMSEAs = .09 and .07, and
TABLE 4
Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Correlations Between the Anxiety and Avoidance
Subscales
Model (Correlation Between

Study N Model Anxiety and Avoidance) χ2 df RMSEA (90% CI) CFI SRMR
1 851 1: Two factors with 12 items (r = .19) 1419.28 53 .21(.20, .21) .78 .14
851 2: Two factors with 36 items (r = .17) 5184.25 593 .13 (.12, .13) .91 .11
851 3: Two factors with 12 items + two method factors 347.80 41 .09 (.08, .10) .95 .10
2 425 1: Two factors with 12 items (r = .28) 563.32 53 .17 (.16, .18) .86 .11
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence interval; CFI = comparative fit index;
SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
ECR-SHORT FORM 193
FIGURE 1. Two oblique factors (12 items) with two orthogonal positively and negatively worded factors. # = item number; r = items with reversed score.
SRMRs = .10 and .09, respectively (see results from Study STUDY 2
1 in Tables 4 and 5).2 In summary, these results suggest that
the two-factor oblique structure (Anxiety and Avoidance) for The purpose of Study 2 was to (a) replicate the reliability
both the short (12-item) and original (36-item) versions pro- and factor structure found in Study 1 in a new sample of
vides an adequate fit to the data after removing systematic college students and (b) compare the short and original ver-
error due to response sets. Furthermore, the model appears to sions of the ECR in terms of construct validity. It is important
provide a comparably good fit to the data for both the short to note that Nunnally (1978) indicated that different types of
(12-item) and original (36-item) versions of the ECR.3 validity tend to complement one another. In general, criterion
validity involves relations with other measures of the same
construct (i.e., adult attachment). The ECR was developed
2 Factor loadings for Model 3 across Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5 were included from all adult attachment measures available in 1997 (in our
in Table 5 for conciseness and clarity. In addition, given our interest in awareness, no other self-report measure has been introduced
developing a short form, only the results for Model 3 (the 12 items) were since then). Thus, it would be inappropriate to use another
included in Table 5. If the reader is interested in the results for Model 4 (the measure of adult attachment to assess criterion validity of
36 items), they can contact M Wei. the ECR-S because every such measure contributed items
3 We used Model 3 (two factors for 12 items + two method factors) to to the original ECR item pool. Construct validity involves
test for sex differences using data from Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5. We compared a determination of “the extent to which supposed measures
the factor loadings for equivalence between the male and female groups of the construct produce results which are predictable from
through the multiple group comparison approach (Byrne, 1998). Significant
chi-square difference tests, χ 2 (12, N = 851) = 57.53, p = .00 (Study
highly accepted theoretical hypotheses concerning the con-
1) and χ 2 (12, N = 421) = 27.15, p = .01 (Study 2), indicated that the struct” (Nunnally, 1978, p. 98). Thus, for the ECR-S, we
factor loadings in Studies 1 and 2 were different for men and women. By evaluated construct validity by correlations with measures
contrast, the nonsignificant chi-square difference tests, χ 2 (12, N = 212) = of constructs expected on the basis of established theory to
16.07, p = .19 (Study 3) and χ 2 (12, N = 254) = 10.01, p = .07 (Study be associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance. Theory
5), indicated that the factor loadings were not significantly different for
men and women in Studies 3 and 5. However, because the values of the χ 2
and previous research have suggested that attachment anxiety
statistics and the significance levels increased when sample sizes increased, involves an excessive need for approval from others, whereas
we adjusted for the influence of the sample size on the χ 2 statistics by attachment avoidance is associated with an excessive need
dividing the value by N − 1 (i.e., computing the value of F, the fit function). for self-reliance (Cassidy, 1994, 2000; Cassidy & Kobak,
The values of the fit functions for the factor model were similar across all four 1988; Lopez & Brennan, 2000; Mikulincer et al., 2003;
studies: .068 (Study 1), .064 (Study 2), .070 (Study 3), and .072 (Study 5).
Therefore, we can conclude that the amount of variation in factor loadings for
men and women was similar across these four studies. In addition, results
indicate that mean scores on the Anxiety subscale were not significantly mean scores on the Avoidance subscale were significantly higher for men
different for men and women across Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5. However, the than women in Studies 1, 2, and 5.
TABLE 5
Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analyses
Factor Loading
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 5
Item Anx Avo Anx Avo Anx Avo Anx Avo
33R. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. .00 .36 .00 .59 .00 .48 .00 .41
18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved by my partner. .72 .00 .50 .00 .66 .00 .72 .00
11. I want to get close to my partner, but I keep pulling back. .00 .82 .00 .80 .00 .83 .00 .77
26. I find that my partner(s) don’t want to get as close as I would like. .67 .00 .79 .00 .72 .00 .60 .00
35R. I turn to my partner for many things, including comfort and reassurance. .00 .39 .00 .51 .00 .48 .00 .23
16. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. .60 .00 .73 .00 .55 .00 .56 .00
17. I try to avoid getting too close to my partner. .00 .75 .00 .79 .00 .79 .00 .72
22R. I do not often worry about being abandoned. .56 .00 .45 .00 .56 .00 .58 .00
27R. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. .00 .42 .00 .63 .00 .57 .00 .32
32. I get frustrated if romantic partners are not available when I need them. .50 .00 .38 .00 .44 .00 .48 .00
13. I am nervous when partners get too close to me. .00 .79 .00 .84 .00 .88 .00 .77
6. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them. .70 .00 .65 .00 .82 .00 .75 .00
Note: All factor loadings from Model 3 (two factors with 12 items + two method factors) were significant at p = .001. Anx = Anxiety; Avo = Avoidance.
The order of the final 12-item short version is 33R, 18, 11, 26, 35R, 16, 17, 22R, 27R, 32, 13, and 6.
Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000; Shaver & Mikulin- supported through a positive association between the ERSS
cer, 2002). Therefore, we expected that attachment anxiety and scores on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Joiner &
(but not attachment avoidance) would be significantly associ- Metalsky, 2001) in a sample of college students.
ated with reassurance seeking. Moreover, based on Bowlby’s
(1980) attachment theory, we expected a positive relationship Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression
between depressed mood and both attachment anxiety and Scale (CES-D). The CES-D (Radloff, 1977) is a 20-
attachment avoidance. item scale measuring the frequency of depressive symptoms.
Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0
(rarely or none of the time [less than 1 day]) to 3 (most or
Method
all of the time [5 to 7 days]). Higher scores indicate more
frequent feelings of depression. Radloff (1977) reported that
Participants and Procedure
coefficient alpha was .85 for the measure; We found a coef-
ficient alpha of .90 in this study. Validity has been supported
Data for this study were collected as part of a previously
through positive correlations with scores on the BDI (Santor,
published investigation by Wei, Mallinckrodt, Larson, and
Zuroff, Ramsay, Cervantes, & Palacios, 1995).
Zakalik (2005) with a sample of 425 college students. Demo-
graphic information and research procedures were reported Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SRDS). The
in the original study. SRDS (Zung, 1965) is a 20-item measure assessing three
basic facets of depressive symptoms: pervasive affect, phys-
Measures iological features, and psychological concomitants. Partici-
pants are asked to rate how often they experience each symp-
ECR. The ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) was used to mea- tom on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (some or a
sure adult attachment. The ECR was also used to derive little of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time). Higher scores
scores for the Anxiety and Avoidance subscale for the 12- indicate more frequent depressive symptoms. Zung (1965)
item version (ECR-S) developed in Study 1. reported that coefficient alpha for the SRDS was .84. In this
study, the coefficient alpha was .82. The measure has demon-
Excessive Reassurance Seeking Scale (ERSS). strated validity through positive correlations with scores on
The ERSS (Joiner & Metalsky, 2001) is a four-item instru- the BDI.
ment intended to measure the tendency to persistently seek
reassurance even if reassurance has already been provided. Results and Discussion
Respondents use a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (not
at all) to 7 (very much). Higher scores indicate greater reas- We conducted analyses to evaluate the internal consistency
surance seeking. Joiner and Metalsky (2001) reported a coef- (coefficient alpha) of the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales
ficient alpha of .88 for the measure among college students. of the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR. For ease of
In this study, we found a coefficient alpha of .89. Validity was comparison with the results of Study 1, findings from Study
ECR-SHORT FORM 195
TABLE 6
Correlations of Attachment Anxiety and Attachment Avoidance With Validity Criteria
Anxiety Anxiety Avoidance Avoidance

Validity Criteria (6 items) (18 items) (6 items) (18 items)
Study 2a
Excessive Reassurance Seeking .45∗∗∗ .47∗∗∗ −.04 −.03
Depression (CES–D) .42∗∗∗ .45∗∗∗ .19∗∗∗ .22∗∗∗
Depression (SRDS) .42∗∗∗ .46∗∗∗ .26∗∗∗ .29∗∗∗
Study 3b
Emotional Reactivity .27∗∗∗ .33∗∗∗ .01 .02
Emotional Cutoff .12 .15∗ .25∗∗∗ .31∗∗∗
Depression (DASS–D) .16∗ .21∗∗ .19∗∗ .17∗
Anxiety (DASS–A) .18∗ .20∗∗ .19∗∗ .15∗
Interpersonal Distress .25∗∗∗ .27∗∗∗ .24∗∗∗ .25∗∗∗
Loneliness .39∗∗∗ .39∗∗∗ .43∗∗∗ .44∗∗∗
Study 5c
Excessive Reassurance Seeking .41∗∗∗ .06
Emotional Reactivity .45∗∗∗ .08
Emotional Cutoff .30∗∗∗ .59∗∗∗
Fear of Intimacy .33∗∗∗ .74∗∗∗
Comfort with Self-Disclosure (DDI) −.11 −.39∗∗∗
Depression (CES–D-short version) .35∗∗∗ .27∗∗∗
Depression (DASS–D) .32∗∗∗ .31∗∗∗
Anxiety (DASS–A) .32∗∗∗ .21∗∗
Psychological Distress (OQ-10.2) .41∗∗∗ .38∗∗∗
Social Desirability (BIDS—IM) −.14∗ −.15∗
Note. CES–D = Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression Scale; SRDS = Self-Rating Depression Scale; DASS–D and DASS–A = the Depression and
Anxiety subscales of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale; DDI = Distress Disclosure Index; OQ–10.2 = Outcome Questionnaire 10.2; BIDS–IM = the
Impression Management subscale of Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding.
a N = 425. b N = 229. c N = 257.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
2 are reported in Table 3. As can be seen, the level of relia- The six correlations of the Anxiety and Avoidance sub-
bility for the two subscales was very similar to that found in scales for ECR and ECR-S with excessive reassurance seek-
Study 1. In addition, correlations between the Anxiety and ing and two measures of depressed mood (for construct va-
Avoidance subscales were r = .28 for the 12-item ECR-S and lidity) are shown in the top rows of Table 6. As expected,
r = .30 for the 36-item ECR (see Table 4), which indicated excessive reassurance seeking was significantly associated
that these two subscales were assessing distinct dimensions with attachment anxiety but not with attachment avoidance.
of attachment. Using the same procedure in Study 1 for exam- In addition, the two measures of depression (CES-D and
ining the equivalence of correlation, a nonsignificant result, SRDS) were significantly associated with both attachment
χ 2 (1, N = 425) = .19, p = .66, suggested no difference anxiety and avoidance. Taken together, these findings sug-
was found between the correlations for the two versions of gest considerable support for the construct validity of both
the ECR in Study 2. Also similar to Study 1, correlations versions of the ECR.
between the short and original anxiety scores and between Next, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) analy-
the short and original avoidance scores were .94 and .95, ses to examine whether the validity evidence was equivalent
respectively, which suggested once again that the two mea- for the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR. Similar to the
sures of anxiety and avoidance assessed the same underlying previous procedure for testing correlation equivalence, we
constructs. compared two models: one called the free model and the
To cross-validate the factor structure results from Study 1, other called the equal model. In the free model, we allowed
we tested the same four models via confirmatory factor anal- the correlations for validity to vary (i.e., they were freely
yses to evaluate their fit to the data. The patterns of results estimated). Conversely, in the equal model, we constrained
shown in Table 4 for Study 2 were equivalent to those found the six correlations representing construct validity of the 12-
in Study 1. Similar to Study 1, the two-factor structure (i.e., item ECR-S to be equal to the six parallel correlations for
Anxiety and Avoidance) with the short (12-item) or original construct validity of the 36-item ECR. We then compared
(36-item) version of the ECR fit the data reasonably well af- these two models by performing a chi-square difference test
ter removing the influence of response sets on the items (see to see whether the correlations for validity were equiva-
Table 5 and Footnotes 1 and 2). lent for the ECR and the ECR-S. The chi-square difference
test was nonsignificant, χ 2 (6, N = 425) = 1.38, p = .97, Measures

which indicated that the correlations for construct validity
were equivalent for the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR. We used the ECR (Brennan et al., 1998), de-
ECR.4 scribed previously, to measure adult attachment. We derived
scores on both the short (12-item) and original (36-item)
versions of the measure from the ECR.
STUDY 3
Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI). The DSI
The purpose of Study 3 was to (a) replicate the results from (Skowron & Friedlander, 1998) includes four subscales; we
Studies 1 and 2 with regard to the reliability and factor used only two in this study. The Emotion Reactivity subscale
structure of the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR and (11 items) reflects the degree to which a person responds to
(b) compare the construct validity of these two scales for environmental stimuli with emotional flooding or hypersen-
a different sample and for a different set of validity cri- sitivity to the point of being consumed by the stimuli. The
teria. The data used in Study 3 were from a previous in- Emotional Cutoff subscale (12 items) reflects feeling threat-
vestigation (Wei, Vogel, Ku, & Zakalik, 2005). Attachment ened by intimacy and isolating oneself from others and their
theory predicts that individuals with high attachment anx- emotions when internal emotional experiences or interper-
iety tend to hyperactivate their distress experience, which sonal interactions are too intense. Skowron and Friedlander
involves exaggerating their experience and intensifying ex- reported coefficient alphas of .88 for emotional reactivity and
pressions of emotional distress (Fuendeling, 1998; Lopez & .77 for emotional cutoff in a sample of adults. In this study,
Brennan, 2000; Mikulncier et al., 2003). In contrast, indi- the coefficient alphas were .83 (emotional reactivity) and .84
viduals with high attachment avoidance tend to deactivate (emotional cutoff). In terms of validity of the scale, Skowron
their distress experience, which involves the suppression of and Friedlander reported greater emotional reactivity was as-
emotional experience and distancing from others. There- sociated with greater symptomatic distress, whereas greater
fore, we expected that attachment anxiety should be sig- emotional cutoff was associated with less marital satisfac-
nificantly associated with a hyperactivating emotional style tion.
(i.e., emotional reactivity) and not a deactivating emotional
style (i.e., emotional cutoff). In contrast, we expected that at- Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS)-
tachment avoidance should be significantly associated with Short Form. The DASS-Short Form (Lovibond & Lovi-
a deactivating emotional style (i.e., emotional cutoff) and bond, 1995) contains Depression and Anxiety subscales that
not a hyperactivating style (i.e., emotional reactivity). In ad- each consist of 7 items. Participants rated the extent to which
dition, based on attachment theory (Bowlby, 1980, 1988), each statement applied to them over the past week on a scale
we expected both attachment anxiety and avoidance to pos- ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied
itively relate to depressed mood, interpersonal distress, and to me very much or most of the time). Higher scores indi-
loneliness. cate greater levels of depression and anxiety. In a sample of
adults, Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) reported that coeffi-
Method cient alphas were .96 and .89 for Depression and Anxiety
subscales, respectively. In this study, coefficient alphas were
Participants and Procedure .87 for Depression and .76 for Anxiety. Validity evidence
was provided by the positive association between scores on
Participants were 229 undergraduate students. Demo- the Depression subscale and the Beck Depression Inventory
graphic information and research procedures were reported (r = .79) and the Anxiety subscale and the Beck Anxiety In-
in the original study (Wei, Vogel, et al., 2005). ventory (r = .85) in clinical groups and a community sample
(Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998).
4 We also examined whether the construct validity of the short (12-item)

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Short Circum-
and original (36-item) versions were equivalent for men and women in plex (IIP-SC) Form. The IIP-SC (Soldz, Budman, Demby,
Studies 2, 3, and 5. We did not find any differences between the male and
& Merry, 1995) is a 32-item measure designed to assess an
female groups in terms of the construct validity in these studies. In Study 2,
the results were χ 2 (6, N = 421) = 10.90 and 7.41, p = .09 and .28 for the individual’s self-reported interpersonal distress. Each item is
short and original versions of the scale, respectively. In Study 3, the results designed as a 5-point Likert-type scale with a response for-
were χ 2 (12, N = 212) = 13.07 and 14.75, p = .36 and .26 for the short mat of 0 = not at all, 1 = a little bit, 2 = moderately, 3 =
and original versions of the scale, respectively. In Study 5, the result, χ 2 quite a bit, and 4 = extremely. Higher scores reflect greater
(20, N = 254) = 31.20, p = .05, also indicated no significant differences
distress related to interpersonal problems. Coefficient alphas
between men and women in terms of the construct validity when the 12-item
version was administered alone. In conclusion, the construct validity of the have ranged from .88 to .89 for the measure in patient samples
different versions of the ECR appeared to be invariant for men and women (Soldz et al., 1995). In this study, coefficient alpha was .91.
across three studies. Previous research suggested that the IIP-SC was positively
ECR-SHORT FORM 197
related to depression and anxiety (Wei, Heppner, & Mallinck- tion, further evidence of construct validity was provided by
rodt, 2003) in a sample of undergraduates, thus supporting the significant correlations between attachment anxiety and
the validity of the measure. avoidance and all four measures of negative emotional states
(anxiety, depression, interpersonal distress, and loneliness;
UCLA Loneliness Scale (version 3). The UCLA see Table 6). Once again, we found these same results in
Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996) contains 20 items reflecting both the ECR and the ECR-S. Next, we employed the same
high and low levels of loneliness. Participants indicate how procedure used in Study 2 to test the equivalence of construct
often they feel the way described in each statement using a validity for the ECR and the ECR-S. A nonsignificant result,
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (always). Higher scores χ 2 (12, N = 229) = 3.85, p = .99, indicated that construct
indicate a higher level of loneliness. Coefficient alpha for the validity of the 12-item ECR-S was equivalent to the construct
measure has ranged from .89 to .94 in samples of adults (Rus- validity of the 36-item ECR (see Footnote 3).
sell, 1996). In this study, coefficient alpha was .92. Russell
(1996) reported validity evidence for the measure based on
STUDY 4
the positive correlation with scores on the Differential Lone-
liness Scale and the negative correlation with scores on the
We designed Study 4 to address three issues. First, we ex-
Social Provision Scale, which is a measure of social support.
amined the test-retest reliabilities of the short and original
versions of the ECR in a sample of college students. Second,
Results and Discussion
we conducted an SEM analysis to compare the test-retest re-
liability of the two versions of the ECR. Third, we conducted
In terms of internal consistency for the ECR-S and ECR,
analyses to examine whether there were mean differences
results shown in Table 3 compared favorably with the values
over time for the short and original versions of the ECR.
obtained in Studies 1 and 2. Correlations between the Anxi-
ety and Avoidance subscales were .25 for the 12-item ECR-S Method
and .20 for the 36-item ECR (see Table 4), which indicated
that these two subscales assessed distinct dimensions of at- Participants and Procedure
tachment. We employed the same procedure used in Studies
1 and 2 for testing correlation equivalence. Once again, a Undergraduate students (N = 122) enrolled in psychol-
nonsignificant chi-square test, χ 2 (1, N = 229) = 0.58, p = ogy classes at a large public university completed the ECR
.44, indicated that the correlations between the Anxiety and initially and again 1 month later. There were 68 (56%)
Avoidance subscales were equivalent for the ECR-S (i.e., women and 54 (44%) men in the sample. Most of the partici-
r = .25) and the ECR (i.e., r = .20). Similar to Studies 1 and pants were 1st-year students (55%), followed by sophomores
2, the correlations between the short and original version of (24%), juniors (12%), and seniors (9%). Their ages ranged
the Anxiety subscale and the short and original version of from 19 to 32 years (M = 20.04 years, SD = 1.80). Partici-
the Avoidance subscale were .94 and .95, respectively. Once pants were predominantly Euro-American (91.8%), followed
again, these results suggest that the short and original ver- by Asian American (4.9%), Hispanic American (1.6%), and
sions of the Anxiety and Avoidance measures were assessing African American (0.8%); 2 participants did not indicate
the same underlying construct. their ethnic background. Most of the participants (72%) were
As in Studies 1 and 2, we tested four different factor single. Participants received extra course credit for their par-
models via confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate their fit ticipation.
to the data (see Table 4). Once again, these results suggest
that the two-factor structure (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) for Measures
the short (12-item) or original (36-item) versions of the ECR
fit the data well after removing the influence of response sets We again measured adult attachment with the ECR (Bren-
on the data (see Table 5 and Footnotes 1 and 2). nan et al., 1998) described previously. Participants completed
The correlations of attachment anxiety and attachment the 36-item original version at both assessments.
avoidance with the variables used to evaluate construct va-
lidity (i.e., emotional reactivity, emotional cutoff, depression, Results and Discussion
anxiety, interpersonal distress, and loneliness) are shown in
the middle section of Table 6. As expected, attachment anxi- As can be seen in Table 3, the results for internal consis-
ety was significantly associated with emotional reactivity but tency were very similar to those found in the previous three
not with emotional cutoff for both the ECR and the ECR-S. studies for the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR. The
By contrast, attachment avoidance was significantly asso- test-retest reliability of the 6-item Anxiety and Avoidance
ciated with emotional cutoff but not emotional reactivity. subscales over a 1-month interval were r = .80 and r = .83,
These findings support the construct validity for attachment respectively, in this sample. For the original (36-item) ver-
anxiety and avoidance in both the ECR and ECR-S. In addi- sion of the ECR, the test-retest correlation coefficients were
TABLE 7
Means, Standard Deviations, and Test–Retest Reliability of the Short and Original Versions of the
Experiences in Close Relationship (ECR) Scale
Anxiety Avoidance
Scale Time 1 Time 2 Time 1 Time 2
Test–Retest Test–Retest
Study Version M SD M SD Reliability M SD M SD Reliability
4b 12-item 21.73 7.04 22.35 6.63 .80 16.28 6.97 16.02 6.51 .83
36-item 64.95 20.63 67.07 19.95 .82 51.24 20.34 50.15 18.86 .86
6b 12-item 22.45 7.14 22.41 7.24 .82 14.97 6.40 15.66 6.25 .89
Note: The short version (i.e., 12-item) in Study 4 was embedded within the original versions of the ECR. However, the 12-item short version in Study 6 was
administered alone.
a N = 122. b N = 165.
r = .82 and r = .86 for the Anxiety and Avoidance sub- We also included three new variables, comfort with self-
scales, respectively (see Table 7). It appears that scores on disclosure, fear of intimacy, and psychological distress, in
the two subscales were relatively stable for both the short and Study 5 to examine the construct validity of the 12-item
original versions of the ECR. We used the procedure from ECR-S. Individuals with high attachment anxiety are be-
previous studies used for testing correlation equivalence to lieved to intensify expressions of emotional distress (e.g.,
examine whether the test-retest reliabilities were equivalent Mikulincer et al., 2003). By contrast, individuals with high
for the two subscales (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) within attachment avoidance tend to suppress their emotional ex-
the 12-item ECR-S and the 36-item ECR. The results indi- perience and distance themselves from others. Empirically,
cate that the test-retest reliabilities for ECR-S and ECR were Wei, Russell, and Zakalik (2005) found that comfort with
equivalent for both the Anxiety subscale, χ 2 (1, N = 122) self-disclosure was significantly associated with attachment
= 0.20, p = .65, and the Avoidance subscale, χ 2 (1, N = avoidance (r = −.40) but only weakly associated with at-
122) = 0.67, p = .41. We performed four paired-sample t tachment anxiety (r = −.16). Mallinckrodt and Wang (2004)
tests to examine whether there were mean differences on the also found that fear of intimacy was more strongly associ-
two subscales (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) from the first ated with attachment avoidance (r = .69) than with attach-
and second assessments for the ECR and ECR-S versions. ment anxiety (r = .45). Therefore, we hypothesized that (a)
Results indicated there were no statistically significant mean attachment avoidance should be negatively associated with
differences on the Anxiety or Avoidance subscales at the first comfort with self-disclosure and positively associated with
and second assessments for either version of the ECR (all ps fear of intimacy and (b) both attachment anxiety and avoid-
> .05; Cohen’s ds = −.10 to .03). ance would be positively related to psychological distress.
Finally, we measured social desirability to rule out the possi-
bility that attachment anxiety and avoidance are significantly
related to this construct.
STUDY 5
Method
The purpose of Study 5 was to evaluate the reliability, fac-
tor structure, and validity of the 12-item ECR-S in a college Participants and Procedure
population with the items presented alone (i.e., without being
imbedded with the other items from the ECR). We then com- Undergraduate students (N = 257) enrolled in introduc-
pared the results with those from the previous studies in terms tory psychology courses at a large public university com-
of reliability, correlation, factor structure, and validity. We pleted the survey packets. The sample included 164 (63.8%)
examined the same indicators of construct validity (i.e., ex- women, 90 (35%) men, and 3 participants who did not re-
cessive reassurance seeking, emotional reactivity, emotional port their sex. Participants ranged from 18 to 37 years of
cutoff, depression, and anxiety) we used in Studies 2 and 3 age (M = 19.72 years, SD = 2.48). Half of the participants
in this study. As such, the hypotheses were the same as those were first-year students (52.5%), followed by sophomores
in Studies 2 and 3. That is, we predicted that attachment anx- (26.8%), juniors (12.1%), and seniors (8.6%). Participants
iety would be positively associated with excessive reassur- identified their racial/ethic background as White (89.5%),
ance seeking and emotional reactivity; attachment avoidance Asian American (4.3%), non-U.S. citizen (2.7%), multiracial
would be positively associated with emotional cutoff; and American (1.9%), African American (1.2%), and Hispanic
both attachment anxiety and avoidance would be positively American (0.4%). Nearly half of the participants (49.8%) in-
related to depression and anxiety. dicated they were single, and 46% of the participants were in
ECR-SHORT FORM 199
a committed relationship. Participants received extra course with another individual who is highly valued” (p. 291). Re-
credit for their participation. spondents are directed to imagine that they are “in a close,
dating relationship,” and items are rated on a 5-point Likert
Measures scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5
(extremely characteristic of me). Scores range from 35 to
ECR-S. We used the new ECR-S (12-item) measure 175, with higher scores indicating greater fear of intimacy.
developed from the original 36-item ECR (Brennan et al., Descutner and Thelen (1991) reported internal consistency
1998) in this study. Coefficient alpha was .77 for Anxiety reliability of .93 and test-retest reliability (1-month interval)
and .78 for Avoidance in this sample (see Table 3). of .89 in a sample of college students. In this study, coeffi-
cient alpha was .92. Descutner and Thelen reported evidence
ERSS. We used the ERSS (Joiner & Metalsky, 2001), of validity through the positive correlations with loneliness,
used in Study 2, in this study. Coefficient alpha was .86 in social intimacy, and self-disclosure.
this sample.
The Outcome Questionnaire 10.2 (OQ-10.2). The
DSI. We used the Emotional Reactivity and Emotional OQ-10.2 (Lambert et al., 1998) was developed from the Out-
Cutoff subscales from the DSI (Skowron & Friedlander, come Questionnaire 45.2. The OQ-10.2 is a 10-item instru-
1998), used in Study 3, in this study. Coefficient alpha was ment designed to provide a standardized measure of symp-
.88 for Emotion Reactivity and .85 for Emotional Cutoff in tom severity and overall functioning. The OQ-10.2 is a brief
this sample. self-report instrument sensitive to changes in psychological
distress over short periods of time. Items address commonly
DASS-Short Form. We used the Depression and Anx- occurring problems across a wide variety of disorders. The
iety subscales of DASS-Short Form (Lovibond & Lovibond, 5-point Likert-type scale ranges from 0 (never) to 4 (almost
1995), used in Study 3, once again. Coefficient alpha was .89 always). Scores range from 0 to 40, with higher values in-
for Depression and .75 for Anxiety in this sample. dicating greater distress. Lambert et al. reported coefficient
alphas between .82 and .92, and the OQ-10.2 has been found
CES-D-Short version. We used the original version of to be associated with depression, anxiety, and self-esteem.
the CES-D (20 items) in Study 2. We used a shorter 11-item Coefficient alpha was .90 in this study.
version of the CES-D (Kohout, Berkman, Evans, & Cornoni-
Huntley, 1993) in this study to assess depression. Coefficient The Impression Management subscale (IM) of the
alpha was .85 in this sample. Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR).
The IM subscale of the BIDR (Paulhus, 1984) is a 20-item
The Distress Disclosure Index (DDI). We used the questionnaire that measures the degree to which individuals
DDI (Kahn & Hessling, 2001) to measure comfort with self- consciously give inflated descriptions to please others. Items
disclosure. The DDI is a 12-item scale designed to measure are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not true)
the degree to which a person is comfortable talking to others to 7 (very true). The IM scoring key is balanced, with 10
about personally distressing information. Items are rated on items negatively worded and 10 items positively worded.
a 5-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging from 1 Total scores are calculated by first assigning items for which
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores range from respondents report an extreme response (6 or 7) a score of
12 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater comfort in “1” and then summing each of these extreme response items.
disclosing personal distress information. DDI scores showed Scores can range from 0 to 20 on the IM subscale, with higher
stable test-retest reliabilities across 2- and 3-month periods scores indicating responses that are more socially desirable.
of .80 and .81, respectively, for college students (Kahn & Paulhus (1984) reported internal consistency ranging from
Hessling, 2001). Internal consistency was shown to be high .75 to .86 for the IM subscale. The internal consistency in
across studies and ranged from .92 to .95 (Kahn, Lamb, this study was .73. With regard to validity, Paulhus (1994)
Champion, Eberle, & Schoen, 2002). Coefficient alpha was reported that IM scores related positively to scores on the Lie
.93 in this sample. Regarding validity, Kahn and Hessling scale from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(2001) found that the DDI was positively associated with (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943).
scores on the Self-Disclosure Index (Miller, Berg, & Archer,
1983) and the Self-Concealment Scale (Larson & Chastain, Results and Discussion
1990).
The internal consistency (see Table 3) of the Anxiety and
The Fear of Intimacy Scale (FIS). The FIS (Descut- Avoidance subscales from the 12-item ECR-S used in this
ner & Thelen, 1991) assesses fear of intimacy, defined as study were comparable to the values obtained from Studies
“the inhibited capacity of an individual because of anxiety, 1 through 3. In addition, the correlation between the Anxiety
to exchange thoughts and feelings of a personal significance and Avoidance subscales was .28 for the 12-item ECR-S (see
Table 4), which indicated that these two subscales assessed In terms of the equivalence of the validity evidence, us-
distinct dimensions of attachment. To examine whether the ing the same procedure we described previously for testing
correlation for the 12-item ECR-S (presented as a stand-alone the correlation equivalence, we examined whether the corre-
measure in Study 5) was equivalent to that of the 12-item lations of the stand-alone, 12-item ECR-S in Study 5 were
ECR-S (presented as part of the original 36-item ECR in similar to those of the 12-item ECR-S when they were em-
Studies 1, 2, and 3), we used a similar procedure for testing bedded in the 36-item measure in Study 2. A nonsignificant
correlation equivalence. Here, the correlation between the result, χ 2 (4, N = 257) = 4.91, p = .30, indicated that the
two subscales for the stand-alone, 12-item ECR-S in Study four construct validity correlations (i.e., the associations of
5 was specified as being equal to the correlations from the attachment anxiety and avoidance with excessive reassurance
previous studies. The nonsignificant results, χ 2 (1, N = 257) seeking and depression) were equivalent for the stand-alone,
= 2.47, 0.00, and 0.32, p = .12, .96, and .57 for Studies 1, 12-item ECR-S in Study 5 and for the 12-item ECR-S as part
2, and 3, respectively, indicated that the correlation between of the 36-item ECR in Study 2.5 We used the same procedure
the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales for the 12-item ECR-S to test the equivalence of eight correlations that examined
administered as a stand-alone measure was not significantly construct validity (i.e., the associations of attachment anxiety
different from those for the 12-item measure completed as and avoidance with emotional reactivity, emotional cutoff,
part of the original 36-item measure across the three studies. depression, and anxiety) of the stand-alone, 12-item ECR-S
In terms of factor structure, we followed the same proce- in Study 5 and the 12-item ECR-S as part of the 36-item mea-
dure used in Studies 1, 2, and 3 to test two different factor sure collected in Study 3. Once again, a nonsignificant result,
models (labeled Model 1 and Model 3 for consistency across χ 2 (8, N = 257) = 14.17, p = .08, indicated the equivalence
studies) via confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the fit of the correlations for this stand-alone, 12-item ECR-S and
of these models to the data (see Table 4). We found the same the 12-item ECR-S as a part of the 36-item measure.
pattern of results. Once again, these results suggest that the
two factors structure (i.e., Anxiety and Avoidance) for this
STUDY 6
12-item ECR-S fit the data well after removing the influence
of response sets on the data (see Footnote 2). Factor loadings
We designed Study 6 to examine the test-retest reliability
for Model 3 were significant (all ps < .001; see Table 5 and
when the 12-item ECR-S was administered alone to a sam-
Footnote 1) across Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5.
ple of college students. We then used an SEM analysis to
The results of the construct validity analyses are shown
compare the equivalence of the test-retest reliability between
in the bottom section of Table 6. As expected, excessive re-
the 12-item short version administered alone in this study
assurance seeking and emotional reactivity were positively
and the 12-item short version administered as a part of the
associated with attachment anxiety but had almost zero cor-
36-item version in Study 4. Finally, we conducted analyses
relation with attachment avoidance. By contrast, comfort
to examine whether there were mean differences over time
with self-disclosure was significantly and negatively asso-
for the 12-item short version administered alone.
ciated with attachment avoidance but not significantly re-
lated to attachment anxiety. These findings are consistent
Method
with the previous results for the original version of the
ECR (e.g., Wei, Mallinckrodt, et al., 2005; Wei, Russell,
Participants and Procedure
et al., 2005; Wei, Vogel, et al., 2005). Also, emotional cutoff
and fear of intimacy were significantly related to attach-
Undergraduate students (N = 65) enrolled in a psychol-
ment anxiety and avoidance. However, the results from t
ogy course at a large state university completed the 12-item
tests for dependent correlations (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
ECR-S initially and again 3 weeks later. There were 45 (74%)
Aiken, 2003; Kenny, 1987) indicated that the associations
women and 16 (16%) men (4 participants did not report their
of emotional cutoff, t(254) = −4.70, p < .001 or fear of
sex) in the sample. Most of participants were sophomores
intimacy, t(254) = −7.75, p < .001 with attachment avoid-
(35%) and juniors (43%), followed by seniors (19%), and
ance were significantly higher than those with attachment
1st-year students (3%). Their ages ranged from 19 to 29 years
anxiety. These findings support the construct validity of the
of age (M = 20.55 years, SD = 1.67). Participants were pre-
ECR-S. In addition, as expected, attachment anxiety and
dominantly White (95%), followed by Hispanic American
avoidance were significantly correlated with all the mea-
(3.1%), and Asian American (1.5%). Most of the participants
sures of negative emotional states (i.e., anxiety, depres-
were single (45%) or in a committed relationship (52%). Par-
sion, and psychological distress; see Table 6). Finally, the
ticipants received extra course credit for their participation.
magnitude of the associations between social desirability
and attachment anxiety (r = −.14) and attachment avoid-
ance (r = −.15) indicated that scores on the 12-item ECR-S 5 Because we used the CES-D short (11-item) version in Study 5, we
were not susceptible to social desirability response bias (see used only the same 11 items from the CES-D in Study 2 in computing the
Footnote 3). depression scores for this analysis.
ECR-SHORT FORM 201
Measures .77 to .86 for the Anxiety subscale and from .78 to .88
for the Avoidance subscale across studies. In addition, the
ECR-S test-retest reliabilities in Study 4 were adequate (r = .80 and
.82 [Anxiety] and r = .83 and .86 [Avoidance]) for the short
We used the new ECR-S (12 items) described in Study 5 and original version of the ECR, respectively, over a 1-month
in this study at both assessments. period. These results indicate that adult attachment anxiety
and avoidance were relatively stable in this sample of college
Results and Discussions students. Similarly, when we administered the 12-item short
version alone in Study 6, the test-retest reliability results (r =
The internal consistencies of the Anxiety and Avoidance sub- .82 for Anxiety and .89 for Avoidance, respectively) over a
scales of the ECR-S in Study 6 (see Table 3) were very similar 3-week period indicate that scores on the two subscales were
to those found in the previous studies. The test-retest relia- relatively stable. In summary, these results suggest that the
bilities over a 3-week interval of the six-item Anxiety and internal consistency and test-retest reliabilities for ECR-S
Avoidance subscales were r = .82 and r = .89, respectively were acceptable when used in samples of college students
(see Table 7). It appears that scores on the two subscales were despite the reduction in the number of items.
relatively stable when the ECR-S was administered alone. We In terms of the factor structure of the short and original ver-
examined whether the test-retest reliability of the ECR-S ad- sions of the ECR, confirmatory factor analyses indicated that
ministered alone in Study 6 was equivalent to the test-retest a model with two oblique factors (i.e., Anxiety and Avoid-
reliability of the ECR-S when it was administered as a part ance) along with two orthogonal response set factors (one for
of the original 36 items in Study 4. The nonsignificant results the positively worded items and the other for the negatively
for the Anxiety subscale, χ 2 (1, N = 65) = 0.20, p = .65, worded items) provided a relatively good fit to the data for
and the Avoidance subscale, χ 2 (1, N = 65) = 3.30, p = both the short or original versions of the ECR across Studies
.07, indicate that the test-retest reliabilities were equivalent 1, 2, 3, and 5. In other words, these results suggest that the
when the ECR-S was administered alone (Study 6) or as a hypothesized two factors oblique structure fit the data well
part of original 36-items (Study 4). In addition, we used two for the two versions of the ECR (e.g., CFI ranges from .95 to
paired-sample t tests to examine whether there were mean .97) after we removed systematic error in the items due to re-
differences on attachment anxiety and avoidance in the first sponse sets (i.e., positively and negatively worded items). The
and second assessments for the ECR-S administered alone results suggest that individuals completing the ECR showed
in Study 6. Results indicate there were no statistically sig- consistent patterns of responding to the items as a function of
nificant mean differences on the Anxiety or Avoidance sub- the direction of item wording. After removing this source of
scales at the first and second assessments, t(64) = 0.06, p = systematic error from the items, results support the prediction
.95, Cohen’s d = .01; and t(64) = −1.88, p = .06, Cohen’s that attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance represent
d = −.11, respectively. two oblique factors underlying the items of the ECR-S and
the original ECR. It is important to note that the inclusion of
positively and negatively worded factors allows researchers
GENERAL DISCUSSION to evaluate the influence of systematic errors on the respond-
ing patterns for the positively or negatively worded items.
This project involved six studies intended to develop a short We have empirically verified that the correlations between
version of the ECR (i.e., the ECR-S). Findings across these Anxiety and Avoidance were equivalent (a) with inclusion
studies suggest that the 12-item ECR-S (administered alone and (b) without inclusion of the positively and negatively
or as a part of the original 36-item version) retained psycho- worded factors across Studies 1, 2, 3, and 5. In addition, we
metric properties similar to those of the original (36-item) verified that correlation coefficients that reflected the validity
ECR. We found the ECR-S to possess a stable factor structure of the Anxiety and Avoidance subscales in relation to other
and acceptable internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and variables were equivalent when the positively and negatively
construct validity across the six samples of undergraduates worded factors were either included or not included in Study
we examined. Furthermore, the levels of these psychometric 5 (i.e., 12-item measure administrated stand alone). Because
attributes compared favorably with the values derived from there was no influence on the magnitude of the correlations,
the original 36-item version of the scale. It appears that we we believe there is no need to alter the scoring of the Anx-
have been successful in reducing the number of items from iety and Avoidance subscales. Therefore, these results have
36 (18 for Anxiety and 18 for Avoidance) to 12 (6 for Anxiety no implications for the applied use of the measure in either
and 6 for Avoidance) without losing the sound psychometric research or clinical contexts.
properties contained in the original version of the ECR when As expected, evidence of construct validity was provided
administered to college students. by the positive association between attachment anxiety and
Specifically, we found the internal consistency of the 12- excessive reassurance seeking in Study 2 (in which we ad-
item ECR-S to be adequate. The coefficient alphas were from ministered the 12 items as a part of the larger 36-item
measure) and in Study 5 (in which we administered the 12 tencies from Studies 1 through 6 for attachment anxiety (the
items alone). This result was consistent with attachment the- average coefficient alphas were .80 for the short version and
ory, which predicts that individuals with high levels of at- .93 for the original version) and for attachment avoidance
tachment anxiety (instead of attachment avoidance) have a (the average coefficient alphas were .85 for the short version
tendency to rely excessively on social approval from oth- and .94 for the original version), both versions of the mea-
ers (e.g., Lopez & Brennan, 2000; Pietromonaco & Feldman sure were sufficiently reliable across different undergraduate
Barrett, 2000). Construct validity was also supported by the samples. However, it should also be noted that participants in
positive associations of depression with attachment anxiety these studies identified themselves predominantly as Euro-
and avoidance in Studies 2 and 5. These results are consistent Americans, and they were undergraduate students from the
with the results from Wei, Mallinckrodt, et al. (2004, 2005). same public university. It is unknown whether the psycho-
Analyses indicated that the magnitude of the construct va- metric properties of the two versions of the measure would
lidity was equivalent for the short and original versions of be comparable when data are collected from other regions
the ECR (i.e., the result from Study 2) as well as equivalent of the country or from different cultures. Moreover, because
for the short version of the ECR when it was administered we selected unequal numbers of items to represent each facet
as part of the 36-item version of the measure in Study 2 and during the process of selecting items for the two attachment
administered alone in Study 5. constructs (i.e., anxiety and avoidance), it may bias the op-
Consistent with the attachment theory predictions, the erationalization of these constructs. However, it is important
construct validity of the ECR-S and the original ECR in to note that this bias is also present in the original version
Study 3 was supported by the positive association of attach- of ECR. Furthermore, we used a greater number of items to
ment anxiety with emotional reactivity and the positive asso- represent facets that accounted for more of the variance and
ciation of attachment avoidance with emotional cutoff. Once fewer items for facets that accounted for less of the variance.
again, these results are consistent with results from previous Wei, Russell, et al. (2004) examined the ECR and found
research (for a review, see Fuendeling, 1998). In addition, the that factor loadings were invariant across different ethnic
results of Study 3 also indicate that attachment anxiety and groups. However, ethnic groups moderated the association
avoidance were significantly and positively related to depres- between attachment anxiety and negative mood (i.e., a com-
sion, anxiety, interpersonal distress, or loneliness. Moreover, bination of anxiety and depression). Specifically, although
the magnitude of the construct validity coefficients for the attachment anxiety was significantly associated with nega-
short version of 12-item measure administered as part of the tive mood in every ethnic group, Asian Americans reported a
36-item measure were equivalent to those for the original stronger association than their African American and White
version of the ECR in Study 3 and for the short version of peers. When we reanalyzed these data for the ECR-S (i.e.,
the 12-item measure administered alone in Study 5. 12 items were embedded within the 36 items), the invariance
In Study 5, we found additional support for the construct of the factor loadings was not replicated. Specifically, the
validity of the ECR-S through the negative associations of loadings of two items (i.e., 32 [I get frustrated if romantic
attachment avoidance with fear of intimacy and comfort partners are not available when I need them] and 33 [It helps
with self-disclosure as well as the positive associations of to turn to my romantic partner in times of need]) were signif-
attachment anxiety and avoidance with psychological dis- icantly stronger for White, African American, and Hispanic
tress. Also, scores on the measures of attachment anxiety American students relative to Asian American students (.39
and avoidance were only weakly associated with a measure vs. .19 and .60 vs. .45, respectively). This result seems to
of social desirability. To summarize, results from Studies 2, indicate that whether partners are available in time of need
3, and 5 indicate that the construct validity of the ECR was seems more important to White students and students from
not reduced by shortening the length of the scale. the other two racial groups relative to Asian American stu-
dents. However, the pattern of results is similar for both the
Limitations ECR and ECR-S regarding the association between attach-
ment anxiety and negative mood for ethnic groups. Further
A number of important methodological limitations of these research is still needed to replicate this study with different
studies should be noted. Although it appears that the 12- ethnic groups before the stand-alone ECR-S is used routinely
item ECR-S was equivalent to the original version 36-item with participants who do not identify themselves as White.
ECR in terms of test-retest reliability, factor structure, and Analyses should also be conducted to examine the reliabil-
construct validity, researchers should note that the internal ity, factor structure, and validity of the measure when it is
consistency reliability of the short form is lower relative to administered to different age groups (e.g., the elderly), par-
the original version of the measure. This reduction in the ticipants who speak different languages (e.g., Spanish), and
reliability of scores of the 12-item ECR-S, as reflected by clinical populations (e.g., members of individual or group
the alpha coefficient, is not surprising, as there are both the therapy). It is also important for future studies to examine
reduction in the number of items and the redundancy of the the validity of the ECR-S by using data that are gathered us-
items. When we computed the average of the internal consis- ing other assessment methods (e.g., observational data, peer
ECR-SHORT FORM 203
reports, or physiological measures) in addition to self-report Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multi-
measures. ple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and
Conclusions relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 644–663.
Descutner, C. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1991). Development and validation of a
In summary, the results from these studies indicate that the Fear-of-Intimacy Scale. Psychological Assessment, 3, 218–225.
12-item ECR-S provides a reliable and valid measure of adult Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment.
attachment. The psychometric properties (i.e., internal con- In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical
sistency, test-retest reliability, factor structure, and validity) and development perspectives (pp. 128–162). New York: Guilford.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response
of the short (12-item) version of the scale appeared to be theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of
comparable or equivalent to the original (36-item) version Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365.
of the scale. Given the equivalent psychometric properties of Fuendeling, J. M. (1998). Affect regulation as a stylistic process within
the short and original versions of the ECR, researchers are adult attachment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 291–
encouraged to use the12-item ECR-S in their future research 322.
Harari, M. J., Waehler, C. A., & Rogers, J. R. (2005). An empirical investi-
on adult attachment. gation of a theoretically based measure of perceived wellness. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 93–103.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attach-
ment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524.
This study was presented at the 114th annual convention Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in co-
variance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
of the Americans Psychological Association, New Orleans,
Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Louisiana, August 2006. We thank Amy Cantazaro, Shan- Joiner, T. E., & Metalsky, G. I. (2001). Excessive reassurance-seeking:
non Young, Shanna Behrendsen, Joni Etheredge, Lauren Delineating a risk factor involved in the development of depressive symp-
Slater, Anne Youngerman, Caitlin Septer, Dillon Michelle, toms. Psychological Science, 12, 371–378.
and White Karla for their assistance with data collection. Kahn, J. H., & Hessling, R. M. (2001). Measuring the tendency to conceal
versus disclose psychological distress. Journal of Social and Clinical
Kahn, J. H., Lamb, D. H., Champion, D., Eberle, J. A., & Schoen, K. A.
REFERENCES (2002). Disclosing versus concealing distressing information: Linking
self-reported tendencies to situational behavior. Journal of Research in
Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Personality, 36, 531–538.
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences.
Erlbaum. Boston: Little, Brown.
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P. Kohout, F. J., Berkman, L. F., Evans, D. A., & Cornoni-Huntley, J. (1993).
(1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item version of Two shorter forms of the CES-D depression symptoms index. Journal of
the Depression Anxiety Stress scales in clinical groups and a community Aging and Health, 5, 179–193.
sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181. Lambert, M. J., Finch, A. M., Okiishi, J., Burlingame, G. M., McKelvey, C.,
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol.3. Sadness and depression. New & Reisinger, C. W. (1998). Administration and scoring manual for the
York: Basic. OQ10.2. Stevenson, MD: American Professional Credentialing Services.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualiza-
human development. New York: Basic. tion, measurement, and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measure- Psychology, 9, 439–455.
ment of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult
S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). attachment organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on
New York: Guilford. the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 283–
Brennan, K. A., Shaver, P. R., & Clark, C. A. (2000). Specifying some 301.
mediators of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance. Unpublished Lopez, F. G., & Gormley, B. (2002). Stability and change in adult attachment
manuscript, State University of New York, Brockport. style over the first-year college transition: Relations to self-confidence,
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, coping, and distress patterns. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 366–
and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, 364.
NJ: Erlbaum. Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., & Berger, E. (2001).
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relation- Adult attachment orientations and college student distress: The mediating
ships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, role of problem coping styles. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79,
228–283. 459–464.
Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A development perspective Lopez, F. G., Mitchell, P., & Gormley, B. (2002). Adult attachment and col-
on individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 4, 111–131. lege student distress: Test of a mediational model. Journal of Counseling
Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relation to other defen- Psychology, 49, 460–467.
sive processes. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression
of attachment (pp. 300–323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anxiety and Stress scales. Sydney: Psychological Foundation of Australia.
Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Attachment, social competencies, social support, Vogel, D. L., & Wei, M. (2005). Adult attachment and help-seeking
and interpersonal process in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 10, intent: The mediating roles of psychological distress and per-
239–266. ceived social support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 347–
Mallinckrodt, B., & Wang, C.-C. (2004). Quantitative methods for verify- 357.
ing semantic equivalence of translated research instruments: A Chinese Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2003). Perceived coping as
version of the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale. Journal of Coun- a mediator between attachment and psychological distress: A structural
seling Psychology, 51, 368–379. equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 438–
Mallinckrodt, B., & Wei, M. (2005). Attachment, social competencies, social 447.
support, and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Wei, M., Heppner, P. P., Russell, D. W., & Young, S. K. (2006). Maladaptive
52, 358–367. perfectionism and ineffective coping as mediators between attachment
Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and and subsequent depression: A prospective analysis. Journal of Counseling
affect regulation: The dynamic development, and cognitive consequences Psychology, 53, 67–79.
of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 77–102. Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Larson, L. A., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). At-
Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals tachment, depressive symptoms, and validation from self versus others.
who elicit intimate self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 368–377.
Psychology, 44, 1234–1244. Wei, M., Mallinckrodt, B., Russell, D. W., & Abraham, T. W. (2004).
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw- Maladaptive perfectionism as a mediator and moderator between attach-
Hill. ment and negative mood. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 201–
Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2000). The internal working 212.
models concept: What do we really know about the self in relation to Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Zakalik, R. A. (2004). Cultural
others? Review of General Psychology, 4, 155–157. equivalence of adult attachment across four ethnic groups: Factor struc-
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable re- ture, structural means, and associations with negative mood. Journal of
sponding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609. Counseling Psychology, 51, 408–417.
Paulhus, D. L. (1994). Reference manual for the Balanced Inventory of De- Wei, M., Russell, D. W., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attachment, social
sirable Responding-Version Six (BIDR-6). Vancouver, British Columbia, self-efficacy, self-disclosure, loneliness, and subsequent depression for
Canada: University of British Columbia. freshmen college students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Psychology, 52, 602–614.
Scale (CES-D) for research in the general population. Applied Psycho- Wei, M., Shaffer, P. A., Young, S. K., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult
logical Measurements, 1, 385–401. attachment, shame, depression, and loneliness: The mediation role of
Russell, D. W. (1996). The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, basic psychological needs satisfaction. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20– 52, 591–601.
40. Wei, M., Vogel, D. L., Ku, T., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult attach-
Russell, D. W. (2002). In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and ment, affect regulation, negative mood, and interpersonal problems: The
abuse) of factor analysis in PSPB. Personality and Social Psychology mediating role of emotional reactivity and emotional cutoff. Journal of
Bulletin, 28, 1629–1646. Counseling Psychology, 52, 14–24.
Santor, D., Zuroff, D., Ramsay, J., Cervantes, P., & Palacios, J. (1995). Zakalik, R. A., & Wei, M. (2006). Adult attachment, perceived discrimina-
Examining scale discriminability in the BDI and the CES-D as a function tion based on sexual orientation, and depression in gay males. Journal of
of depression severity. Psychological Assessment, 7, 131–139. Counseling Psychology, 53, 302–313.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1989). Being lonely, falling in love: Perspectives Zung, W. K. (1965). A Self-Rating Depression Scale. Archives of General
from attachment theory. In M. Hojat & R. Crandall (Eds.), Loneliness: Psychiatry, 12, 63–70.
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 105–124). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynam- Meifen Wei
ics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133–161.
Simpson, J. A. (1990). The influence of attachment styles on romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 971– Iowa State University
980. W112 Lagomarcino Hall
Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The Differentiation of Self- Ames, IA 50011-3180
Inventory: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Email: wei@iastate.edu
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems circumplex scales. Assessment, 2, Received January 4, 2006
53–63. Revised Revised May 19, 2006

Articol_Experience_in_close_relationships_scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articol_Experience_in_close_relationships_scale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Articol_Experience_in_close_relationships_scale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale

Meifen Wei , Daniel W. Russell , Brent Mallinckrodt & David L. Vogel

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268041

Published online: 05 Dec 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2316

View related articles

Citing articles: 180 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [University Paris X] Date: 29 September 2016, At: 07:39

The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale

Method tral/mixed. Of the 36 items, 9 are reverse keyed (8 items from

2. I worry about being abandoned. .68 .81 .01 −.05

Model (Correlation Between

Anxiety Anxiety Avoidance Avoidance

test was nonsignificant, χ 2 (6, N = 425) = 1.38, p = .97, Measures

4 We also examined whether the construct validity of the short (12-item)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.