Handbook of Attachment THEORY, RESEARCH, AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS Edited by JUDE CASSIDY PHILLIP R. SHAVER THE GUILFORD PRESS. New York London© 1999 The Guilford Press ‘A Division of Guilford Publications, Ine. ‘72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012 Ip rwerweguiford.com All sights reserved [No part ofthis book may be reproduced translated, stezed in a retrieval system, or transmitted, n any form or by any means, ‘lectonie, mechanical, Phatacopying, microfilming, recording, or ttherwise, without writen permission fom the Publisher. Printed inthe United Stes of America ‘This bookie printed on acid-free paper Last digits print nurber:9 87.65.4321 Library of Congress Cataloging in-Publication Data “andbook of etachinen : theory research, and clinical epplictions J ‘edited by Dude Cassidy, Phillip R. Shaver Pr Includes bibliographical references an indes. ISBN 1-57230-087-6 1. Attachment behavior. 2. Artachment behavior in chien, 1. Cassidy, Jude, Il, Shaver, Pillip R FS7S,ARSHR6 1999 135.92—¢er1 98-53597 cP.15 Attachment in Adolescence + JOSEPH P. ALLEN DEBORAH LAND Adolescent attachment behavior appears at first glance to depart sharply from patterns of attach iment behavior seen at earlier ages. Adolescents offen appear to be engaged in an active, purpose ful flight aosay froin attachment relation with parents and other parental attachment fig~ ures, Attachment bonds to parents are treated by many adolescents more lke ties that restrain than like ties that anchor and secure, and a key task of adolescence is to develop autonomy so as no longer to need to rely (as much) on parents” sup- port when making one's way through the world (Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O'Connor, 1994; Collins, 1990; Grotevant & Cooper, 1985; Hill & Holm= beck, 1986; Moore, 1987; Steinberg, 1990). Yet research is increasingly showing that adolescent autonomy is most easily established not atthe ex- pense of attachment relationships with parents, but against a backdrop of secure relationships that are likely to endure well beyond adolescence (Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O°Connor, 1994; Allen, Hisuser, Bickhott, Bell, & O°Connor, 1994; Fra- ley & Davis, 1997). Rather than being antitheti- calto the developmental challenge facing adoles- cents, the attachment system appears to play an integral role in helping adolescents meet this challenge. This is but one example ofthe variety ‘of ways in which adolescent behavior toward tachment figures may seem conflicted, confused, ‘nd contradictory unless it is viewed tn the con text of the developmental changes of adotes- cence. This chapter begins with a brief consider- ation of a mumber of these changes, and then uses this developmental perspective to consider both the ways that individual differences in at- tachment organizations are manifested in adoles- cence and the ways that adolescence fits into the- ories explaining continuities in attachment pro- cesses across the lifespan, Ultimately, the chal- lenges posed to attachment theory by adolescent behavior are seen as useful in clarifying and re- fining our understanding of the workings of the attachment system across the lifespan. NORMATIVE DEVELOPMENT (OF THE ATTACHMENT SYSTEM. IN ADOLESCENCE From an attachment perspective, adolescence is a transitional period. At the onset of this period, the adolescent is beginning to make teemeni efforts to become less dependent on caregi from primacy attachment figures. Little more than half a decade later, in late adolescence, the possibilty of becoming an attachment figure t© ‘one’s own offepring has fully emerged (Ward & Carlson, 1995). Yet adolescence is not siroply the span that bridges these two periods of intense in- volvement with attachment experiences, Rather, itisa period of profound transformations in spe- cific emotional, cognitive, and behavioral sys- tems, as the adolescent evolves from being a te- ceiver of care from parents to being a potential cacegiver. Cognitive and Emotional ‘Transformations in Adolescent Attachment Behavior A fundamental change from infancy 10 adult- hhood is the emergence of a single overarching at- 319320 tachment organization, which prediets future be- havior with offspring and with marital partners, from the multiple distinct patterus of attachment bbohavior that infants display with different care- pivers (Cox, Owen, Henderson, & Margand, 1992; Fox, Kimmerly, & Schafer, 1991; O'Con- stot, Pan, Waters, & Posada, 1995; Steele, Stecle. & Fonagy, 1996; van zendoom, 1992, 1995; Waters, Merrick, Albersheim, & Treboox, 1995). “This is not to say that the adolescent no longer recognizes distinctions between qualities of spe- cific relationships with the mother, with the fa- thet, and with others; indeed, these distinctions ‘may be clarified and sharpened during this peri- ‘od. Rather, itis to say thet something else is also femorging--an integrated strategy for approsch- ing attachment relationships that is highly pre- dietive of fiture behavior in new attachment (and caregiving) relationships (Main & Goldwyn, in press; Stecle et al., 1996; Waters et al., 1995). ‘This in turn implies # degree of generalization and abstraction that permits the emergence of & genetalized stance towacd attachment from the multiple models hetd of different aitachment re- lationships in infancy and childhood, ‘Although this development could in theory 0c- cur anywhere from middle childhood to adotes- ‘cence, it appears most likely to occur during edo- lescence for several reasons. Adolescence brings with it the capacity for formal operational think ing, ineloding logical and absiract reasoning, abilities (Keating, 1990); this Jets the individual begin to constevel, from experiences with multi- ple caregivers, 2 more overarching stance towacd attachment experiences (Main, Kaplan, & Cas- sidy, 1985; Ricks, 1985), Adolescence is also characterized by dramatic increases in differenti- ation of self and other (Bowlby, 1973). Such dif ferentiation allows for a more cousistent view of the salf as existing apart from interactions with caregivers, in contrast to the action/script-orient- ced view of the self in relationships tat is be lieved to predominate in infoncy and early child hood (Ricks, 1985), This in tun may allow adolescents to view themscives as distinet from their caregivers to a far greater extent than previ- ‘ously. Views of eneselt in attachment relation- ships can thus become more internally based and Jes8 centered around a particular relationship. “The advent of formal operational thinking also allows an adolescent to give extended considera tion to abstract and counterfactual possibilities, ‘which in turn allow the adolescent to compare ro- Tationships with different attachment figures both to one another and to hypothetical ideals. PARTIV, ATTACHMENT IN ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD For example, & child may represent multiple di- vergent attachment experiences without consid ering how they relate to one another, holding views such as "My mother always helps me feel berrer" and “My father ignores me when I'm up= set” The adolescent, in contrast, can entertain -moee integrative propositions, such as “I can yt help when I nced it fiom some people, but not front everyone, so I have to be cateful in decid ing which people to get close to.” The potential to consider attachment relationships in the ab- stract brings with it the ability to recognize that parents may be deficient in some ways in meet ing attachment needs (Kobak & Cole, 1994. ‘This recognition that parents ean (and perhaps should) behave differently also implies that other relationships may meet attachment nceds better than current relationships with parents may. AL though this process can leave an adolescent prone to becoming angrily preoccupied with or erogatingly dismissive of the “deficient” par- cent(s), ideally it will lead to greater openness, objectivity, and flexibility in reevaluating past attachment relationships—characteristies that ‘mark the presence of secure attachment organi zation in adotescence and young edulthood (Kobak & Duemmler, 1994; Main & Goldwyn, in press). ‘Transformations in the Parental Relationship “The adolescent's developing cognitive capacities do rot mecely affect dhe ability to ponder the ‘concept of atiachment in a vacuum. Rather, they {along with the myriad other physical and social hanges of adolescence) are also likely to pro- ‘luce dramatic changes in day-to-day infractions ‘vith parents, One result of growth in the ales Cent's cognitive capacities is increased sophi cation in managing the “goal-corrected partner ship” with each parent, in which behavior is determined not only by the adolescent's current needs aud desires, but also by recognition of the reed to manage ceriain “set goals” for the pat ership (Bowlby, 1973; Kobak & Ducmnler, 1984) For example, an adolescent who warts to stay out past an agreed-on curfew considers not only the Gesie to stay out at, but also the over- srching set goal of maintaining trast and wartnth in relation to parents. Goal-conectes systems it secure dyads allow such adjustments 10 be made flexibly as needed. A secure adolescent who bas never broken curfew before may expect only rminimal disruption to the relationship from @CHAPTER IS. fice teansgression and give ita try, whereas a ¢- cure adolescent who has just had a serious brcach in parental trust (¢.¢, am terest for minor vandalism) may be mote attentive to reestablish ing this tust and maintaining a positive rlation- ship with parents. Aithough elements of the goal- corrected partnership are evident far earier in development (Bowlby, 1973), this parinership reaches new levels of compilexisy and coordina- tion as a result of adolescents’ enkanced perspec- ability end capacity to consider at- techment relationships from both their own anh ‘ie parents’ points of view. ‘The increasingly goal-corrected nsture of the parent-adolescent relationship provides an int- portant context for considering one of the most ‘unportant and intriguing changes of adolescence: the decreased reliance on parents as attachment figures, A. critical distinction here is that this change appears primarily to reffect the adoles- cent’ becoming less dependent on parents in a ‘number of ways, rather than the relationship’s be= coming unimportant as a whole (Bubrmestes, 1992; ‘Buhrmester & Furman, 1987; Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996, Wilks, 1986). The development of the ability to fanction with greater social, cognitive, and emo- tional autonomy vis-8-vis parents is now reecog- nized as a critical developmental task of adoles- cence (Collins, 1990; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986). AAs noted at the outset of this chapter, however, such autonomy does not ideally develop in isola= tion, bat in the context of a close, enduring rela- ‘ionship with parents (Alten, Houser, Bell, & O'Connor, 1994; Collins, 1990) Research on adolesvent autonotay and related ness is beginning to link these developmental processes to an individoal’s attachment organiza tion both before and after adolescence (Allen & Hauser, 1996; Becker-Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik, 1997), recent study showed that infant security ‘was more clealy predictive of observed qualities fof autonomy and relatedness in adotescent- parent interactions than it was of interview-based. assessments of adolescent security (Becker-Stoll & Fremmer-Bombik, 1997). This suggests that successful balancing of efforts to attain autonomy and maintain a sense of relatedness in adoles- ‘ent-pacent interactions related to disagreements may even potentially be considered a stage- specific manifestation of attachment security in adolescence (Allen, Kupermine, & Moore, 1997), From this perspective, the seemingly contra- dictory process of learning ner 10 get one's ate tachment needs met by a primary attachment fig- Atlachwent in Adotescence 321 ure is actualy quite in keeping with what we Know about attachment at earlier points in the lifespan. In several respects, this process appears only slightly different from attachment processes in infeney, in which the infant secks to explore the environment and will snave away from par- cents if necessary 10 do so except when stressed (Ainsworth, 1989), in eatly to midadoleseence, most young people wil still tum to parents under conditions of extreme stress (Steinberg, 1990), and parents are still often used as attachment fig ures even in young adulthood (Fraley & Davis, 1997). Adolescents may be on the edge of tears far less often than infants, but when they are this, distressed, their likelihood of tuming to parents for help still increases dramatically. Thus, t0 some extent, the differences between adoles- ‘cents’ attachment bchaviors and those of infants and younger childven are clearly not as large as they at first appear. Jn other ways, however, alotescent behavior toward attachment figures doss seem to repre- sent a clear break with prior patterns of attach ment behavior. Very litle behavior at earlier stages of development matches the intensity of ‘an adolescent's efforts to overeome the need to depend on pareuts (Steinberg, 1990), which may lead te adolescent at times acively to avoid re lying on parents when stressed. If one asks. a teenager in front of friends and under moderate sess, “Do you want fo go get help from your smons?”, the answer nearly always comes back as a strong (perhaps overly so) “NO!” This is nat to say that this type of belavior does not occur ear- fier in the lifespan a3 well, but it clearly occurs ‘with much more striking foree and regularity in the adolescent years. This behavior differs from what we seein infeney, where the in the environment except when stress escent may at times avoid a parent, particularly when stressed, Bowlby’ (1973) view of competing behav ioral systems, and his emphasis on the balance of the attachment and exploratory systems, can still accommodate these observations if we now view adolescence as @ point in the lifespan where is ‘most important for the exploratory system to be highly activated and folly developed. Adolescent autonomy-secking behavior can be viewed as part of the explorntory system, which may at times not just have opposing goals to the attach- ‘ment system, bat may actually have as a goal the minimization of the power of the attachnient sys- tem with respect to parents, That is, the adoles+ cent secks 10 explore living (to some extent)322 without being emotionally dependent on his or hher parents. In adolescence, the exploratory sys- ‘tem may well toke on greater primacy, particulat- ly with respect to attachments to parents (though not pecrs), as adolescents” developing capacities rake then: increasingly less dependent on theie parents, Withoot such expforation, accomplish- ing the major tasks of social development in ado- lescence and young adulthood, such as estab- lishing long-term romantic. relationships and productive careers, may well be difficult if not inopossible. This is not different in principle from the competing influence of the exploratory and attachment systems on infant behavior, although the press for autonomy in adolescence may be ‘more relentless and more ditectly im competition with the attachment system than it is during in- fancy (Allen, Kupermine, & Moore, 1997; Stein- bbexg, 1990). To somte extent, an adolescent's cog nitive capacities come to the rescue in managing these conflicting systems by allowing the adoles- ‘cent to recall thatthe parents remain available as attachment figures wher tculy needed, even as the adolescent attempts to develop a relationship ‘vith the parents in which seeking of comfort is largely avoided for long periods of time. In this sense, the analogy to exploratory and secure- base behavior in infancy remsins apti Adoles cents cam explore (emotionally) the possibility of living independently from parents, ia part be- ‘cause they know that they can turn to parents in cases of tea) need. This notion receives support from research suggesting that the presence of adolescent auionomy-seeking behavior tends to be highty correlated with evidence of sa underly ing positive relationship with pavents (Allen, Hauser, Bell, & O'Connor, 1994). ‘As this autonomy-seeking process unfols, i also appears likely to further adolescents’ capaci- fies fo reevaluate the nature of te attachment re- lationship with parents. For with increased inde pendence from parents as altachment figures ‘may also come a certain degree of freedom from ‘the need to monitor snd assure parents’ availabil- ity to meet attachment nccds (Kobak & Cole, 1994), Main and Goldwya (in press) refer to this ‘cognitive and emotional freedom a "epistemic space,” and suggest that it allows individaals to evaluate their parents as attachment figures mote objectively. This epistemic space is likely to be a {important to the emerging capacity to think more autonomously about attachment relationships as are the developing cognitive capacities discussed ‘earlier. For even with fully developed. cognitive ‘capacities, is likely to be very difficult to attain PARTIV, ATTACHMENT IN ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD the critical distance needed to begin objectively evaluating the qualities of an attachment rels- tionship on which one fels torally dependent. In such & dependent relationship, strongly negative feelings about and evaluations of an attachment figuze may well be t00 threatening t0 acknow!- edge openly, given that the expression of these feelings may engender negative feelings and be haviors in retum, As independence increases, 50 too will the emotional distance necessary t0 put developing cognitive capacities to work in re- evaluating the nature of the attachment relation- ship with parents. Uncomfortable as this critical distance and objective evaluation may be to par- ons, it seems likely to be fundamental to an ailleurs capacity to develop an accurate, thoughtfol response to attachment experiences ‘This in turn may be crucial to resolving attach- iment dificultes in relationships with pacents in sways that allow some adolescents to form more secure relationships with others, such as peers, in the finure. ‘Transformations in Peer Relationships By midadolescenes, interactions with peers have begun to fake on many of the fanetions that they ‘wl serve for the remainder of the lifespar— providing important sources of intimacy, feed- back aboot soci behavior, social influence and information, and ultimately attachment reletion- ships and lifelong. partnerships (Ainsworth, 1989; Fulign’ & Beles, 1993; Gavin & Furman, 1989, 1996; Hartup, 1992). The development of peer telationships in adofescence i characterized by the gradual emergence of the capacity for adultlike intimacy and sepportiveness (Hartup, 1992; Tones & Pembo, 1989; Tesch, 1983). Al though these new components of relationships ace seen in embryonic form in cidhood peer r= Tationshigs, they appear most clearly in an indi vvidual’s developmental history in attachment 12- Iationships with parenss (Gavin & Furman, $989, 1996; Kahen, Katz, & Gottman, 1994). This sua fess that tho nature of developing pees atch tment relationships may derive as much or more from prior attachment selationships with parents as from prio relationships with peers, Childhood peer relationships, although an essential aspect (of normal social development (Hartup, 1983), are viewed as unlikely to serve rauch of an a tachment fintion under most conditions (Ains- wort, 1989), ‘Ainsworth (1989) delineates four character istos thar distinguish attachment relationshipsfiom other social relationships, and that help tity the ways in which peet relationships do Sia do not serve attachment functions in edoles- atace, These charactetisties include (1) proximni- {y seeking; 2) secute-base behavior (eer explo- Pasion in the presence of an attachment Figure); {G) sale-haven behavior (retreat tothe attachment figure when facing a perceived threat); and (4) separation protest when separations are involun- fae Ainsworth’ delineation makes quite clear tho ways in which childhood playmates differ from attachment figures. It also makes clear the extent fo which theso distinctions beeome in- ‘reasingly fuzzy when onc js considering adoles- feent_peer relationships. By late adolescence, Jong-lerm relationships ean be formed in which “es romantie partners or a5 vety close Friends) indoed serve as attachment figures in all sences of the term (Buhrmester, 1992). What prompis this gcowth in the attachment qualities bf pect relationships? One source is obviously the sue set of cognitive, developmental, and so tial changes described carlicr, which improves the capacity of both an adolescent and his or her peers to scrve as attachment figures to one an~ fther (Younis & Haynie, 1992). In particule, the growing push for autonomy from parents ray create healthy pressure to begin to use pects as attachmont figufes, so that attachment needs can be met while establishing autonomy in the relationship with parents (Steinberg, 1990). Froin this perspective, adolescence is not a pe- tiod in which attachment needs and behaviors are relinguished, cather, itis one in which they are sradually transferred to peers, This transfer also involves a transformation from hiererehical at tachment relationships (in which ove primarily receives care from a caregiver) to peer attacli> nent relationships (in which one both eeceives and offers care and support). Adolescents” scem= ingly inappropriate dependence on peers, pattic~ ulacly in early adolescence, may be viewed! as tho awkward first step toward learning to use poets a attachment figures. In this respect, phenome- nna such as heightened susceptibility to peer pres sure ate quite understandable: To the extent shat peers begin replacing multiple parcntal, fune~ tions, adolescents may reflexively tend to “bey” peer dircctives just as they have previously done ‘with parental directives, and may experience an almost reflexive desire to please peers just as they have previously done with patents. The tran- sition to use of peers as attachment figures is thus clumsy at first, and may even be dysfime~ jonal in some ways at certain times, but itis only CHAPTER 15, Attachment in Adolescence 33 the necessity for adolescents to struggle with this process that encourages their capacities. for iuultlike attachment relationships to develop fully One of the endpoints of developing peer rela~ tionstips in adolescence is the development of fomanti¢ relationships that may eventually be- Come lifelong attachment relationships (Ains- ‘worth, 1989). Romantic relationships do not solely result from developing interests in form- jng attachments with peers, of course; they also tellect the operation of a sexuaVreproductive system that is likely to be every bit as biological- Iy cooted and ertcal to spectes survival as he at tachment system (Ainsworth, 1989 Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988; sce Simpson, Chapter 6, this volume). The sexual tnd attachment systems both push toward the ¢s- tablishmient of new pecr relationships character- ized by sufficient intensity, shared interests, and strong affect to begin to teke aver some of the many fimetions of prior parent-child relation- ships. The sexual component of these relation- ships may also help advance the attachment com ponent by providing consistent motivation for fateraction; experience with intense, intimate af- fect; and a history of shared unique experience. Ttalso seems likely that prior attachment expe cences and current patterns of approach to attach- tment thoughts and feelings will in turn shape the pature of these developing romantic relationships (Bazan & Shaver, 1994) INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: TN ADOLESCENT ATTACHMENT STRATEGIES ‘With some notion of the transformations in at- tachment cognitions, Ceelings, ond behavior that ‘occur during adolescence, itis now possible to fonsider what we know about individual difer- ences in attachment in adolescence. Before con- Siering the differences between secure and inse~ cure adolescents, we must fist recognize the question of just what “security” and “insecurity” sotuslty mean for the adolescent who bas devel- ‘oped (1) characteristic sravegy for dealing with fttachmen-related thoughts, feelings, and sem snes; (2) specific memories and representations of interactions with atachmeat figures; and () dngoing relationships with his or her attachment figures. Recent research suggesting high concor- dance rates between the attachment organization of individvel adults and their parents (Benoit &328 PARTIV, ATTACHMENT IN ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD Parker, 1994) raises the possibility that it may ‘even make sense to speak of secure or insecure dyads under some conditions, This chapter fo- ‘euses primarily on adolescents’ characteristic strategies for dealing with attachment thoughts and memories—in part because they represent the only research with demonstrated empirical ‘connections to the infant attachment literature, tnd in part because they appear to offer the best cmpirieal basis for predicting future behavior in attachment relationships. Although a number of different and promising tools have been devel- ‘oped to assess attachment models, strategies, and organization in adolescence and adulthood, this chapter primarily reviews findings based om as- sessments made with the Adult Attachment Inter- view (AAJ; Goorge, Kaplan, & Main, 1996; ‘Main & Goldwyn, in press)! Famili ‘Although attachment processes appear to follow certain normative developmental pathways for all adolescents, for families of adolescents with secure attachment strategies, these paths appear fairly straight, smooth, and easily traversed, for families with insecure adolescents, they may be filled with owists, detours, dead ends, and diffi- colts, These differences are manifested in a much smoather provess of balancing autonomy fand attachment needs in families with secure adolescents, perhaps because these adolescents Ihave more’ confidence that their relationships will remain intact and functional in spite of dis- agreements, For example, in the task of learning to resolve differences of opinion between patents ‘aw! adolescents, teens with secure attachment strategies tend to engage in productive, problem- solving discussions that balance autonomy strv ings wit efforts to preserve the current relation- ship with parents (Allen & Hauser, 1996: Recker-Stoll & Freminet-Bombik, 1997; Kobak, Cole, Fetenz-Gillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993), ‘These discussions may be heated or intense at times, but nevertheless maintain « focus on solv- ing the disagreement at hand. In contrast, inse- ‘cure teen-parent dyads are more likely 10 be characterized by avoidance of problem solving and lower levels of adolescent confidence in in- tomactions, and by higher levels of disengage ‘ment, dysfunctional anger, and use of pressuring, tactics that tend to undersrine autonomy (Bech- er-Stoll & Fremazer-Bombik, 1997; Kobak et al, 1993), Disagreements that secure dyads try 10 re- salve directly lead insecure dyads either to with- draw oF to become hostile and pressuring, AS noted earlier, these patierns of difficulty in han- dling issues of autonomy and relatedness are pre- Gictable ftom attachment insecurity seen both in infaney and at age 6 (Bocker-Stol 8 Fremmser- Bombik, 1997). ‘One explanation for both the avoidance and the dysfunctional anger and pressuting behavior of insecure dyads is tha these behaviors ae un- derstandable responses ifthe dyads are interpet- {ng adolescents” efforts to establish aatonony in disagreements as presenting a real threat to the yagi relationship. A second explanation i that Inecure adolescents (and parents) may be over twetmed by the affect brought on by the dis- agreement (Kobak & Cole, 1994). Although atl patents and teens oceasionlly become upset dr- Ing disagrosments, insecure tons and thee par tents may be moc iby to havea history of dif Cuities i geting tesr upset fecings assuaged attachment relsionships, This may leave them more wulnerable t0 having angry, hart flings Spin oxt of couirol, and may lead both parties ina disagreement to move rapidly from reasoned ds cussions toa “Tightor-Miaht stance. A third ex: planation js that an insecure adolescent is easily Frustrated because he or she doesnot expec o be heard or understood bya parent whose inseuiy makes it hard to tune i accurately tothe ado- Teseent’s perspectives and feelings. These tee explanations are not mutually exelusve, a8 a re= istionship history that leads to adolescent insecu- Fity would also appear ikely to lead vo difficul- tie in handling any unpleasant feclings that arse in the relationship. “The interaction patterns of Families of insure adolescents may be problematic at any point in development, bit they are particularly problem ftie in adolescence, whee autonomy srvings (Gnd the developmental forces that drive ther) almost certainly require some sensitive renegoti- tion ofthe elaionship with parents (Allen, Ku permine, & Moore, 1997; Youiss, 1980), This s tk for which te family ofan insecure adoles- em may be particulary il suited. The moot ess changing relationships, tension, and gros ing emotional and behavioral independence fom patents that characterize adolescent development fray all conspire to erate a chronie state of ct ation ofthe attachment system, thus inereasiog the impact of an insecure parent relationship on the adolescent. Ironically, his acc at the same time tht the adotescent is trying to begin $9 Fe floc the centalty ofthe parental relationship in his ore lifeBvidence is now accimulating to suggest that distinctions araong specific types of insceure at- tachments in families with adolescents may be “understood in terms of adolescents’ balancing of cfforts 10 attain autonomy while maintaining positive relationships in interactions. Becker Stoll and Fremmer-Bombik (1997) note that dis unissing adolescents show the least autonomy and ‘relatedness in interactions with parents of all t= tachment groups observed; this suggests thet dis- ‘missing individuai’s characteristic withdrawal fiom engagement with attachment figures may perticularly hinder the task of renegotiating the nature of parent-adolescent relationships. Reimer, Overton, Steidl, Rosenstein, and Horo- ‘witz (1996) algo note that families of dismissing adolescents fond to be less responsive to their adolescents than do families of preoccupied ado- Tescents, Allen snd Hauser (1996) report that one indicator of preoccupation with attachment in. young adulthood—use of passive thought pro- esses, reflecting mental entanglement between self and earegivers—was predicted by adales- eens" overpersonalized behaviors toward fathers fn arguments 10 years calice and by adolescents” Jack of simple withdrawal from/avoidance of a= guments, Avoidance of problem solving and of renegotiating relationships thus appears litked to less overall security and more specifically 0 di missing attachment organizations, but also. to less likelibood of being insecurely preoccupied ‘with attachment relationships. Insecure preoecu pation, in conteast, appears to be best predicted from heightened end unproductive overengoge- ment with parents in arguments that ultimately undermine an adolescent's autonomy. Psychosocial Functioning [A number of recent studies suggest the existence ‘of substantial links between the adolescents at- tachment organization and psychosocial func tioning, Two insecure attachment strategies, the preoccupied and dismissing strategies, have been {implicated in problems of psychosocial funetion- ing, although the two are associated with some ‘shat diffesen pa.ers of problems, Adolescents" use of preoccupied strategies has been most closely linked to internalizing problems, par- ticularly 10 adolescents” self-reports of depres- sion (Allen, Moore, Kupermine, & Bell, 1998: Kobak, Sudier, & Gamble, 1991}, Adolescent de~ pression has been slated to maternal attachment Insecurity (Homann, 1997), and these relations CHAPTER 15. Attachnnent ix Adotesceice 325 hold even after maternal strategies of affect rego lation and maternal depression ate accounted for. ‘Adam, Sheldon-Keller, and West (1996) also r= pot that suicidality in adolescence is related to a Combination of a preoccupied and an unresolved attachment status. Together, these findings sug jest a sirong connection between adotescent de- pression and attachment insecurity {ia both ado- Tescents and their mothers), with a particular relation of depression to adolescent preoccupied attachment orgatization, Externaliztg problem behaviors eg. aggres- sion and delinquency) have also been related 10 fnsecurty, although the attachment system ap- ‘eats to interact with other aspects of the adoles~ cent relationship in producing these relationships (Allen et al, 19989. For example, maternal con~ {rol of adolescent behavior—long a recognized inverse correlate of adolescent deviance (Patter- son, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989}—bas been found to provide a buffer against deviant behav- io, but only for adolescents with either secure oF preoccupied attachment strategies, Tt thus ap- pears that matemal eontrol may be effective as a baffer against deviance only when adolescents are open to thinking about the maternal relation- ship (in cither a secure ora preoceupied fashion). ‘This finding suggests an important extension of existing theories about the importance of mater- ral control in adolescence, and also provides at example of the importance of beginning to inte (grate attachment rescarch into existing theories of adolescent social developrnent. ‘The type of insecurity co which externalizing, behaviors are linked in adolescence is less clear When examining psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents, almost ail of whom were insceur, Rosenstein and Horowitz (1996) reported that preoccupied attachment strategies were associat~ ed with internalizing symptoms, whereas dis- ng strategies were associated with external izing symptoms. Preoceupied adolescents were ‘more likely to be depressed, whereas dismissing ‘dolescents were more likely fo be substance Abusing and conduct disordered. Allen ct al. (1998) found that preoccupation was related t0 adolescent deviance, oven after levels of scourity ‘were accounted for, but enly in the presence of additional demographic risk factors (c.g., male gender and fow income). Thus, for male adoles- ents and for adolescents from poor favsilies, ‘preoccupation was associated sith externalizing behavior even after accounting for levels of seeu- rity. Allen and Kupermine (1995), in contrast, found evidence thet preoccupation was divectly326 PARTIV, ATTACHMENT IN ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD related to externalizing behaviors when these ‘were assessed via adolescents’ selFteports, Tn attempting to reconcile these findings, itis Important to note that adolesceat problem behav- iors and symptoms may serve not only as expres sions of distress or of psychopathology, but also as attempts to change the nature of interactions within a parent-adolescent dyad. Externalizing problem behaviors may even serve as attachment ‘bchaviors themselves, in that they may call for help and intervention by the parent on behalf of the adolescent (Allen et al., 1998; Kobak et al. 1993). An adolescent who has adopted preoseu pied strategies for dealing with attachment-elat- fed concerns and whose attachment system is, chronically byperactivated may actually use problematic behavior as one of many extreme and ambivalent means of seeking a response from a caregiver (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Much as the resistant infant may call for help ftom a caregiver while angrily resisting the caregiver's cfforis, the preoccupied adolescent may well use hostile, self-destructive, ond infuriating behay- iors (c.g. getting arrested for shoplifting while carrying plenty of spare cash) as a way both to ‘engage parental attention and to express anger and resistance. This may be particularly likely to ‘occur in adolescence, where growing perspec ies allow the adolescent to envi- sion in advance how parents will respond to giv cen behaviors (Kobak ct al., 1993). This process may help explain why preoccupation is Tinked not just to internalizing symptoms (as has been frequently reported at other points in the life span; Cassidy & Berlin, 1994; Pianta, Egeland, & Adam, 1996; Rubin & Lollis, 1988), but also to some adolescent reports of externalizing be- hhaviors, Even though externalizing behaviors are often associated with dismissing or avoidant at- tachment strategies both earlier and later in the lifespan (Allen & Hauser, 1996; Renken, Epe- land, Marvinney, Mangelsdorf, & Sroute, 1989; Rothbaum, Schneider, Pott, & Beatty, 1995), in adolescence extemalizing problems may also serve a preoccupied function. ‘Moreover, both preoccupied and dismissing attachment strategies may lead to the develop- ment of problem behsviors by influencing the ‘ways that adolescents process negative atfect. Rosenstein and Horowitz (1996) note that the in- tense focus on parents that is characteristic of preoceupied strategies may lead to failure to learn to selftegulate negative affect, as well as t0 failure to develop the exploratory competence necessary 10 Tearn regulatory skills from other sources. Ths is offered as an explanation for the depression associated with adolescent preocew- pation. Itmay afso help explain externalizing be- haviors, given that these behaviors are closely linked fo deficits in social competence that may result from failure to explore and develop rela~ tionships apart from parents (Allen, Aber, & Leadbeater, 1990; Dodge, 1993; Leadbeater, Heliner, Allen, & Aber, 1989; Patterson et al, 1989). Kobak and Cole (1994) suggest that different attachment strategies may predict different clus- ters of psychological symptoms beeause the strategies reflect different approaches to dealing With distrossrelated cues. Adolescents using dis- ing strategies may take on symptoms that distract themselves and others from these cues, Whereas preoccupied individuals take on symp- toms that focus on distress-elnted cues and leave the attachment system in @ more highly activated slate, Kebak and Cole support this explanation With findings that eating-disordered individuals ia college population were disproportionaely likely to use dismissing strategies (with the ate tion given to eating behaviors distracting the ine Ieseense, Meri Pliner easter 8, 4450802, olen, W. Kate L Ey & Gotlnzn, 1. M,(199).Linkeses esweea poestchid ineracion ané eoavetstiors of Fins Seta Devetopmen 3, 238-258 eating, B (1590), Adora thiaking 9S S, Feldman los (2s), At te resol Pe developing ade cont tgp. 54050). Combeage, MA? Hansard University Press abs Rt, & Coe, (1994). Ataeliment and stare: ng) Topesions fbe_adolscent avtesomy and psy Chopsthalogy. In D. Cishet (Ed), Rochester Symgo~ um on Desloinct onl Pelepatologs: OLS Dioorders of he rfp. 287-297) Rochester, BY: UD ‘very of Roeneses Pes. Kobek, Cole HE, Perens, Planing, W. S ie Gaanble, W. (1553, Aluchment aad ection regu thon during mosh teenpoblers sling: A cont theo: ‘anys, Cred Development, 66 211-299. sa Re fe Daler, (1998), Atcha ad omer vadons Towed» discourse analysis of adsescen and Mt sceoiy In K. Harboe & D. Petnan (8), Stdvances tv pesonch rllionships: Volume 5, tak nem procestrn aduthcod (gp 121-149). Load: es fica Kingsey ‘bal Re a Seery, A (1988), Asta i Ine 20> Tevccnce: Working mages, aff: regulation, and pre ealons of val abs others Chd Develepent 58, 15-156 Kobi, Ro, Sale, Nf Game, W. (1991) Aractment rl depressive sagt dng wdsescence: A develop fenal, gothways amalysa. Development and Pay ‘hopathotngs. 3461-478 Assan RW, Richards, M. HL, Monet, G., Holme, G ‘Bucket E1996) Changes in adolescent nee ‘ction ith ie frales hom ages 102018: Disease ron and wensfoatise, Developmental Paschal, 32, pa endbeater, B,J Heng, 1, Alle, J.P & Aber. 2 be (962) The sessment of inepestnal “nepetion rvegies in mliejoblen. youth. Developmental Pa chalogy 25, 465-872 sin ME (1991, Dseember). uachinent Theor, esearch plication. apse pssened athe meting ofthe Ae an Paybaalai Society, New Vor. Moin Md & Goldnya, R09 pes), Adit atachmet ating fan casiicaton sens In. Main (Ed), 4 npoiogy ‘of heman atichinont ongrasationosessed in 000056334 PARTIV, ATTACHMENTIN ADOLESCENCE AND ADULTHOOD Arawings and interviews, New Yoru Casbidge Univer: sig Tress. Maln, M, dt Hesse, E. (190), Parents" weaved traumatic aergoees ae elated 0 infor ceagpnined atetonent Stan: frighened andor Tghtxing parental Pebavior the inkieg mechanisn’® IM, T, Geanbery,D.Ciechet, EM. Curamings (Eds), Atochment in he preschool pears (pp. I6I-ISH). Chicago: Univesity of Chicago Deans Mao, Mo, Kaplan, Nu & Casi, J. (1985), See in in. Tey, chikdhod, and adulthood: A rose 9 the level of represetatin. In [Bretton & E, Waters (Eds) Grom Ing pots of auschmert tec ard esarch Monographs ofthe Sot for Research in Chil Development, 3-2, Serial No.9), 66-104, Main, M. & Solomon, 3 (1986). Discovery of» mew, ise> ‘hte -daorgmizeddiorenedatachment panes. 18 T-B, [Bazclion & M. Vogsnan (Eas), fective development in infancy (gp. 95-128). Norwood, NI: Able. Moote, €. W. (1997). Models of arechment, relationsips ‘ith ponents and sen beasior Iv art odolescente Unpoblished doctoral istration, University of Vigna Moore. (0987) Puent-adoloseeat separation: The eon ‘tution ofalahood by late adolescents. Developmental Paychotogs, 23, 298-207. Nolen Hoekaoms,S, & Gitgus, JS. (1994). The emergence ‘of gender difeences th depeesion darcy acoescence Pojcholgical Bullen, 18, 424-48) NolenHlockseia, 8, Puc, I. E, & Larson, (1958), Rex ruinative coping with dcpessed mood feiowing loss lournal of Personality rd Sotal Pochalogy, 6. batot. (OtBeimne, A, & Allen, J.P. (1996, March), Adolescent ‘seaual Bohovior- Idoviua, per. and family correlates, Paper presented at the Dansk meeting of Ie Sexity for Rerenchon Adakeserce, Boston, ‘O°Conmor, EM, Pan, i, Waters, Poss, G. (1995, ‘Match: Apl)” Athen clasfetion, romani Jal ‘usp. nd eggresion couples. Paper preseaed te bie fnml meeting of the Society for Reser in Child De- ‘velopment, adiacapals, BN Pepin, DLR, Ae Roggran, L.A (1992) Adolescent pe ‘ceived alcctinest fo potents in elton to compsence, ‘epresion, and angi: A longitudinal sud ural of Barly dalccence, 22, 20 410 Papin D.R., Rogaman, L.A, & Andeso, J. (991) Bary- fadoiesertpvecprioas of sachet 6 moter ard fs ther A tee of emo! distancing end bufleang by: potheses Journal of bar dalescence 11, 25E-273. Paterson, Fy Pry, & Fl8, 1 {2999). Adcascear mach ‘ment to parnts ama ions in reo to aspcts of se ‘sen, Jauran of Youth ond Adoleroones 2, 365-375 astern, OR, Debate, B.D, Ramsey, E, (1989). 4 ‘developrinil peespetiveon aaiscil BeROvDT. Amer ‘con Paeholagen 44, 329-335, Pianta, RC, Easland, B, & Adar, EK. (1996) Adu ‘ache claeicaion ond selFyeponed. psychi “yrptomtlogy es azsesed by the Mimesta Malpba- fhe Personality Trveory 2. Journal of Consuing and Ciinieai Pescology, 64, 225281 Reimer, M.S, Over, W.F, Sti) J 1, Rosenstein, D. ‘Sq & Hovowie, H. (1996). Foil” responsiveness an behavior conkol:Inlteses on adolesent psy- ‘hopetbalogy stachrel, and ogee. Journal of Re. ‘earch on dlesceee, 6, 87-112, Renken, By Fgeland, B, arvinncy,D, Mangels. Sront, i A. (1989) Esty childhood avecetens of ag- gcsion nd pusive-withdowal_ in gary. elementary School Jounal of Personcls, 57, 287-281 dicks, MHL (1985). Social wacsmision of paren bch fe: Atachment across generations. Ib Breterton & E. ‘Wate (Eds). Growing pots of atachine ieory and research. Monograph of the Savin for Research Child Beveopment 341-2, Seval No 9}, 211-277 Rosenstein, B.S, & Horowitz, H. A. (1996). adolescent at tachment and psyehopathlogy. Joursal of Conculng nd Col Pvcholoy, 64, 224-253, Rolhaum, F, Schneider, Kod, M., & Beaty. M. (1995), ary pacer relationships and Ite raster Beka tor A longitudinal sad. Merril Valmer Quarter. <), Bis, Rubio, KHL, & Lots, SP. (2988). Origins and conse- ‘quences of social wera. In J. Bakky &. Nez $4 (E88), Clinica inpicatins of atackren (Gp. 215 282), lsdale, NI: Eau, ‘Sohuleiss, D-E.P, & Blass, D.L. (19949), Role of ado Tescenrparee relationships in cllege ste! develap- rent an ajustnen. Journal ef Counseling Pascholgy 1, 208-255. Sbuliidss, DEP, & Blusein D, L, (19948). Com ns of fait eltionship fcr to the deity Formac ‘Gon process. Jouraa of Counseling ad Development. 73, 519-589 Shaver, B, Hazan, C, Bradshaw, D. (1988) Love ae Cachet: The ineration of thecehekworl sytem. I RJ. Stemberg &M. Barnes (Eas), The jehotogy of love (gp. 68-98), Now Haver, CT: Yale Unietaly Press, Slough, NM, & Greaberp, MT, (1990, Fivoyearotds! ‘eprscntaions of separation fom parents Resp from the perspective ee and other. In I. Brsberon & IM. W. Watsoe (Es), Now divecttons for ehild devel dent, No 48. Children's perspectives onthe family Gy {S788}, Son Frans: Joteyass. Stele, W, Stele My & Fonapy, P1996). Associations “among ascent laifieaions af wothers, fates, and thei infants Child Develops 7, 841-885 Sweinber,L (1990) Iterdependeney te ny: Aston my, confel, snd. harmony in the patea-odelescent felsonship. In S, Feldnun & G. Elion (Eds), at he theeshold The devlaping edolexcet (pp. 285276) (Cane, MA: Harvard Univesity Press ‘Tesch, S.A. (USES). Review of Mendip development scrae the lospan. Haman Developmen, 26 266-276 ‘Thompece, RA, Hood, MF, & Lundgast 1. (1995) Tinea eegtetion Is reltons (> atashnint and ce elopmental psychopathology. In D. Ciecti & S. I ‘Foul (ids), Rocherer Sompostva on Developmen! Poschopahslogs Vol. Eimaten, cognion ad repre entotion (gp. 261-209). Rochastar, NY: Univer Rocher Pres. ‘Trabous, D, & Bosch Rossnggel, N.A. (1990) Social ee Werk inflsences ew aolscet sexual aiid and Beha tors Sool of Adolescent Research 3, 175-189. Trebous, Dy Crowell, A, Owens, Gy & Pan, HE. (1954, ebrasty). Atchment Bohavirs amd working models Relaion to Bes friendcips aad vamanie reftionshit Paper presented ate bicana ectng ofthe Soc or Reseach in Adoleseance, San Diego, CA. van Hzendoor, bf, (1992), Ieper transition ‘of paca: A review of stoies sn nonclinical poplar tions Deselopmental Review: 12. 76-93 ‘van Uzcrdore, M-H. (1998). AGI teachment reprise tions, prea respoasivencs, and inn sachrent A eit aeayae onthe prediive vay ofthe Adult APCHAPTERS. Attachunent in Adolescence techment faterview. Pephologleet Bullet, 117, 387= 03, syn Inendcar, M, (1996). Corsmentay. Haman Devel ‘opment 39, 24-231 Ward, Moi, & Carson, B.A. (1998), Associations among ‘iu oan presenters cecal sexsi, a jnfotsmother tachment ina sple of adlescet mor rs Ohl Development 66, 69-19. \Wars E., Mottck, 5. K., Alberscim, L, & Trebous, D. (1985, Alareh Apel) Ataconent security from infancy 20 tay adulthood 20x anginal sty. Papen w= ‘Sf othe Bani meeting ofthe Soviety for Reseach in Ctl Development, lndipis, IN, Wein Ne 3. (0G). tachment aad the represenadon “O retationships fom afaay 9 aac, Conte ocontinuy ad ther correlates. published doctor ‘issscaton, Uasctsity of Minnesota will, 1. (1980), The relive seprtance of pares 25d fstads vp aoiewent decison raking. dort of Youth ond deletomee, 13, 325-334 335 Wright D. A, Petetor, Ry & Bornes, H.L. (1990) The eloion of ptenaleplostneat and contestsl varies tvith staal permiaieness and gender role anaes of Fal early adolescent, Jour of Early Adolescence, 10, 153-395 ‘Younis J (1980), Parens and peers in socal development Chica Universi oF Ceo Fess. ‘Yomi, , & Haynie, D_L, (1992). Eriendship in adoles- evee Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pde tires, 14 39-56. Zimencann. Py Femmer-Bombik, E, Spangles, G & “Gronmana, KE (1995, Marek-ApiD tte Th (itanece A longitudinal perspective. Paper presented the bipoial meeting of th Seeiety for Resereh in Child Developan, ndanapclis Zinsmermenn, & SebecereeEnglith, I. & Grossmann, K P1996, May) Sovialrelatonshis in adolescence: Core finsy an ranortins. Baperpresemed at the ben- Al mesing of the European Assocition for Resazch cu ‘Aapleseere, Ling, Oe gia