Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Attachment relationships and Internalizing and Externalizing problems among

Italian adolescents
Renata Tambelli a, Fiorenzo Laghi b,⁎, Flaminia Odorisio a, Valentina Notari a
a
Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Via dei Marsi, 78-00185 Rome, Italy
b
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Via dei Marsi, 78-00185 Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examined the relationship between parent and peer attachment and Internalizing and Externalizing
Received 29 November 2011 problems in a sample of 816 adolescents (413 males and 403 females) aged 11–19 years old. Their responses to
Received in revised form 3 April 2012 the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment indexed attachment quality, and Internalizing and Externalizing
Accepted 4 April 2012
problems were measured by the Youth Self-Report. Our analyses revealed: a) gender differences in attachment
Available online 12 April 2012
to parents, with females reporting stronger attachment than males, and age differences in attachment to parent
Keywords:
and peer, with middle adolescents reporting stronger attachment than adolescents; b) gender differences in
Internalizing problems Internalizing problems and Total problems, with females reporting higher scores than males, and age differences,
Externalizing problems with adolescents reporting higher scores than middle adolescents. Internalizing problems were predicted by
Parent attachment Alienation by parents and Trust (IPPA-Peer) dimension in the expected directions, and Externalizing problems
Peer attachment were predicted only by parental attachment dimensions. Results showed that adolescents with comorbid
Psychological adjustment Internalizing and Externalizing problems scored significantly lower on the dimensions of parent attachment
Adolescence compared to Internalizing problems (pure), those with Externalizing (pure) problems or the control group.
Adolescents with Internalizing problems (pure) scored significantly lower on the dimensions of peer attach-
ment compared to other groups.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Moreover, during adolescence, attachment behavior is often di-

The association between attachment quality to parents and psy-
chosocial adjustment in adolescence has been documented in several
empirical studies (Laghi, D'Alessio, Pallini, & Baiocco, 2009; Noom,
Dekovi´c, & Meeus, 1999; Rice, 1990), and it is established that posi-
tive perceptions of self and others in attachment relationships
with parents are associated with numerous indicators of psychosocial
adjustment in adolescence (Laghi, Pallini, D'Alessio, & Baiocco, 2011;
Rice, 1990; Simons, Paternite, & Shore, 2001), and negatively with prob-
lem behaviors (Laible, Carlo, & Raffaelli, 2000), low perception of social
support (Larose & Boivin, 1998), feelings of loneliness (Ammaniti,
Ercolani, & Tambelli, 1989; Kems & Stevens, 1996) and psychological
distress (Cooper, Shaver, & Collins, 1998).
Attachment quality has been positively related to self-esteem
(Cassidy, 1988; Clark & Symons, 2000; Verschueren, Marcoen, &
Schoefs, 1996), feelings of competence (Papini & Roggman, 1992), per-
ceived social support (Blain, Thompson, & Whiffen, 1993; Larose &
Boivin, 1998), and a sense of mastery over their worlds (Paterson, Pryor,
& Field, 1995).
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 39 06 49 91 7619; fax: + 39 06 49 91 7672.
E-mail addresses: renata.tambelli@uniroma1.it (R. Tambelli),
fiorenzo.laghi@uniroma1.it (F. Laghi), flaminia.odorisio@uniroma1.it (F. Odorisio),
valentina.notari@uniroma1.it (V. Notari).
rected toward non-parental (non-caretaking) figures (Goodvin,
Meyer, Thompson, & Hayes, 2008), especially peers, who may be con-
sidered such on a situational or temporary basis. Particularly peers
may become new sources of trust. Although, a particularly important
aspect of adolescent peer attachment is the peer's ability to support
and encourage the adolescent's assumption of growth-promoting
challenges, researchers have confirmed that adolescents continue
to rely on their parents for emotional support and advice (Byers
et al., 2003; Blyth, Hill, & Thiel, 1982; Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst,
Guerin, & Parramore, 2003; Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Nickerson &
Nagle, 2005) and that attachment security with parents predict an
individual's well-being across the lifespan (Larson, Richards,
Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996).
Although a person typically has more than one attachment figure, a
hierarchy of attachment exists such that attachment behaviors are usu-
ally directed toward a principal attachment figure (Laghi et al., 2009).
Some theorists (Laible et al., 2000) have argued for hierarchical organi-
zation in which the child's representation of the most salient attachment
figure is the most influential and therefore the most predictive of devel-
opmental outcomes. Parents directly structure and select their children's
peer contacts, and parents indirectly influence norms and beliefs about
appropriate social behavior and the relationship models based on attach-
ment experiences (Carson & Parke, 1996; Laghi, Liga, Baumgartner, &
Baiocco, 2012; Whitbeck, Conger, & Kao, 1993; Zimmermann, 2004).

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.004
1466 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471
Attachment theory plays an important role in the study of the cogni-
tive, social, and emotional adjustment of adolescents. It reflects the core
aspects of the ways through which they process affects, cognitions and
behaviors, associated with qualities of past memories, present repre-
sentations and future expectations with regards to attachment and
affective bonds (Laghi, Baiocco, Lonigro, Capacchione, & Baumgartner,
2012; Laghi et al., 2009).
Attachment theory posits that, based on the experiences of care
and affective support provided by parents, adolescents develop a feel-
ing of security and help-seeking behaviors that function to protect
them in situations of distress and to facilitate their exploration of
the social world in general (Bowlby, 1969; Ridenour, Lanza, Donny,
& Clark, 2006; Sroufe & Waters, 1977).
This configuration of affect and behaviors is thought to be inti-
mately related to the presence of personal internal working models.
These models are constructed on the basis of significant attachment
experiences and allow adolescents to judge their self-worth in the
attachment relationship and to assess the availability of the attach-
ment figure as a source of comfort and support when they experience
emotional distress (Ammaniti, Van Ijzendoorn, Speranza, & Tambelli,
2000; Cook, 2000; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).
Researchers have inferred the existence of internal working models
based on the consistent links between attachment styles and social
behavior, self-worth, and relational expectations across the lifespan
(Allen & Land, 1999; Laghi, Baiocco, D'Alessio, Gurrieri, & Mazza,
2008; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2002; Thompson, 1999).
Some studies have indicated that positive role of attachment to
parental figures is negatively associated with the presence of exter-
nalized problems, such as theft, drug use, vandalism (Noom et al.,
1999), and aggressive behavior (Laible et al., 2000), and internalized
problems, such as anxiety and depressive mood (Allen, Moore,
Kuperminc, & Bell, 1998; Nada-Raja, McGee, & Stanton, 1992). As a
result, attachment quality to parents might provide protection against
the development of internalized and externalized behavioral prob-
lems (Duchesne & Larose, 2007). Similarly, secure attachment rela-
tionships with both peers and parents were also expected to relate
to high levels of empathy and low levels of aggressive behavior
(Laible et al., 2000). Adolescent with insecure attachment exhibit rela-
tional aggression (Casas et al., 2006) and heightened anger aggression
(DeMulder, Denham, Schmidt, & Mitchell, 2000).
Several investigators have sought to better understand the charac-
teristics of the adolescent – peer relationships (Furman & Buhrmester,
1992; O'Koon, 1997), but only a limited number of them has focused at-
tention on the connection between peer-attachment and Internalizing
and Externalizing problems (Ma & Huebner, 2008). Generally, it was
argued that adolescents need these relationships since information or
support from a parent may no longer be so relevant (Cotterell, 1992)
and also to help them to establish their identity by comparing opinions
and values with others (Laghi et al., 2011). In addition, research has
shown some gender differences with regard to the relationship be-
tween the quality of both parent and peer attachment and psycho-
logical distress: boys have been found to be more likely to develop
Externalizing problems such as acting-out behavior, drug and alcohol
abuse, whereas girls are more likely to develop Internalizing problems
such as anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation (Garnefski, Kraaij,
& van Etten, 2005; Laghi et al., 2009). Moreover gender differences
emerge also in attachment pattern because parent attachment is stron-
ger in female than male, and females are more able than males to draw
support from different sources like peers (Ma & Huebner, 2008).
A recent study (Ritakallio, Luukkaala, Marttunen, Pelkonen, et al.,
2010), that investigates the effect of perceived social support in the
comorbidity between depression and antisocial behavior, found that
decreased perceived social support was associated with both depres-
sion and antisocial behavior in both sexes. There is a general confir-
mation that girls present higher levels of Internalizing problems
than boys (Berkout, Young, & Gross, 2011; Ritakallio, Koivisto, von
der Pahlen, Pelkonen, et al., 2008); only one study (Ferdinand,
Verhulst, & Wiznitzer, 1995) found that continuity of both depression
and antisocial behavior did not differ by sex.
Some studies have highlighted the moderating effect of gender
on Internalizing and Externalizing problems in adolescence with
respect to the quality of relationship (Leadbeater, Kuperminc, Blatt,
& Hertzog, 1999). They have demonstrated that Internalizing symp-
toms of female adolescents were partly explained by greater stability
in interpersonal vulnerabilities while Externalizing problems of male
adolescents were partly explained by the greater stability in the
vulnerability to self-criticism.
The present study aims to investigate the relationship between
parent and peer attachment and Internalizing and Externalizing prob-
lems. Attachment is conceptualized according to Bowlby's perspec-
tive as a unique emotional bond that enables adolescents to move
away from the family and explore the world and to establish close
relationships with significative figures other than parents. We there-
fore used an attachment measure which captures adolescents' per-
ceptions of the quality of the attachment with both parents and
peers evaluating behavioral and affective/cognitive dimensions of
both actual adolescents' relationships. First, gender and age differ-
ences between parent and peer attachment and Internalizing and
Externalizing problems were investigated. More specifically, unique
relationships between parent and peer attachment and Internalizing
and Externalizing problems were analyzed by performing regression
analyses. It was expected that parent attachment would be able to ex-
plain more of the variance of both Internalizing and Externalizing
problems than peer attachment. This hypothesis is congruent with
Laible et al. (2000) who have argued the hierarchical organization
of attachment models in which the child's representation of the
most salient attachment figure is the most influential and therefore
the most predictive of developmental outcomes.
Secondly, it will be studied to what extent parent and peer attach-
ment relationships are specific determinants of Internalizing and Ex-
ternalizing problems distinguishing different category of behavioral
and emotional problems. Postulated by attachment perspective, it
was hypothesized that adolescents with a combination of Internaliz-
ing and Externalizing problems would report lower levels of parent
attachment compared to adolescents with Internalizing problems
only, Externalizing problems only, and adolescents without problems.
Regarding peer attachment, on the basis of previous research, we
expected that adolescents with Internalizing problems would report
lower levels of peer attachment compared to other groups.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The sample consisted of 816 students (413 males and 403
females) attending middle and high schools in the center of Italy
(Lazio). The schools were selected on the basis of their willingness
to participate in the study (N = 6). In terms of the type of high school
20% of students were enrolled in science-focused schools, 20% were
in classical education schools, 20% were in industrial schools, 20%
were in liberal arts-focused schools, and 20% were in teacher-training
schools. The average age of the students was 15.89 (SD= 2.23; range
11–19). For comparative purposes the sample was divided into four
age groups: 11–13 years old early-adolescents who attended middle
schools (N = 151; M = 76; F = 75), 14–15 (N = 132; M = 77; F = 55),
16–17 (N = 312; M = 149; F = 163), and 18–19 years old adolescents
(N = 221; M = 111 F = 110) who attended high schools. Participation
was obtained through an informed consent procedure asking for
active consent from both students and parents. Questionnaires were
administered in the classroom during lesson time at the end of the
first semester. They took approximately 40 min to complete. Experts in-
troduced the questionnaires, giving instructions on their compilation,
 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471
explaining that they were voluntary and that responses were anony-
mous and confidential. They were at the students' disposal during the
questionnaires' administration to answer questions and give explana-
tion. All students responded to the same questionnaire packet. This
survey was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Commission of the
Department of Clinical Psychology of Sapienza, University of Rome.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Attachment to parents
The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA; Armsden &
Greenberg, 1987) was used to measure the quality of parent attach-
ment in adolescence and the affective–cognitive dimension of attach-
ment. It consists of twenty-eight items Likert-type scale, on which
each item has five possible responses (from “completely untrue” to
“completely true”). It provides an indication of felt security in the
relationship with specific attachment figures by measuring the ado-
lescent's trust in the availability and sensitivity of an attachment
figure (sample item, “My parents respect my feelings”; α = 0.77
in the present study), the quality of Communication, which fosters
comfort in the relationship with an attachment figure (sample item,
“When my parents knows that something is bothering me, they ask
me about it”; α = 0.83 in the present study) and the extent of
anger, Alienation and/or hopelessness resulting from an unresponsive
or inconsistently responsive attachment figure (sample item, “I don't
get much attention from my parents”; α = 0.82 in the present study).
The Alienation scale was recoded.
2.2.2. Attachment to peer
Here again twenty-five item versions of the subscales trust,
Communication and Alienation of the IPPA were filled out by partici-
pants. The three scales were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from
“completely untrue” to “completely true” and were used to measure
the quality of peer attachment in adolescence. The Trust scale mea-
sures the extent to which an adolescent trusts peer to respect and
accept his or her feelings and wishes (sample item, “My friends
respect my feelings”; α = 0.79 in the present study). The Communica-
tion scale measures the extent an adolescent experiences having high
quality of Communication with peer (sample item, “When my friends
know that something is bothering me, they ask me about it”; α = 0.83
in the present study). The Alienation scale measures the degree to
which an adolescent experiences negative feelings toward peer (sam-
ple item, “I don't get much attention from my friends”; α = 0.84 in
the present study). Here again the Alienation scale was recoded. The
IPPA has been used in a number of studies, and its reliability and
validity have been shown to be satisfactory (Laghi et al., 2009; Pace,
San Martini, & Zavattini, 2011).
2.2.3. Internalized and Externalized problems
To assess the adolescents' view of their behavior and socioemotional
functioning, the version of the Youth Self-Report (YSR) by Achenbach
(1991) was used. This questionnaire has to be completed by the 11-to
18-year-old adolescent and contains 112 problem items covering behav-
ioral, emotional, and social problems that occurred during the past
6 months. Respondent are asked to rate the occurrence of problem on
a 3-point scale. The YSR can be scored on syndrome scales: Anxious/
Depressed, Withdrawn/Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Social Prob-
lems, Thought Problems, Attention Problems, Aggressive Behavior,
and Rule-Breaking Behavior. The Internalizing scale can be derived
from the first three syndrome scales (in the present study Cronbach's
alpha= .83), and the Externalizing scale from the last two (in the pre-
sent study Cronbach's alpha = .84). The Total problems scale is derived
by summing the individual item scores (in the present study Cronbach's
alpha= .84). This measure has demonstrated very good day test–retest
reliability, cross-informant agreement, and success in discriminating
between referred and no referred adolescents (Achenbach, 1991).
1467
3. Results
3.1. Attachment and Internalizing and Externalizing problems: gender
and age differences
To investigate gender and age differences, we conducted MANOVA
on parent and peer attachment dimensions, and on Internalizing and
Externalizing problems. Regarding parent attachment, the analysis
revealed main effect for sex, λ=0.99, F (4,800)=2.91, η2 =.02, pb .001,
and age, λ=.95, F (12,2396=3.20, η2 =.02, pb .001). There was no
effect of interaction between the variables, λ=.99, F (12,2116)=.57,
p=.86.
Results from the univariate tests revealed that groups differed
on the subscale of Communication, F (1,814) = 4.72, p b .001, where
females showed a higher mean score (M = 35.38; SD= 7.83) than
males (M = 33.92; SD= 7.97). Regarding age effect, results from the
univariate tests (ANOVA) and post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise
comparisons revealed that the four groups differed on the subscales
of Communication, F (3,814)= 7.06, p b .001, Alienation, F (3,812) =
3.34, p b .001, and Total score, F (3,812) = 5.60, p b .001. 11–13 and
14–15 years old adolescents showed a higher mean score on the
Communication (M = 36.98; SD= 7.71; M = 35.02; SD= 7.40 respec-
tively) and Total score (M = 61.53; SD= 19.05; M = 57.44; SD= 17.82
respectively) than 16–17 years old adolescents (M = 34.31; SD= 7.71;
M = 55.03; SD= 18.51 respectively), and 18–19 years old (M = 33.23;
SD= 8.34; M = 54.29; SD= 17.32 respectively), that did not differ
significantly from either. Regarding Alienation dimension, 11–13 years
old early adolescents showed a lower mean score (M = 16.28; SD=
6.64), than other groups that did not differ significantly from either
(M = 17.62; SD= 6.34; M = 18.40; SD= 6.87; M = 18.09; SD= 7.12;
respectively).
Regarding peer attachment, MANOVA revealed main effect only
for age, λ = .84, F (12,2116) = 11.26, η 2 = .05, p b .001. There were
no effect of sex, λ = .99, F (4,800 = 1.83, p = .37, and interaction be-
tween the variables, λ = .99, F (12,2116) = 0.82, p = .54. Results from
the univariate tests (ANOVA) and post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pair-
wise comparisons revealed that the four groups differed on the sub-
scales of Communication, F (3,812)=38.24; pb .001, and Total score,
F (3,812)=21.89, pb .001. 16–17 and 18–19 years old adolescents
showed a higher mean score on the Communication (M=41.66; SD=
18.32; M=44.59; SD=20.76 respectively) and Total score (M=67.86;
SD=22.99; M=70.44; SD=27.12 respectively) than 11–13 years old
early adolescents (M=27.34; SD=8.95; M=52.73; SD=18.70 respec-
tively), and 14–15 years old adolescents (M=32.83; SD=13.74;
M=58.39; SD=21.87 respectively), that did not differ significantly
from either.
Regarding Internalizing and Externalizing problems, the analysis
revealed main effect for sex, λ =.95, F (3,794)=13.66, η2 =.05,
pb .001, and age, λ =.92, F (9,1932)=6.68, η2 =.02, pb .001). There
was no effect of interaction between the variables, λ =.98, F (9,1932) =
1.05, p=.39. Results from the univariate tests revealed that groups
differed on the subscale of Internalizing problems, F (1,814)=30.34,
pb .001, and Total problems, F (1,814)=5.20, pb .001, where females
showed a higher mean score (M=13.96; SD=8.39; M=65.12;
SD=22.87 respectively) than males (M=10.42; SD =7.45; M=60.74;
SD=21.80 respectively). Regarding age effect, results from the uni-
variate tests (ANOVA) and post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise
comparisons revealed that the four groups differed on the subscales
of Internalizing problems, F (3,812)=3.78, pb .001, and Externalizing
problems, F (3,812)=18.15, pb .001. 18–19 years old showed a higher
mean score on both scales (M=13.08; SD=8.28; M=15.61;
SD=8.02 respectively), than 16–17 years old adolescents (M=11.62;
SD=7.99; M=13.58; SD=8.28 respectively), 14–15 (M=11.02;
SD=8.79; M=12.66; SD=8.20 respectively), and 11–13 years old
adolescents (M=10.57; SD =7.18; M=11.37; SD=6.79 respectively)
who did not differ significantly from either.
1468 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471

3.2. Parent and peer attachment as predictors of Internalizing and Table 2

Externalizing problems Differences between NP, IP, EP, and IEP groups on the IPPA Parent subscales.

NP IP EP IEP
Next, using hierarchical multiple regression (Table 1), we further
(N = 368) (N = 73) (N = 87) (N = 55)
examined the associations between parent, peer attachment, and
Alienation 15.17c (5.84) 21.26b (6.94) 19.45b (6.13) 23.36a (7.03)
Internalizing and Externalizing problems. In each regression, we
Communication 35.97a (7.80) 34.29b (7.25) 32.60b (8.30) 30.65c (8.32)
entered age and gender in the first step. The IPPA Parent dimen- Trust 41.56a (7.38) 38.86b (7.01) 37.00b (7.56) 34.85c (9.19)
sions were entered in the second step, and peer dimensions in the Total score 62.29a (16.62) 52.10b (18.17) 50.26b (18.69) 42.09c (21.20)
third step. Regressions were repeated separately for Internalizing Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise
and Externalizing problems. The inclusion of the Alienation dimen- comparisons (p b .001): different letters indicate mean differences between groups.
sion (IPPA-Parents) and the dimension of Trust (IPPA-Peers) in the
model increased the variance accounted for by 21%. Alienation and
Trust were significantly associated with Internalizing problems in On the basis of their responses to the Youth Self-Report measure,
the expected directions. The regression predicting Externalized prob- adolescents were assigned to one of four groups: Internalizing
lems revealed that the addition of Alienation dimension and Trust problems only (IP; N = 73; 8.9%), Externalizing problems only (EP;
(IPPA-Parents) in the model increased the variance accounted for by N = 87; 10.7%), both Internalizing and Externalizing problems (IEP;
21%. Peer attachment dimensions were not related with externalized N = 55; 6.7%), neither Internalizing and Externalizing problems (NP;
problems. N = 368; 45.1%). 233 adolescents (28.6%) were not classified because
one or both of their problem scores fell between the 60th percentile
and 80th percentile.
3.3. Internalized and Externalized membership and parent and peer To examine differences in parent and peer attachment dimensions
attachment between the four groups, a MANCOVA model with Bonferroni's correc-
tion was conducted using Youth self report group as the fixed factor
As reported by Garnefski et al. (2005), a distinction was made (IP vs. EP vs. IEP vs. NP); effects of gender and age were adjusted as
between four groups of adolescents: (1) Internalizing-problem group covariates. The α level was divided by the number of statistical tests per-
(IP), consisting of adolescents scoring above the 80th percentile of the formed (4 for IPPA dimensions; the adjusted P values were α = 0.012).
Internalizing scale and below the 60th percentile in the Externalizing For this multivariate analysis, Wilks' λ criterion was used.
scale; (2) Externalizing-problem group (EP) with adolescents scoring Regarding parent attachment, MANCOVA revealed overall group
above the 80th percentile of the Externalizing scale and below the 60th effect on the dependent variables, λ = .79, F (12,1508) = 11.58,
percentile of the Internalizing scale; (3) Internalizing-and-Externalizing- η 2 = .07, p b .001. Overall, age and sex showed significant covariations
problem group (IEP), with adolescents scoring above the 80th percentile with groups for the IPPA dimensions, λ = .98, F (4,570) = 2.94,
of both the Internalizing and the Externalizing scale; and (4) No-problem η2 =.02, pb .001; λ=.97, F (4,570)=4.09, η2 =.07, pb .001, respectively.
group (NP), consisting of adolescents who scored below the 60th Results from the univariate tests (ANCOVA) and post-hoc Bonferroni-
percentile in both scales. The cut-off score at the 80th percentile was corrected pairwise comparisons revealed that the four groups
based on research by Garnefski et al. (2005), who had shown that – differed on the subscales of Alienation, F (3, 579) = 41.83; p b .001),
in terms of minimizing false negatives and false positives – the most ac- Trust , F (3,579)= 8.09, p b .001, Communication, F (3,579) = 17.71;
curate cut points for discriminating between referred and non-referred p b .001, and Total score, F (3,579) = 27.15, p b .001. Estimated means
adolescents for both Internalizing and Externalizing scales were at are reported in Table 2. IEP group had significantly higher mean levels
about the 80th percentile of the normative sample. The 60th percentile of Alienation than did the EP group and IP group that did not differ
cut point score was added in the present study to further minimize the significantly from either. NP group obtained the lowest mean levels
number of false classifications. than other groups. Regarding Trust, Communication, and Total score,
According to these criteria, adolescents who had scored between NP group had significantly higher mean levels than IP and EP groups,
the 60th and the 80th percentile on either the Internalizing or Exter- which did not differ significantly from either. IEP showed the lowest
nalizing scale were excluded, to ensure that groups designated as free mean levels than other groups.
of problems would not include adolescents who had just marginally Regarding peer attachment, MANCOVA revealed overall group ef-
failed to fulfil the criteria for inclusion in the problem groups fect on the dependent variables, λ = .94, F (12,1508) = 2.77, η 2 = .02,
(Garnefski et al., 2005). p b .001. Overall, only age showed significant covariations with groups

Table 1
Hierarchical regression analyses for parent and peer attachment predicting Internalizing and Externalizing problems.

Internalizing problems Externalizing problems

B SE B β R2 B SE B β R2

Step 1: sex and age .05 .07

Sex (0 = girls; 1 = boys) − 3.22 .52 −.19⁎ 1.14 .52 .07
Age .29 .12 .08 .88 .13 .24⁎
Step 2: IPPA Parent subscales .19 .21
Alienation .43 .05 .36⁎⁎ .32 .04 .27⁎⁎
Communication −.01 .04 −.01 .04 .04 .04
Trust −.01 .05 −.01 −.20 .05 −.19⁎
Step 3: IPPA Peer subscales .21 .21
Alienation .05 .06 .03 .05 .06 .03
Communication .00 .01 .001 −.01 .01 −.04
Trust −.09 .03 −.09⁎ .006 .03 .006
Total R .46 .46

Note: The tabled values for beta reflect Bs after step 3.

⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .001.
 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471
Table 3
Differences between NP, IP, EP, and IEP groups on the IPPA Peer subscales.
NP IP EP
(N = 368) (N = 73) (N = 87)
b a a
Alienation 14.06 (4.68) 16.27 (5.35) 16.01 (4.91)
Communication 37.71a (17.26) 35.45b (17.34) 40.41a (20.48)
Trust 41.53a (7.96) 39.10b (10.09) 39.73b (8.29)
Total score 65.17a (22.37) 58.27b (25.46) 64.27a (27.70)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise
comparisons (p b .001): different letters indicate mean differences between groups.
for the IPPA dimensions, λ = .88, F (4,570) = 19.45, η 2 = .12, p b .001,
and not sex, λ = .99, F (4,570) = 1.50, p = .19. Results from the uni-
variate tests (ANCOVA) and post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise
comparisons revealed that the four groups differed on the subscales
of Alienation, F (3, 579) = 7.49, p b .001), Trust, F (3,579) = 3.64,
p b .001), Communication, F (3,579) = 1.95, p b .001, and Total score,
F (3,579) = 5.03, p b .001. Estimated means are reported in Table 3.
NP group had significantly lower mean levels of Alienation and
higher levels of Trust than the other groups that did not differ signif-
icantly from either. Regarding Communication and Total score, IP
showed the lowest mean levels than other groups that did not differ
significantly from either.
4. Discussion and conclusions
The findings of the present study support the conclusion that
secure attachment with both parents and peers is a protective factor
for adolescent's adjustment. Our results show that females were
more helpful and open to the communications with parents than
males. Consistent with several studies in Western cultures (Blyth
et al., 1982; Laghi et al., 2009; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, 2004), Italian
females reported stronger parent attachment than did males.
Several researches have highlighted that adolescent's ability
to confide in parents poses limits to the possibility to be involved in
deviant behavior (Vieno, Nation, Pastore, & Santinello, 2009). A posi-
tive attachment relationship provides a secure base enabling the reg-
ulation of distress with comfort and support (Scott Brown & Wright,
2001; Shirk, Gudmundson, & Burwell, 2005).
Additionally, this study shows that there are some consistencies in
the development of adolescent attachment and their associations
with Internalizing and Externalizing problems. According to litera-
ture, females showed higher levels of Internalizing and Total prob-
lems. These results are congruent with the researches (Bleiberg,
2001;Burt & Neiderhiser, 2009; Garnefski et al., 2005; Hicks et al.,
2007; Hill & Herman-Stahl, 2002) that reported females develop In-
ternalizing problems such as anxiety, depression and suicidal
ideation.
Our data suggest that there is a progressive decline in the per-
ceived quality of parent–child attachment relationship and a contem-
porary development of high levels of peer attachment relationships:
adolescents express a better communication and they have more
trust to receive help by peers. Peer attachment might favor a unique
context in which adolescents develop certain types of socioemotional
competence, such as empathy, and pro-social behavior. But this per-
spective does not rule out the importance of parent–adolescent
attachment relationship. A secure attachment with parents in late
adolescence seems linked with multiple aspects of well-being as
well as high self-esteem and low psychological distress (Bradford &
Lyddon, 1993; Laible et al., 2004).
Additionally, regression results showed that Alienation (IPPA-
Parents) and Trust (IPPA-Peer) were signficantly associated with
Internalizing problems in the expected directions. The regression pre-
dicting Externalized problems revealed that the addition of Alienation
dimension and Trust (IPPA-Parents) in the model increased the
1469
variance accounted for by 21%. This result is consistent with studies
that explain how different aspects of familiar context (such as paren-
IEP tal pattern based on cruel and neglecting attitude and based on hard
discipline) have a major effect on expression of Externalizing prob-
(N = 55)
lems (Farrington, 2005). Indeed, a positive relationship with parents,
16.18a (5.17)
based on appropriate monitoring and on coherent discipline (such as
37.49a (16.42)
40.16b (7.13) reinforcement of positive behavior, high level of support and a good
61.56a (21.43) relationship with peers) limits the appearance of behavioral problems
(Brody et al., 2001; Gaik, Abdullaha, Habibah, & Jegak, 2010; Hill &
Herman-Stahl, 2002; Hilton, Anngela-Cole, & Wakita, 2010; Mounts
& Steinberg, 1995; Sternberg, Lamb, Guterman, & Abbott, 2006).
In this study the role of peers seems to be less important in respect
to the influence on behavioral problems. According to Laible et al.
(2004) it is not clear, however, how both peer and parent attachment
relationships become integrated into an adolescent's internal work-
ing model of the self, especially when experiences with parents
and peers are highly divergent. There is general confirmation of the
hypothesis that parent–peer influence is situational. A mechanism is
that parents influence the kind of peers with whom their children
affiliate, not only by offering this relational model but also through
more distant social characteristics such as social class and educational
level.
Finally, our study indicates that comorbid group (IEP) expressed
anger toward parents and feel a strong sense of rejection from
them, compared to adolescents without problems (NP) who per-
ceived parent as supportive and sensitive. Therefore the increase of
risks implies also an increased perception in adolescents of anger
and sense of rejection from parents. A stable and reliable relationship
has a protective function on deviant and harmful behaviors for ado-
lescents' well-being. Several researches (Dogan, Conger, R.D., Kim, &
Masyn, 2007; Sousa et al., 2011; Vermeersch, T'Sjoen, Kaufman, &
Vincke, 2008) have highlighted that quality of parental care could
contribute to develop Externalizing problems in adolescents; specifi-
cally both hard discipline and a hostile and coercive parental style are
present in families with deviant adolescents. Particularly parental
rejection in toddlerhood can help predicting Externalizing problems
in adolescence (Trentacosta & Shaw, 2008).
Regarding peer attachment relationships, the results show that
adolescents without problems (NP) did not perceive rejection by
peers and they were confident to receive help and support by them.
Insecure attachment, through lack of psychological availability of
the attachment figure, is considered a risk factor for dysfunctional
adjustment (Cicchetti, Cummings, Greenberg, & Marvin, 1990) and
depression (Kobak, Sudler, & Gamble, 1991).
This is consistent with the basic assumptions of the attachment
theory, according to which autonomous exploration is a direct func-
tion of secure attachment. Based on our data, confidence in attach-
ment figures and in peer relationships is indeed crucial to the
perception of oneself as an active and self-determined individual:
those who are secure in their attachment and in peer relationships
consider themselves to be more capable and willing to explore,
which is widely intended as an autonomous and proactive ability to
make future plans.
Certainly this study has some limits for example the use of single
informant self-report measures raises issues around response bias;
we are only able to report adolescents' perceptions of relationships.
No diagnostic data on depression are included. Our approach to
analysis, although allowing statistical prediction, cannot yield infor-
mation on causality. Longitudinal analysis of relationships between
attachment, cognitive variables, and depression would be an optimal
approach.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the youth self-report form and profile. Burlington,
VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
1470 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471
Allen, J., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment (pp. 319–335). New York: Guilford.
Allen, J. P., Moore, C. M., Kuperminc, G. P., & Bell, K. L. (1998). Attachment and adoles-
cent psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 1406–1419.
Ammaniti, M., Ercolani, A. P., & Tambelli, R. (1989). Loneliness in female adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescent, 18, 321–329.
Ammaniti, M., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Speranza, A. M., & Tambelli, R. (2000). Internal
working models of attachment during late childhood and early adolescence: An
exploration of stability and change. Attachment & Human Development, 2, 328–346.
Armsden, G., & Greenberg, M. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adoles-
cence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454.
Berkout, O. V., Young, J. N., & Gross, A. M. (2011). Mean girls and bad boys: Recent
research on gender differences in conduct disorders. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
16, 503–511.
Blain, M. D., Thompson, J. M., & Whiffen, V. E. (1993). Attachment and perceived socials
support in late adolescence: The interaction between working models of self and
others. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 226–241.
Bleiberg, E. (2001). Treating personality disorders in children and adolescents. A relational
approach. New York: Guilford.
Blyth, D. A., Hill, J., & Thiel, K. (1982). Early adolescents' significant others: Grade and
gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and non familial adults
and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425–450.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Attachment, Vol. 1, . New York: Basic Books.
Bradford, E., & Lyddon, W. (1993). Current parental attachment: Its relations to
perceived psychological distress and relationship satisfaction in college students.
Journal of College Students Development, 34, 256–260.
Brody, G. H., Ge, X., Conger, R., Gibbons, F. X., Murray, V. M., Gerrard, M., et al. (2001).
The influence of neighborhood disadvantage, collective socialization, and parenting
on African American children's affiliation with deviant peers. Child Development, 72,
1231–1246.
Burt, S. A., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2009). Aggressive versus non-aggressive antisocial
behavior: Distinctive etiological moderation by age. Developmental Psychology,
45(4), 1164–1176.
Byers, E. S., Sears, H. A., Voyer, S. D., Thurlow, J. L., Cohen, J. N., & Weaver, A. D. (2003).
An adolescent perspective on sexual health education at school and at home: II.
Middle school students. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 19–33.
Carson, J., & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocity of parent–child negative affect and
children's social competence. Child Development, 67, 2217–2226.
Casas, J. F., Weigel, S. M., Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K. E., Yeh, E. A., et al. (2006).
Early parenting and children's relational and physical aggression in the preschool
and home contexts. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 209–227.
Cassidy, J. (1988). Child–mother attachment and the self in six-year-olds. Child Development,
59, 121–134.
Cicchetti, D., Cummings, M., Greenberg, M. T., & Marvin, R. S. (1990). An organizational
cognitions and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 172–181.
Clark, S., & Symons, D. (2000). A longitudinal study of Q-sort attachment security and
self-processes at age five. Infant and Child Development, 9, 91–104.
Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 285–294.
Cooper, M. L., Shaver, P. R., & Collins, N. L. (1998). Attachment styles, emotion regula-
tion, and adjustment in adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74(5), 1380–1397.
Cotterell, J. (1992). The relation of attachments and supports to adolescent well-being
and school adjustment. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 28–42.
DeMulder, E. K., Denham, S., Schmidt, M., & Mitchell, J. (2000). Q-sort assessment
of attachment security during the preschool years: Links from home to school.
Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 274–282.
Dogan, S. J., Conger, Rand D., R.D., Kim, K. J., & Masyn, K. E. (2007). Cognitive and
parenting pathways in the transmission of antisocial behavior from parents to
adolescents. Child Development, 78(1), 335–349.
Duchesne, S., & Larose, S. (2007). Adolescent parental attachment and academic moti-
vation and performance in early adolescence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37(7), 1501–1521.
Farrington, D. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 12, 177–190.
Ferdinand, R. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Wiznitzer, M. (1995). Continuity and change of self-
reported problem behaviors from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(5), 680–690.
Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of
networks of personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103–115.
Gaik, L. P., Abdullaha, M. C., Habibah, E., & Jegak, U. (2010). International Conference on
Learner Diversity 2010 Development of Antisocial Behaviour. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 7, 383–388.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & van Etten, M. (2005). Specificity of relations between adoles-
cents' cognitive emotion regulation strategies and Internalizing and Externalizing
psychopathology. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 619–631.
Goodvin, R., Meyer, S., Thompson, R. A., & Hayes, R. (2008). Self-understanding in early
childhood: Associations with attachment security, maternal perceptions of the
child, and maternal emotional risk. Attachment & Human Development, 10(4),
433–450.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., Guerin, D. W., & Parramore, P. (2003).
Socioeconomic status in children's development and family environment: Infancy
through adolescence. In M. H. Bornstein, & R. H. Bradley (Eds.), Socioeconomic
status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., Kramer, M. D., Krueger, R. F., Patrick, C. J., Iacono, W. G.,
et al. (2007). Gender differences and developmental change in externalizing disor-
ders from late adolescence to early adulthood: A longitudinal twin study. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 116(3), 433–447.
Hill, N. E., & Herman-Stahl, M. (2002). Neighborhood safety and social involvement:
Associations with parenting behaviors and depressive symptoms among African
American and Euro-American mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 209–219.
Hilton, J. M., Anngela-Cole, L., & Wakita, J. (2010). A cross-cultural comparison of
factors associated with school bullying in Japan and the United States. The Family
Journal, 18(4), 413–422.
Kems, K. A., & Stevens, A. C. (1996). Parent–child attachment in late adolescence: Links
to social relations and personality. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25(3),
323–342.
Kobak, R. R., Sudler, N., & Gamble, W. (1991). Attachment and depressive symptoms during
adolescence: A developmental pathways analysis. Development and Psychopathology,
3, 461–474.
Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., D'Alessio, M., Gurrieri, G., & Mazza, M. (2008). Identity status and
time perspective in adolescence. International Journal of Psychology, 43(3–4), 148.
Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., Lonigro, A., Capacchione, G., & Baumgartner, E. (2012). Family
functioning and binge drinking among Italian adolescents. Journal of Health
Psychology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105311430005.
Laghi, F., D'Alessio, M., Pallini, S., & Baiocco, R. (2009). Attachment representations and
time perspective in adolescence. Social Indicators Research, 90, 181–194.
Laghi, F., Liga, F., Baumgartner, E., & Baiocco, R. (2012). Identity and conformism among
Italian adolescents who binge eat and drink. Health, Risk and Society, http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2012.680952.
Laghi, F., Pallini, S., D'Alessio, M., & Baiocco, R. (2011). Development and validation of the
efficacious self-presentation scale. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172(2), 209–219.
Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Raffaelli, M. (2000). The differential relations of parent and peer
attachment to adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 45–59.
Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence:
The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behavior. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 703–717.
Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (1998). Attachment to parents, social support expectations, and
socioemotional adjustment during the high school–college transition. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 8(1), 1–27.
Larson, R., Richards, M., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in
adolescents' daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: Disengage-
ment and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744–754.
Leadbeater, B. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Blatt, S. J., & Hertzog, C. (1999). A multivariate model
of gender differences in adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 1268–1282.
Ma, C. Q., & Huebner, S. (2008). Attachment relationships and adolescents' life satisfaction:
Some relationships matter more to girls than boys. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2),
177–190.
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child
interaction. In E. Heatherington (Ed.), Mussen manual of child psychology (pp. 1–102).
(4 rd Ed.). New York: Wiley.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood:
A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development (pp. 66–104).
Mounts, N. S., & Steinberg, L. (1995). An ecological analysis of peer influence on adoles-
cent grade point average and drug use. Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 915–922.
Nada-Raja, Shyamala, McGee, Rob, & Stanton, Warren R. (1992). Perceived attach-
ments to parents and peers and psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 21(4), 471–485.
Nickerson, A., & Nagle, R. (2005). Parent and peer attachment in late childhood and
early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 223–249.
Noom, M. J., Dekovi´c, M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (1999). Autonomy, attachment and psycho-
social adjustment during adolescence: A double-edged sword? Journal of Adolescence,
22, 771–783.
O'Koon, J. (1997). Attachment to parents and peers in late adolescence and their rela-
tionship with self-image. Adolescence, 32, 471–482.
Pace, C. S., San Martini, P., & Zavattini, G. C. (2011). The factor structure of the Inventory
of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 51, 83–88.
Papini, D. R., & Roggman, L. A. (1992). Adolescent perceived attachment to parents in
relation to competence, depression and anxiety: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 12, 420–440.
Paterson, J., Pryor, J., & Field, J. (1995). Adolescent attachment to parents and friends in
relation to aspects of self-esteem. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 365–376.
Rice, K. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic review.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 511–538.
Ridenour, S. T., Lanza, E. C., Donny, E. C., & Clark, D. B. (2006). Different lengths of times for
progressions in adolescent substance involvement. Addictive Behaviours, 31, 962–983.
Ritakallio, M., Koivisto, A. M., von der Pahlen, B., Pelkonen, M., Marttunen, M., &
Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2008). Continuity, comorbidity and longitudinal associations
between depression and antisocial behaviour in middle adolescence: A 2-year pro-
spective follow-up study. Journal of Adolescence, 31(3), 355–370.
Ritakallio, M., Luukkaala, T., Marttunen, M., Pelkonen, M., & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2010).
Comorbidity between depression and antisocial behaviour in middle adolescence:
The role of perceived social support. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 64(3), 164–171.
Scott Brown, L., & Wright, J. (2001). Attachment theory in adolescence and its rele-
vance to developmental psychopathology. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,
8(1), 15–32.
 R. Tambelli et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1465–1471
Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment
& Human Development, 4, 133–161.
Shirk, S. R., Gudmundson, G. R., & Burwell, R. A. (2005). Links among attachment-
related cognitions and adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 172–181.
Simons, K. J. M., Paternite, C., & Shore, C. (2001). Quality of parent/adolescent attach-
ment and aggression in young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21,
182–203.
Sousa, C., Herrenkohl, T. I., Moylan, C. A., Tajima, E. A., Klika, J. B., Herrenkohl, R. C., et al.
(2011). Longitudinal study on the effects of child abuse and children's exposure to
domestic violence, parent–child attachments and antisocial behaviour in adoles-
cence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 111–136.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48, 1184–1199.
Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Guterman, E., & Abbott, C. B. (2006). Effects of early and later
family violence on children's behavior problems and depression: A longitudinal,
multi-informant perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(3), 283–306.
Thompson, R. (1999). Early attachment and later behavior. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Research, theory, & clinical applications (pp. 265–286). New
York: The Guilford Press.
1471
Trentacosta, C. J., & Shaw, D. S. (2008). Maternal predictors of rejecting parenting
and early adolescent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,
247–259.
Vermeersch, H., T'Sjoen, G., Kaufman, J. M., & Vincke, J. (2008). The role of testosterone
in aggressive and non-aggressive risk-taking in adolescent boys. Hormones and
Behavior, 53, 463–471.
Verschueren, K., Marcoen, A., & Schoefs, V. (1996). The internal working model of
the self, attachment and competence in five-year-olds. Child Development, 67,
2493–2511.
Vieno, A., Nation, M., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2009). Parenting and antisocial
behaviour: A model of the relations between adolescent self-disclosure, parental
closeness, parental control, and adolescent antisocial behavior. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 1509–1519.
Whitbeck, L., Conger, R., & Kao, M. Y. (1993). The influence of parental support,
depressed affect, and peers on the sexual behaviors of adolescent girls. Journal of
Family Issues, 14, 261–278.
Zimmermann, P. (2004). Attachment representation and characteristics of friendship
relations during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88, 83–101.