1
Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors
The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors in
Normative versus High-Risk Samples
Emilie A. Paczkowski
Distinguished Majors Program
University of Virginia
Advisor: N. Dickon Reppucci
Second Reader: Joseph P. Allen
Running head: ATTACHMENT AND EXTERNALIZING BEHAVIORS
Abstract
This study examined how gender and sample type affect associations between attachment and externalizing behaviors. Normative participants (87 male and 98 female; mean age 14.25) and high-risk participants (166 male and 105 female; mean age 14.34) completed the Adolescent Attachment Interview and Family Attachment Interview, respectively. The Youth Self-Report (YSR) measured externalizing behaviors. Insecure attachment styles and externalizing behaviors were more common among high-risk participants, but no gender differences were found on these measures. Secure participants exhibited lower externalizing behaviors overall and within both males and females. Confirmatory factor analytic techniques provided support for measurement invariance across normative and high-risk samples on YSR externalizing subscales. While no relationship was found between attachment security and externalizing behavior in the high risk sample of youth, structural modeling techniques indicated the presence of this relationship within the normative sample.
The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors in
Normative versus High-Risk Samples
Externalizing behavior problems are the single most common reason for which young children are referred for psychological treatment (Richman, 1985). Severe externalizing behaviors, such as aggression and attention problems that arise in early childhood are likely to endure into later childhood and adolescence (Campbell, 1995). Additionally, many youths become involved in some type of delinquent externalizing behavior over the course of adolescence (Moffitt, 1993) at great cost to the individuals involved, as well as to the community. Although the precise etiology of these behaviors is unknown, it is certain that these problems do not develop in a vacuum. Rather, child and adolescent development is influenced by multiple contexts, one of the most salient of which is the family. Since its inception, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982) has served as a useful lens through which to examine the influence of family factors on development in childhood and, more recently, adolescence.
Though previous research has investigated relationships between externalizing behaviors and attachment style, few studies have examined the way these relationships may function differently across groups. In particular, researchers have not grappled with the question of whether the relationship between attachment style and the development of externalizing behaviors changes form after a certain threshold. Specifically, the question of whether the relationship between attachment style and externalizing behaviors differs across normative and high-risk groups of adolescents has not been addressed. In addition, there is a growing body of literature suggesting that findings based on normative versus clinical/forensic studies of girls’ externalizing behaviors are inconsistent. The goal of the present study, therefore, is to examine the nature and the function of the relationship between attachment styles and levels of externalizing behaviors across both group and gender. This objective will be accomplished through secondary data analysis. The value of this approach lies in the ability to integrate existing databases to fill an essential void in attachment research. With the advantage of having access to both normative and high-risk samples of adolescent males and females, the present study will build on previous research by testing for invariant relationships across samples and gender. This research will also extend attachment literature that has dealt extensively with children but has only recently begun to examine these issues in adolescence.
The review of the literature begins with an overview of attachment theory, including a discussion of the assessment of attachment in adolescence as it relates to the classification scheme used in the present study. Externalizing behavior is then addressed with a focus on the measurement of the behaviors of interest, aggression, delinquency, and attention problems. Next, research examining each of these constructs from the perspective of attachment theory is reviewed. Differences in attachment style and levels of externalizing behaviors in males versus females and normative versus high-risk samples are then explored with regard to how these differences will drive the current research questions.
Attachment Theory
Bowlby’s (1969/1982) influential work in attachment theory was derived largely from ethological studies of animal behavior. He claimed that attachment is an instinctual system that operates to maintain proximity to the mother, contributing to the survival of the individual or the species. Attachment behavior encompasses the actions a child takes to maintain proximity to the attachment figure. Stressful situations that constitute a threat to the individual activate the attachment system and elicit attachment behavior (Rice, 1990). Cicchetti, Cummings, Greenberg, and Marvin (1990) elaborated on these aspects of attachment, defining its three “essential features:” 1) its function, protecting children from danger, 2) its outcome, regulating proximity to the attachment figure, and 3) its set goal, establishing a state of security. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) described the quality or security of attachment relationships as dependent on the attachment figure’s responsiveness. Children whose caretakers respond reliably and appropriately to their attachment behavior are generally securely attached, whereas those whose caretakers are unresponsive or unreliably responsive are generally insecurely attached. In addition to appropriate response in times of distress, parents of securely attached children have also been found to facilitate their children’s independent exploration (Ainsworth, 1989).
Ainsworth et al. (1978) developed a classification system for attachment in infancy that categorized children as avoidant, secure, or ambivalent. An avoidant child is characterized by a lack of exploration before separation from the attachment figure and the tendency to ignore the mother when they are reunited. Children who are classified as securely attached willingly explore when under minimal stress and seek contact when they experience distress. It is believed that the secure child is able to derive comfort from this contact and is then able to return to play. An ambivalent child engages in little exploration and seeks closeness to the attachment figure when experiencing minimal stress prior to separation. Upon reunion the child remains unsettled and will seek and resist contact with the attachment figure.
Attachment relations are believed to persist even when attachment figures are not present. Ainsworth (1969) and Bowlby (1969/1982) have both noted this durability of attachment relations and have theorized that it results from the formation of what Ainsworth (1969) referred to as “intra-organismic structures,” and what Bowlby (1969/1982) referred to as “internal working models.” Bowlby contended that a child internalizes representations of the attachment figure and his/her relationship with the attachment figure. The cognitive structures derived from these representations are hypothesized to allow individuals to understand and anticipate what occurs in the world around them and to assimilate information relevant to themselves and their relationships with others.
Defining and measuring attachment beyond infancy. Ainsworth and Bowlby contended that the internal working models developed in infancy maintain themselves by biasing perception and cognition and by influencing how the child shapes his/her own interpersonal environment (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973). Bowlby suggested that because of the endurance of working models, attachment behavior in adolescence and adulthood is a direct extension of childhood attachment behavior. The evaluation of attachment beyond childhood through instruments such as the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), involves assessing the internal working models established earlier in life (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). The AAI does not seek to elicit objective memories of past attachment related events; rather it endeavors to infer the individual’s strategies for regulating the attachment system through the analysis of his/her narrative of childhood attachment experiences (Van Ijzendoorn, 1995). The interview assesses the security of the individual’s attachment by examining the coherence of his/her depiction of attachment experiences and how well he/she is able to incorporate specific memories into a broader understanding of the parent-child relationship. Unlike assessments of attachment in infancy, this interview does not evaluate the current security of attachments and is not relationship specific (Main et al., 1985).
Main and colleagues (1985) identified three major patterns for classifying adult attachment. Within this scheme, individuals who are able to discuss past attachment experiences coherently and integrate these experiences into their representations of themselves in relationships are classified as securely attached. These individuals also value attachment relationships. Dismissing attachment is marked by incoherent discourse regarding attachment experiences. These individuals may idealize attachment figures, claim they are unable to recall attachment experiences, or dismiss the impact of non-supportive experiences. Individuals classified as dismissing may further belittle the need for attachment or attachment figures. Individuals who are identified as having a preoccupied attachment style often exhibit anger in discussing attachment relationships, have trouble separating past and present relationships, and waiver between positive and negative appraisals of attachment experiences. Though they are given different names, the classifications of insecure adult attachment described above are analogous to the aforementioned insecure attachment classifications for infants. In other words, dismissing attachment in adulthood is the counterpart of avoidant attachment in infancy (Maio, Finchman, & Lycett, 2000), and preoccupied attachment is the counterpart of ambivalent attachment (Allen et al., 2002).
Bartholomew (1990) expanded upon these three categories of adult attachment, defining four attachment classifications based on two dimensions of internal working models. These two dimensions include a self-model, characterized by the self-worth and anxiety experienced in attachment relationships, and an other-model, characterized by the tendency to seek out or avoid support. In this system, secure attachment involves having positive self- and other-models, which enables one to develop intimate relationships while maintaining autonomy. Those with a preoccupied pattern of attachment have a negative self-model and a positive other-model, leading to the anxious pursuit of intimacy and reassurance. Dismissing attachment consists of a positive self-model and a negative other-model, which results in high self-esteem, coupled with a desire to preserves one’s independence in relationships. The fourth category in this system, fearful attachment, involves negative self- and other-models. Those with a fearful attachment pattern are believed to avoid intimacy because they fear loss.
Externalizing Behaviors
The behavioral and emotional problems that past research has examined in relationship to attachment fall into two major categories, known as “externalizing” and “internalizing” behavior. Aggressive and delinquent behavior and, in some cases, attention problems and hyperactivity fall into the externalizing domain, whereas anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and withdrawal are classified within the internalizing grouping (Achenbach, 1985). The present research will concentrate specifically on the relationship between the attachment patterns and externalizing behavior, which previous studies have shown to be significantly higher in insecurely versus securely attached children (Speltz, Greenberg, & Deklyen, 1990).
Why is it important to study externalizing behaviors? Externalizing behavior is of particular interest for a number of reasons. This type of disruptive behavior is the most common referral problem for preschool children brought to child psychiatry clinics (Richman, 1985). Externalizing behavior that is present at age three or four years is also likely to persist into elementary school and early adolescence (probability around 50%) (Campbell, 1995). Moffitt (1993) recognized this stability specifically in serious antisocial behavior over the lifespan but also noted the temporary increase in the number of people involved in serious acts of delinquency in adolescence. These features of externalizing behavior make it a particularly interesting construct to investigate in adolescence, especially as it relates to attachment, a construct rooted in childhood and theorized to influence behavior over the lifespan. Both externalizing behavior and attachment boast strong developmental theories and empirical research to support the nature of their growth from childhood to adolescence, making a compelling case for a line of inquiry, like that undertaken in this study, aimed at developing a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the two constructs.
Measuring externalizing behavior. As noted above, externalizing behavior is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of problem behaviors that have been defined both by clinical diagnoses and empirically based problem behavior syndromes. Two of the most widely used and validated measures of externalizing behavior are the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and the Youth Self Report (YSR) (Achenbach, 1987). The CBCL is a measure that allows parents to report on the competencies and behavioral and emotional problems of 4-18 year olds. The YSR is a self-report measure designed for children with a mental age of at least 10 years that allows adolescents to report on their own competencies and problems. The items used on the two measures are identical to a large degree and yield scores for specific scales, including Attention Problems, Delinquent Behavior, and Aggressive Behavior. The DSM diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) have also been viewed as externalizing behavior problems (Hinshaw, 1992). Gould, Bird, and Jaramillo, (1993) investigated the convergence between the behavior problem syndromes derived from the CBCL and YSR and psychiatric diagnoses based on the DSM-III. The authors found a strong linear relationship between scores on the Attention Problems scale and ADD, F (1, 225) = 55.1, p < .001. Scores on the Delinquent scale were linearly related to a diagnosis of either conduct disorder or oppositional disorder, F (1,306) = 86.5, p < .001. A strong linear relationship was also found between a diagnosis of either conduct disorder or oppositional disorder and scores on the Aggressive scale, F (1, 306) = 142.7, p < .001.
The Relationship Between Attachment and Externalizing Behaviors
Research has shown that parental warmth and attachment may reduce the negative effects of stress and promote adaptive functioning in children (Garmezy, 1983). Conversely, insecure attachment has been identified as a risk factor that interacts with other factors within the family and the child to increase the likelihood of childhood behavior problems (Greenberg & Speltz, 1988). Arguably, insecure attachment may lead to deviant behavior when children whose parents are not responsive and supportive develop models of attachment characterized by anger and hostility. These children are also likely to believe that the people in their lives will not meet their needs (Loeber & Dishon, 1983). Toth and Cicchetti (1996) proposed a similar idea, claiming that a “maladaptive pathway” may link early insecure attachment to the development of negative models of relationship figures in later childhood. In addition to developing negative internal working models of attachment relationships, insecure children may learn to over or under regulate their affect and behavior in reaction to caretakers who selectively respond to their emotional needs (Sroufe, 1983). Other research indicates that close and affectionate relationships between children and caretakers facilitate children’s internalization of rules of conduct and increase the likelihood that children will feel committed to the welfare of others. (Kochanska, Tjebkes, & Forman, 1998). The maladaptive externalizing behaviors that may ultimately result from insecure attachments to parents are the focus of the current study.