Codependency Test |
Request PDF on ResearchGate | Codependency's Relationship to Defining properties of the Hungarian version of the Codependent Questionnaire.] Article. questionnaire to classify adult attachments into secure, avoidant, and Horowitz, ), the Relationship Style Questionnaire (Griffin & Bartholomew, ), and the Attachment . Codependency and self-esteem among high school students. Scharfe & Bartholomew). 1. Following are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people often report. Please read each description.
Two such insecure but organized strategies have been identified: A child using an avoidant strategy turns attention away from the need for comfort from the caregiver, presumably to preemptively avoid the experience of rejection from the mother's discomfort with close contact at vulnerable moments. Some infants, however, fail to develop either a secure attachment to a caregiver or an organized but insecure strategy to deal with lack of security.
In the absence of specific pressures toward change, attachment patterns are thought to persist over the life span and guide expectations and beliefs regarding past, present, and future interactions in relationships. They also are thought to influence how individuals attend to, interpret, and remember interpersonal events and to trigger both affective and behavioral responses to new interpersonal situations and relationships.
The AAI George et al. The interview poses a series of questions probing how the individual thinks about his or her childhood relationships with parents or central attachment figures; however, this interview takes approximately 1 hr to conduct and requires costly transcribing and time-consuming coding, which renders it less useful as a widely used assessment for mothers at risk. In a parallel series of developments in the field of social psychology, researchers applied Bowlby's theory of attachment to the romantic relationships between adults.
Hazan and Shaver asked a sample of college students to pick one of three paragraphs that best represented how they viewed their own relationship experiences. The three paragraphs were conceptually linked to the original childhood attachment patterns: Attachment security was defined as a positive self-image and a sense of being worthy of love, combined with a positive expectation that others will be generally accepting and responsive in times of need.
Preoccupation anxious-ambivalence was defined as a negative self-image and a sense of unlovability, combined with a positive evaluation of others in terms of their strength and independence.
Two avoidant strategies were defined: Subsequently, numerous researchers in the social psychology tradition argued for the advantage of using dimensional analysis rather than prototype measures when assessing adult attachment.
Note that self-reported attachment styles represent conscious and explicit relational attitudes and, in this way, differ from attachment patterns as assessed by the AAI. The more complex AAI relies on the coder's judgment of the coherence of the discourse during the interview to establish an attachment classification rather than requiring or assuming that attachment attitudes are conscious and can be accurately reported.
In addition to assessing explicit relational attitudes, self-report attachment measures such as the RQ have been developed primarily on low-risk, nonclinical student samples.
Based on phrases used by some high-risk parents on the AAI, an additional paragraph was added describing what was labeled a profoundly-distrustful attachment orientation. In the current study, relational attitudes were assessed among a cohort of low-income mothers who had been followed from the first year of the infant's life to child age 20 years.
Fourth, we hypothesized that mothers' profoundly-distrustful attachment style would be positively associated with clinically assessed risk for infant maltreatment 20 years earlier Hypothesis 4. Participants The participants were 44 low-income mothers who had participated in a previous study of the impact of family risk factors on infant development Lyons-Ruth et al. The participating follow-up sample did not differ from the group lost to follow-up on any of the study variables.
Risk factors characterizing the study sample in infancy included the following: Demographic risk A cumulative demographic risk score was computed by summing the presence of the following five variables collected at the time of the infant study: Maternal behavior was coded in ten 4-min intervals. Coders were blind to all other data on the families. In the Strange Situation procedure, the infant is observed in a playroom during a series of eight 3-min episodes in which the mother leaves and rejoins the infant twice.
Fifteen randomly selected tapes were coded by two coders to assess reliability. The remaining 20 mothers had no documented mal-treatment or referral at the time of the infant study. The original RQ consists of four paragraphs, each describing an attitude toward relationships in general. The highest of the four attachment prototype ratings can be used to classify participants into an attachment category.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
A problem arises when two or more attachment prototypes are rated equally high. However, if they have not chosen a best fitting attachment pattern, the researcher can either delete the participant s from the data set, or use a method of randomly perhaps flipping a coin selecting one of the two prototypes as the attachment category.
If there is a 3-way tie for highest rating and a best fitting attachment pattern has not been chosen,there is little option but to delete that participant's data.
A continuous approach, using prototypes or dimensions, is the best approach. Completing the forced-choice paragraph first serves as a counterbalancing effect to minimize order effects when participants rank the degree to which each prototype is self-characterizing.
If you wish your results to correspond to the anxiety dimension, the calculation can be reversed [i. In the latter calculation, higher scores will refer to higher anxiety and more negative models of self. If you wish your results to correspond to the avoidance dimension, the calculation can be reversed [i. In the latter calculation, higher scores will refer to higher avoidance and and more negative models of the other.
On a 5-point scale, participants rate the extent to which each statement best describes their characteristic style in close relationships. Five statements contribute to the secure and dismissing attachment patterns and four statements contribute to the fearful and preoccupied attachment patterns.
Scores for each attachment pattern are derived by taking the mean of the four or five items representing each attachment prototype. Additionally, the three dimensions used by Collins and Read can also be obtained.
- Self-Report Attachment Measures
- I. BACKGROUND
Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, you can use the questionnaire to derive scales of the underlying two dimensions of anxiety and avoidance see below. Like the RQ, the RSQ can be worded in terms of general orientations to close relationships, orientations to romantic relationships, or orientations to a specific adult, peer relationship.
The RSQ is designed as a continuous measure of adult attachment. If, however, it is absolutely necessary for you to classify participants into attachment patterns, you must use standard scores. First, you would create the four subscales by computing the mean rating of the items for each subscale.
Then you would transform those mean ratings into standard scores. This is a far from ideal use of the RSQ and should be undertaken only as a last resort! Thus, researchers are able to relate the RSQ to alternate self-report measures of adult attachment.
This can be done in at least three ways: We recommend the third approach. First, attachment ratings on both the RQ and the RSQ need to be converted into standard scores z-scores.
For example, the now standardized RQ secure scores are combined with the now standardized RSQ secure scores to form a single, composite measure of secure attachment. Apply the same procedure to the remaining attachment pattern ratings. These composite scores can be used in all subsequent analyses.