青少年依恋风格的相关研究

1、青少年依恋风格的相关研究小组成员：席佩玲小组成员：席佩玲 王俊王俊 徐伊文婕徐伊文婕 牛百灵牛百灵 同伴依恋是青少年时期的一项重要的发展任务, 目前测量青少年同伴依恋的工具主要包含 IPPA，以及近年来才出现的 AFAS 量表等。在同伴依恋的影响因素中，青少年与父母之间的依恋关系以及青少年自身的性别都可以在一定程度上预测其同伴依恋的发展状况。 测量青少年依恋关系最常用的是父母同伴依恋量（Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, IPPA）。IPPA是由Armsden Greenberg（1987）设计的自陈式量表。鉴于IPPA的不足之处, Wilkins

2、o（2008）设计出了自陈式青少年同伴依恋量表（Adolescent Friendship Attachment Scale, AFAS）。So，我们的文献是 三篇关于青少年依恋测量问卷的相关情况介绍 一篇关于不同依恋风格的知觉差异The factor structure of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescents（2011）（席佩玲）Development and Properties of the Adolescent Friendship Attachment

3、 Scale（2008）（王俊）Best friend attachment versus peer attachment in the prediction of adolescent psychological adjustment（2010）（徐伊文婕）Attachment-Related Differences in Perceptions of an Initial Peer Interaction Emerge Over Time: Evidence of Reconstructive Memory Processes in Adolescents（2012） （牛百灵）The f

4、actor structure of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA): A survey of Italian adolescentsCecilia Serena Pace *, Pietro San Martini, Giulio Cesare ZavattiniPersonality and Individual DifferencesIF:1.8612011,03汇报人：席佩玲汇报人：席佩玲6AbstractDespite the intensive use of the Inventory of Parent and

5、 Peer Attachment (IPPA), the factor structure of the inventory requires further investigation. This study of 1059 Italian adolescents compared the three models which are discussed in the literature: the one-factor model (attachment security), the two-factor model (trust-communication and alienation)

6、 and the three-factor model (trust, communication and alienation) , and examined the influences of age and gender on the IPPAs scores. 青少年父母与同伴依恋问卷（IPPA）是关注青少年个体差异的依恋测量工具，测量青少年评价其与父母、同伴之间关系的能力。尽管大量研究频繁使用该问卷，但其因素结构需进一步分析。本研究旨在比较三种模型：一因素模型（依恋安全度）；二因素模型（信任-沟通，疏远）；三因素模型（信任，交流，疏远）；并检验IPPA在年龄和性别上的差异。1059名

7、意大利青少年参与到本研究中。Our findings provide support for the reliability of the latest and longer version of the IPPA (75-item). Factor analysis showed that the three-factor model had the best fit, although the three dimensions are strongly interrelated. 研究结果肯定了最新、较长IPPA版本（75条目）的信度。因素分析的结果表明，虽然三因素模型的因素间相关较高，但

8、其具有最佳拟合度。Abstract1.Introduction Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) advocates that children develop internal representations of attachment relationships, called internal working models (IWMs), which are formed through their everyday interactions with their caregivers during early childhood. The IWMs co

9、ntain expectations and strategies for managing interpersonal relationships and exploratory behaviour, regulating emotions and dealing with distress. Differences in the quality of childparent affective bonds correspond to individual differences in the IWMs of Self and Other. 依恋关系是儿童在其早期生活中与其照料者日常的人际互

10、动中形成，依恋理论（Bowlby，1988）认为儿童对依恋关系的内部表征称为内部工作模型（IWMs）。IWMs对人际关系形成期待，是调控情绪、应对挫折的策略。IWMs在“自我”和“他人”方面存在个体差异，即儿童父母情感联系的本质差异。1.引言Secure attachments foster the development of models in which others are viewed as available and trustworthy, while the self is conceptualised as worthy of care, love and attention

11、. Insecure attachments develop IWMs of the self as unworthy and unlovable, while others are considered as unavailable and/or unreliable. According to Bowlbys evolutionary theory, these patterns have been shown to be moderately stable over long periods of time under stable family and caregiving condi

12、tions. The IWMs are viewed as the main source of continuity between attachment in infancy and attachment in adolescence and adulthood. 安全型依恋者形成的IWMs是：认为别人是有反应、可信的，自我是值得关心、爱护，并受到关注的；不安全型依恋者形成的IWMs是：认为自我是没有价值，不值得受到关爱的，他人是没有反应和不可信任的。根据Bowlby的发展理论，在稳定的家庭和养护环境下，这一模型具有长期的稳定性。IWMs是婴儿期依恋和青少年期依恋，乃至成人阶段依恋关系连续

13、性的主要原因。1.Introduction Adolescence is a peculiar period in the life cycle: on the one hand, developments and changes in IWMs distance adolescents from their parental figures and allow them to form an adult identity, but on the other hand, these changes will depend on the adolescents personal history

14、of attachment relationships (Allen & Land, 2008). In fact, during adolescence, peer group and friends become increasingly important and there is an overlap between new relationships with friends and previous relations withparents. 青春期是生命周期的特殊时期：一方面，IWMs的发展和变化使青少年疏远父母，并使青少年形成成人身份感；另一方面，这些发展和变化是基于青少年早

15、期形成的依恋关系的。在青春期，同伴群体和友谊变得越来越重要，并且早期与父母形成的依恋关系和当前与同伴形成的依恋关系具有重叠部分。1.Introduction In order to investigate this issue further, therefore, the IPPA (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987, 1989; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1984), a self-report questionnaire designed specifically for teenagers that assesses their rel

16、ationships with both their parents and their peers, seems to be a useful method of evaluation that in recent years has been increasingly used in international research (Baiocco, Laghi, & Paola, 2009;Wilkinson & Walford, 2001). IPPA（ Armsden & Greenberg, 1987, 1989; Greenberg, Siegel, & Leitch, 1984

17、），评估青少年与父母、同伴关系的问卷，是一种有效的测量工具，在大量国际研究（ Baiocco, Laghi, & Paola, 2009;Wilkinson & Walford, 2001 ）中被频繁使用。1.1. Brief history of IPPAs factor structureIPPA的适用对象： adolescents aged between 12 and 19-years-old 目的：测量青少年对其与父母、同伴之间关系的积极/消极的情感/认知性的感知。原始版本（ Greenberg et al., 1984 ）包含父母依恋（28条目）和同伴依恋（25条目）两个分测验，一

18、个维度，即依恋安全度。Armsden和Greenberg （1987）进行修订，条目数分别增加到31和29，分别从父母、同伴分测验中提取出三个因素：信任，交流，疏远信任，交流，疏远；依恋安全度的总分为将每个分量表的信任和交流分数相加，再减去疏远分数。Armsden和Greenberg （1989）发表了修订后的版本，将父母依恋分别两个部分：父亲依恋和母亲依恋。问卷共有75个条目，母亲、父亲、同伴分测验各有25个条目。1.1. Brief history of IPPAs factor structure Johnson, Ketring,和Abshire （2003）的研究中发现三因素模型在母

19、亲、父亲分测验的拟合度较低，在随后的EFAs分析中发现每个分量表都有两个因素：信任（主要包含了大部分先前版本的信任和沟通的条目）和疏远。那么，问题来了那么，问题来了 对于整体的依恋建构应该区分为一个、两个、还是三个因素仍不明确对于整体的依恋建构应该区分为一个、两个、还是三个因素仍不明确1.2. Current study研究目的： 先对问卷的维度结构进行初步的EAFs分析，然后对前人文献中的三个模型进行CFAs分析，三个模型分别为：一因素模型（依恋安全度），二因素模型（信任沟通，疏远），三因素模型（信任，交流，疏远）。 IPPA分数的描述性特征在年龄方面的差异，提供个别被试分数解释的标准。2.

20、 Method2.1. Participants The participants consisted of 1059 volunteers; 574 females and402 males (83 participants did not report their gender). They were middle or high school Italian students, ranging in age from 13 to 18 years old (mean = 15.66, SD = 1.59). All participants belonged predominately

21、to middle to upper socio-economic status and lived with both parents.2.2. Instrument IPPA (Armsden and Greenberg ,1989)，three forms for mother, father, and peer, each consisting of 25 items. In each form, the item format was a five-point Likert scale: 1 (almost always or always true), 2 (often true)

22、, 3 (sometimes true), 4 (rarely true) and 5 (almost never or never true). Each form yielded an overall score for attachment security as well as three subscale scores: trust, communication and alienation.2. Method2.3. Procedure The data were collected in classroom settings with the agreement of the t

23、eachers. Students were told that the questionnaires were anonymous and confidential, so they could feel free to respond sincerely to the questions.2. Method3.1. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)3. Results3.2. Comparing the factor models: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)3.2. Comparing the factor mo

24、dels: confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)维度间的相关：Maternal form：three-factor modelcom vs. trust：r=.84；com vs. alien：r=-.72；trust vs. alien：r = -.81。two-factor modeltrustcom vs. alien：r=-.80。相关较高，维度间的区分度不够Paternal form：three-factor modelcom vs. trust：r=.82；com vs. alien：r=-.87；trust vs. alien：r = -.84。t

25、wo-factor modeltrustcom vs. alien：r=-.86。依然是高相关Peer form：three-factor modelcom vs. alien：r=-.61；com vs. trust：r=.91；trust vs. alien：r = -.77。two-factor modeltrustcom vs. alien： r=-.72。二因素模型的较低3.3. Descriptive statistics3.4. Effects of gender and age on the scores for the attachment security scale二因素

26、方差分析，p.01Maternal form：交互作用不显著，性别、年龄主效应不显著Paternal form：交互作用不显著，性别主效应不显著，年龄主效应显著16岁组显著低于除18岁以外的年龄组。Peer form：交互作用不显著，年龄主效应不显著，性别主效应显著男性的分数显著低于女性的分数。3.5. Effects of gender and age on the scores for the trust, communication and alienation subscales多元方差分析，p.01Maternal form：交互作用不显著，年龄差异不显著，性别差异显著，进一步分析发

27、现，性别在信任、交流、和疏远维度上差异不显著。Paternal form：交互作用不显著，年龄差异不显著，性别差异显著，进一步分析发现，性别在信任、交流、维度上差异不显著，在疏远维度上女性的分数显著高于男性的。Peer form：交互作用不显著，年龄差异不显著，性别差异显著，进一步分析发现，性别在疏远维度上差异不显著，在信任和交流维度上差异显著，皆为女性的分数显著高于男性的4. Discussion and conclusions CFA分析结果表明，三因素模型具有最佳拟合度，三个因素间相关较高，说明其结构区分度较低，并且对将问卷分为三个维度的实用性产生质疑。 进一步分析Armsden和Gre

28、enberg （1987）的问卷内容，有些条目并未反应出其所在分测验的维度涵义。应删掉维度涵义模糊的条目，再进行分析。 在以后的研究中，IPPA仍需进一步改善，应更多关注三因素模型，并修正条目，使其更为具体的反映出维度的涵义，维度间应具有良好的区分度，以及较高的内部一致性。4. Discussion and conclusions 年龄差异：16岁组显著低于除18岁以外的年龄组（paternal form），其余差异不显著。研究者认为对此结果目前没有合理的解释，不做进一步讨论。 性别差异：在paternal form，男性疏远分数低于女性的，与女性相比，男性与父亲之间的关系更加和谐，女性更容易

29、在自主性与独立性方面与父亲产生矛盾。与女性相比，男性与同伴相处时有更高的不安全感。这与Gullone 和Robinson（2005）的研究结果相一致，即与女性相比，男性对其父母产生更加积极的依恋，而女性则对同伴产生更加积极的依恋。合理的解释是，在青春期，女孩更早的脱离家庭联系，并建立更多的同伴关系。4. Discussion and conclusions 结论：进一步肯定了结论：进一步肯定了IPPA问卷用于测量依恋安全度的因素信效度。对于问卷用于测量依恋安全度的因素信效度。对于Armsden和和Greenberg （1987）提出的三个维度，应使用维度涵义明确的条目替换维度间高相关的）提出的

30、三个维度，应使用维度涵义明确的条目替换维度间高相关的条目，以降低维度间的相关，提高区分度。条目，以降低维度间的相关，提高区分度。Development and Properties of the AdolescentFriendship Attachment Scale J Youth Adolescence (2008)37:12701279 IF:2.312 Ross B.Wilkinson Performer：WangJunAbstractTwo studies are reported presenting the development of the Adolescent frien

31、dship Attachment Scale (AFAS), a 30 item self-report measure of adolescent close friendship conceptualized as an attachment relationship.通过两个研究介绍了AFAS的发展，该量表包含30个项目，用自我报告法测量了青少年的依恋关系。Study One reports the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with a sample of 490 adolescents aged 1

32、3 to 19 years.研究一报告了探索性和验证性因素分析的结果A second-order factor model was supported with a single friendship attachment factor underlying three first order factors (Secure, Anxious /Ambivalent, Avoidant) similar to those reported in the broader attachment literature.二阶因素模型也得到了三个一阶因素（安全型，焦虑/矛盾，回避）所包含的单一友谊依恋因

33、素的支持The AFAS subscales were found to be appropriately reliable and demonstrated appropriate convergent and discriminant validity when compared to measures of attachment styles (the Relationship Questionnaire) and parental and peer group attachment (the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment).AFAS子量

34、表可信，具有良好的聚合效度和区分效度Study Two reports a successful replication of the factor structure with an independent sample of 787 adolescents.Further research evaluating the predictive utility ofthe AFAS is recommended.研究二使用了独立样本复制了研究一。建议做进一步研究来评估AFAS的预测效用。IntroductionBy adolescence individuals spend more time

35、 with their friends than their parents, their friends become the prime source of intimacy and disclosure, and intimate friends become a major source of social and emotional support (Furman and Bierman, 1984; Hazan and Zeifman, 1994;Wilkinson, 2004).青少年时期，个体更多地和朋友待在一起，朋友是其亲密关系，获取信息最主要的来源，亲密朋友成为了他们最主要

36、的情感和社会支持者There is general agreement that a close relationship with a best friend in adolescence can take on characteristics of an attachment relationship (Furman, 1996; Miller and Hoicowitz, 2004).普遍认为青春期和最好朋友的亲密关系具有依恋关系的特点The vast majority of adolescents have at least one close friend that can be d

37、escribed as their best friend, although those nominated as close friends can change over brief periods (Brown, 2004).很多青少年至少有一个亲密朋友被认为是最好的朋友Most adolescents also belong to a more extended network of peer relationships known as cliques.These cliques vary in size, ranging from three to ten with an ave

38、rage of five members (Ennett, Bauman, and Koch, 1994).他们同样会和同龄人建立所谓的“圈子友谊”。to distinguish between dyadic friendships and friendship cliques is an important issue because this also represents the distinction between best friends and peers.区分一对一的友谊和小集体友谊是有必要的 ，因为这种区分意味着对最好朋友和同伴进行了区分 （前面提到最好朋友的关系才代表了依恋

39、关系）The most widely used instrument to specifically measure attachment related aspects of peer relationships in adolescence is the Inventory of Parental and Peer Attachment (IPPA) (Armsden and Greenberg, 1987).最常使用的是IPPA25items，three dimensions：Trust, Communication, Alienation shortcomings：the IPPA P

40、eer scale has been interpreted to be a measure of friend attachment, there is uncertainty over the extent to which it measures best friend attachment. Items in the scale refer to “friends” rather than “best friend” and it is possible that the IPPA Peer scale assesses the quality of clique affiliativ

41、e relationships rather than dyadic attachment relationships.所测的是同伴之间的友谊，而非最好朋友之间。A further difficulty with the IPPA is that it was developed prior to more recent research clarifying the major dimensions of attachment.IPPA先于很多近期阐明依恋的主要维度的研究之前出现Hypotheses：Individual AFAS scores will be concordant with

42、 attachment types.个体的AFAS得分和依恋类型相一致These scores will be related but distinguishable from measures of parental and peer (clique) relationship quality.这些得分都是相关的，却又和父母依恋、同伴依恋有所区别。ParticipantsA cross-sectional sample 490 junior and senior high schools in the Australian Capital TerritoryAges：13 to 19 yea

43、rs（M=16.15）(SD=0.89)367 females (74.9%) and 123 males (25.1%).ProcedureInformed consentDuring class time the participants individually completed a questionnaire bookletMeasures：(AFAS) (RQ) (IPPA)AFASA group of ten high school students (6 girls and 4 boys) critiqued the items prior to the study，Minor

44、 changes were made.Think of someone you feel closest to above all others. This person should be close to your own age. They might be your best friend or someone from one of your classes, sports teams, or even just someone you hang around with sometimes.实验之前由10高中生对项目进行评论，做了一些小的修改。Participants were th

45、en requested to indicate their level of agreement with each item using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).要求被试对项目进行选择。Relationships Questionnaire (RQ). Attachment style was assessed using the Relationships Questionnaire (RQ) (Bartholomewand Horowitz, 1991).使用了RQ来评估依恋风格Participa

46、nts are asked to read four descriptions of relationship attitude matching fourcategories of attachment style: Secure, Fearful, Dismissing, and Preoccupied.（安全，恐惧，抗拒，矛盾）They are then asked to nominate one style that is “most like them.” Bartholomew and Horowitz report good convergence between this se

47、lf-report measure and an interview based measure of attachment style and appropriate stability of the RQ over time.要求选择和自己最像的依恋风格The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA)To assess the quality of parental (28 items) and peer (25 items) attachment采用5点计分量表 ，测父母关系时，若父亲与母亲和自己的关系有差别，则需要选择“most in

48、fluenced them”的一方来作答，测同伴关系时，“closest friends”Good internal consistency (coefficient .85) （Armsden and Greenberg, 1987; Wilkinson, 2004）Test-retest correlations .86 to .93 over a three week period （Armsden, McCauley, Greenberg, Burke, and Mitchell, 1990）Principle components analysis剔除了18个数据2items因载荷低

49、(.30)而没有参与分析,剩余33itemsCorrelationF1安全 F2焦虑/矛盾 F3回避Factor 1 and 2 at.261,Factor 1 and 3 at .420Factor 2 and 3 at .105另有3个items载荷低于0.4，在后续分析中没有再使用。Confirmatory factor analysis second-order modeAMOS 5 SEM（结构模型分析软件）Construction of scalesSecure (13 items)=.854Anxious/Ambivalent (11 items) =.781Avoidant (

50、8 items)=.751Total FriendshipAttachment (30 items)=.882Construction of scalesConstruct validityThe convergent and discriminantvalidity of the AFAS scalesGender and age differences2(13 to 15years, 16 to 19 years)2(Female, Male) ANOVAs 年龄无显著差异性别有差异女孩在安全感上的得分较高F(1, 486) =27.84, p .001, 2 = .056AFAS总分也高

51、于男孩F(1, 486) =25.50, p .001, 2 = .052在回避维度上低于男生F(1, 486) = 38.21, p .15) using two-tailed correlations with a .05 and b .80.被试：招募Australian Capital Territory第二学校495名高中生，266名男生（53.7%）和229名女生（46.3%），年龄1319岁（(M=16.41, SD =0.9）。大多数被试的父母职业是教授，经理或者行政管理人员。64.6%的被试与父母同住。ProcedureSchools were approached and

52、written information and consent forms were sent to participants and their parents several weeks prior to conducting the study to inform them of its nature and purpose. For those under 16 years of age, both active parental and personal consent was required for participation. For those 16 years and ov

53、er, passive parental and active personal consent was required. Ninety-two percent of those approached agree to participate. During class time, in a classroom setting, the participants individually completed a questionnaire booklet consisting of the self-report measures described below.程序：与学校签署协议，并告知

54、父母和被试本研究的性质和目的。16岁以下的被试签署个人和家长知情同意书，被试在教室里完成所有问卷。MeasuresAdolescent friendship attachment scale (AFAS)The thirty-item version of the AFAS developed by Wilkinson (2008) was employed. The AFAS has three scales designed to measure the attachment aspects of dyadic, best friend relationships in terms of

55、the significant dimensions of attachment working models described in the literature. Participants are instructed to think of a peer that they feel closest to and then rate statements (items) on a scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) with respect to their relationship with that spec

56、ial person. Examples of items are I can trust my friend and I would find it distressing if this friendship ended (Secure), I worry my friend doesnt really like me and I become angry with my friend when he/she does not understand me (Anxious), I dont like depending on my friend and I avoid discussing

57、 personal things with my friend (Avoidant). Scale scores are the sum of items with reverse coding of relevant items. Higher scores indicate more attachment security, anxiety and avoidance as appropriate. The three scales have been found to be internally consistent (Secure 13 items a .901; Anxious/Am

58、bivalent 9 items a .820; Avoidant 8 items a .773) and stable over a one month period (testretestcorrelations .791, .723, and .707 respectively).测量：1 青春期好友依恋量表（AFAS）由Wilkinson编制，共30个条目，测量好友依恋关系，被试想一个自己最好的朋友，根据每个项目内容进行打分，从非常不同意到非常同意5级评分，例如“我信任我的朋友”“我担心我的朋友不喜欢我”“我不喜欢依赖我的朋友”等问题。总分是所有项目之和，其中包括反向计分项。高分代表安

59、全性依恋、焦虑型依恋以及回避型依恋关系是合理的。Inventory of peer and parent attachment (IPPA) short forms Quality of adolescent attachment was assessed using short-forms of the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment(Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). Fifteen items each separately assessed mother, father and peer attachment qual

60、ity. Respondents rated each item using a five point scale ranging from almost never or never (1) to always or almost always (5) toindicate the degree to which the items were true. Examples of items are: My mother senses when Im upset about something (Mother Attachment), My father helps me to underst