School of Education

Department of Educational & Counseling Psychology

2019

It certainly takes a village to make it to this point. First and foremost, I want to thank my

advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Micki Friedlander. You graciously guided and supported me

throughout each step of this program, encouraged my confidence and autonomy in research, and

helped expand my knowledge of both couples research and therapy. I am a better writer,

researcher, and therapist because of you. Second, I want to thank Dr. Kimberly Colvin for

making statistics approachable, and for your patience and enthusiasm when answering my many

invaluable opportunities and support to begin my journey into academic writing and publishing.

And third, Dr. Cal Stoltenberg, thank you for helping me to develop my very first research idea,

which was certainly a springboard to the research I pursue today.

No time in a doctoral program is complete without friendships made along the way. I feel

so thankful to have had such a wonderful and supportive cohort (Alex Agiliga, Jennifer Bordon,

Melissa Ertl, Kieran Maestro, Christina Martin, and Englann Taylor). The potluck and game

nights we shared always rejuvenated my spirit. I also want to thank Larissa Barbaro-Kukade,

Nicole Da Silva, and Lynsay Paiko for being wonderful sources of support, laughter, and

friendship. I am so grateful for each of you.

Furthermore, I would like to express my thanks to family, whose support was there from

kindness, generosity, and success have always served as an inspiration and guiding light to me.

Your driving force is one I can only hope to match. I am so thankful to call you brother and

friend. To my mother, Diane Adams, your strength, resilience, courage, and giving spirit have

always motivated and inspired me. I can never thank you enough for always being there to take

my call, and for believing that I could make it this far. You are, and always will be, my hero.

And lastly, to my partner, Kyle McCarthy, whose unrelenting and unconditional support has

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... vi

Chapter One: Introduction and Literature Review ........................................................................1

Chapter Three: Results...................................................................................................................17

Chapter Four: Discussion...............................................................................................................22

References......................................................................................................................................29

Appendices

Research has shown that children of divorce who are exposed to high levels of

interparental conflict tend to have worse adult outcomes than individuals not so exposed (e.g.,

Gager, Yabiku, & Linver, 2016), including damage to their romantic relationships (Cui,

Fincham, & Durtschi, 2011; Feeney, 2006). The present study investigated the contributing role

of adult attachment insecurity (i.e., attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety) to the relation

between recollections of interparental conflict during childhood and adult romantic relationship

mediators using Hayes’s (2017) PROCESS macro.

Results showed that Avoidance, controlling for Anxiety, significantly moderated the

relation between CPIC and CSI-4 scores, where highly avoidant participants who recalled high

levels of interparental conflict in childhood reported significantly less adult relationship

satisfaction. Moreover, a post-hoc analysis showed that Avoidance partially mediated the

relation between Threat (a CPIC subscale) and relationship satisfaction. No gender differences

were found, and Anxiety was neither a significant moderator nor a mediator.

reports of interparental conflict were not significantly associated with attachment insecurity,

likely due to the narrower sampling of adults whose parents had divorced during their childhood.

interparental conflict, leads to poor relationship adjustment. Rather, the present findings suggest

that this outcome is most likely for adults with high levels of attachment avoidance, which may

develop when children feel threatened by interparental conflict.

the more problematic dimension of attachment insecurity in romantic relationships (Li & Chan,

2012) and the more difficult dimension to modify in psychotherapy (Wiseman & Tishby, 2014).

Introduction and Literature Review

Around half of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce (Cherlin, 2010). The

multigenerational effects of divorce are reflected in numerous studies indicating that compared to

adults from two-parent families of origin, individuals whose parents divorced tend to have less

satisfying and long-lasting relationships (Cui & Fincham, 2010; Cui, Fincham, & Durtschi, 2011;

Jacquet & Surra, 2001). For this reason, it is important to identify factors that contribute to

adult children from high-conflict families tend to report more attachment insecurity (Cusimano

& Riggs, 2013); less happiness (Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995); and shorter (Gager, Yabiku, &

Linver, 2016), poorer quality (Feeney, 2006), and less committed romantic relationships (Cui et

al., 2011).

Notably, the conflict that a person was exposed to between parents during childhood

seems to carry over to adult relationships, which tend to be of poor quality (Cui & Fincham,

2010; Cui, Fincham, & Pasley, 2008). Supporting this reasoning, a 12-year longitudinal study

found that children’s long-term outcomes (i.e., levels of psychological distress and overall

happiness) were associated with the extent of interparental conflict occurring prior to parental

divorce (Amato et al., 1995). Indeed, the extent of interparental conflict, which is a critical

attachment anxiety tends to be associated with more conflictual romantic relationships. There

also may be gender differences, since one study reported that attachment anxiety was associated

with less relationship satisfaction for both men and women, whereas attachment avoidance was

negatively associated with satisfaction only for the men in the sample (Tucker & Anders, 1999).

Moderation. Second, it was hypothesized that as a moderator, attachment insecurity

would strengthen the negative association between interparental conflict in childhood and

secure or if, as adults, they are able to develop high quality relationships with others in their

lives.

attachment insecurity may be a long-term risk factor for adults’ romantic relationships, whereas

low levels of attachment insecurity (i.e., greater attachment security) may buffer the influence of

childhood interparental conflict on romantic relationship satisfaction in adulthood. Supporting

this reasoning, one study (Hare, Miga, & Allen, 2009) found that high attachment insecurity

strengthened the association between interparental aggression and participants’ dating

aggression. Additionally, El-Sheikh and Elmore-Staton (2004) reported that that a secure bond

between father and child buffered the negative effects of interparental conflict on children’s

if they are securely attached (Crowell, Treboux, & Brockmeyer, 2009), it may be that low

attachment insecurity disrupts the multigenerational transmission of poor relationship

adjustment.

differently in interaction with interparental conflict. Grych and Kinsfogel (2010), for example,

found that in adolescents, both dimensions of attachment insecurity moderated the relation

Participants

Volunteers residing in the U.S. were recruited to take part in a web-based study on

“individuals who experienced parental divorce in childhood.” Inclusion criteria were (a) being 18

years of age or older, (b) having parents who had divorced when the participant was between the

ages of 6 and 17, (c) currently being in a romantic relationship for at least 3 months. The last

criterion was used to ensure an established romantic relationship (e.g., Campbell, Simpson,

Boldry, & Kashy, 2005). It was reasoned that children whose parents divorced after age 5 were

likely aware of their parents’ conflict, and the age limit of 17 was reasoned to restrict the sample

to participants who had experienced divorce in childhood. An a priori power analysis was

conducted based on effect sizes calculated from previous relevant literature, a familywise error

recommendations made by Yeatts & Martin (2015), resulting in a final sample of N = 678.

Participant characteristics. As shown in Table 1, the average age of participants in the

final data set was 34 years (M = 33.6, SD = 10.5; range 18-71). Among the 678 participants, 319

(47.1%) identified as men and 345 (50.9%) as women. Participants identified as White (n = 450,

66.4%), Asian/Asian American (n = 73, 10.8%), Black/African American (n = 51, 7.5%),

Hispanic/Latin American (n = 36, 5.3%), Native American/American Indian (n = 19, 2.8%), or

595, 87.8%), the remaining participants listed birth countries in every continent. In terms of

education, most participants had a bachelor’s degree or higher (n = 342, 50.4%) and an annual

household income under $75,000 (n = 468, 69%).

Most participants were not married (n = 363, 53.5%). The length of participants’ current

relationships was M = 5.4 years, Mdn = 3, SD = 6.9; range 0.3 to 45.4. On average, participants

had one child (SD = 1.3; range 0-8). Most participants identified as heterosexual/straight (n =

most participants lived primarily with their mother after the divorce (n = 474, 69.9%); 15 % (n =

102) lived with their fathers.

Instruments

Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict. The Conflict Properties (CP) scale in

the Children’s Perception of Interparental Conflict scale (CPIC; Grych et al., 1992; see Appendix

A) measured the frequency, intensity, and resolution of interparental conflict recalled in

childhood. The 48-item CPIC assesses 8 conflict dimensions: frequency, intensity, resolution,

content, perceived threat, coping efficacy, self-blame, and triangulation. These dimensions

comprise three broader domains of interparental conflict: Conflict Properties (19 items;

and Self-Blame (9 items; Content and Self-Blame).

Since the present study examined retrospective reports of interparental conflict, the verb

tense was changed from present tense to past tense. Retrospective reports on the CPIC have

previously been used, with adequate reliability (α = .88, Bickham & Fiese, 1997). CP items

include, “I never saw my parents arguing or disagreeing” (Frequency), “My parents have broken

or thrown things during an argument” (Intensity), and “When my parents had an argument they

(Frequency, Intensity, and Resolution) were shown to measure a single underlying construct

(Grych et al., 1992). Subsequently, the Threat scale was used in a post hoc mediation analysis.

In terms of validity, the CPIC was significantly correlated with parent-rated measures of

marital conflict and aggression (Grych et al., 1992), including the O’Leary-Porter Scale (Porter

& O’Leary, 1980), r = .30, and the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979), r = .39.The CPIC

demonstrated factor invariance among adolescents and emerging adults (Moura, dos Santos,

Rocha, & Matos, 2010), and evidenced high two-week test-retest reliability (r = .95; Bickham &

Fiese, 1997). The authors of the measure (Grych et al., 1992) reported internal consistency

reliabilities, αs = .90 and .89, for the Conflict Properties scale, comparable to values obtained by

Moura et al. (2010), α = .92. In the present sample, the internal consistency estimate for CP was

Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised. The Anxiety and Avoidance scales in the

36-item Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R; Fraley et al., 2000; see Appendix

B) assessed participants’ self-reported levels of each dimension of attachment insecurity. The

ECR-R is a revision of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR; Brennan et al., 1998)

using Item Response Theory (Fraley et al., 2000).

Respondents are directed to respond to the ECR-R items with respect to their general

items include, “I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners” and “I get

uncomfortable when romantic partners want to be very close.” The 18 items on each scale are

rated on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). After several

items are reverse keyed, the raw scores are averaged, resulting in scores ranging from 1 – 7 for

each attachment dimension.

In terms of construct validity, the ECR-R scales were significantly correlated with the

Relationship Questionnaire (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), a different measure of

attachment, in a college sample: Anxiety r = .60, Avoidance r = .62 (Sibley et al., 2005). In

another study, Anxiety was associated with feelings of loneliness (r = .53) and worry (r = .39;

Fairchild & Finney, 2006), whereas Avoidance was significantly correlated with avoidance of

-.51; Fairchild & Finney, 2006).

Fraley et al. (2000) reported test-retest reliability estimates for the Anxiety and

Avoidance scales as rs = .94 and .95, respectively. Internal consistency reliabilities were reported

as α = .91 (Anxiety) and .95 (Avoidance) by Cusimano and Riggs (2013); .92 (Anxiety) and .93

(Avoidance) by Fairchild and Finney (2006). Previous research has shown that the Anxious and

Avoidance scales are moderately correlated, with rs ranging from .41 to .58 (Fraley, Heffernan,

& Rogge, 2007). Funk and Rogge used Item Response Theory to create the CSI-4, a more

parsimonious scale that assesses levels of warmth, happiness, and general satisfaction within a

romantic relationship.

One CSI-4 item is rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, from 0 (extremely unhappy) to 6

(perfect); a second item is rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale, from 0 (not at all true) to 5

(completely true); and the two remaining items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale, from 0

(not at all) to 5 (completely). Scores on the 4 items are summed to create a total score that ranges

from 0 – 21, with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction.

In terms of convergent validity, in an online community sample the CSI-4 was highly

correlated with three other relationship satisfaction measures (Funk and Rogge, 2007): the

.88; Spanier, 1976), and the Relationship Assessment Scale (r = .94; Hendrick, 1988).

Funk and Rogge reported the CSI-4’s internal consistency reliability as α = .94. A more recent

estimate was α = .93 (Cui & Fincham, 2010). In the present sample, the internal consistency

estimate was α = .93.

Screening and demographic questionnaires. Volunteers were screened for inclusion

using four questions related to the inclusion criteria (see Appendix D). At the end of the survey,

clarity of participants’ childhood memories of parental conflict, e.g., “I have clear memories

about my parents’ arguments.” Each item was rated on a scale from 1 to 3, with a possible range

of 4 to 12. Lower scores indicate clearer memories. Total memory scores were correlated with

scores on Conflict Properties scale in a preliminary analysis.

After approval by the university’s Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited

through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, an online crowdsourcing service that other researchers

found to provide valid community data (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Peer, Samat,

Brandimarte, & Acquisti, 2015). In order to ensure that roughly equal numbers of men and

women were collected for analyses, two gender-specific samples of roughly 350 participants

nonconforming participants would likely not be large enough for separate analyses, only men

and women were recruited for participation.

Volunteers were recruited to participate in a study on “childhood parental conflict and

adult romantic relationships.” Potential participants were directed to psychdata.com to review the

informed consent (see Appendix F), in which volunteers were informed that participation in the

study was voluntary and confidential, and that they had the right to withdraw at any point.

questionnaire. The CPIC was administered in the third position to avoid priming.

Several open-ended attention-check questions were added throughout the research

materials to identify possible cases of random responding. These items included, “In which

direction does the sun rise?” and “What color is the sky?”

Preliminary Analyses

DFBETA values, a measure of the degree to which an observation influences the

regression line, were examined along with Cook’s distance, leverage, and external studentized

deleted residuals (SDRES) to determine outliers. No outliers or influential cases were identified

based on these criteria.

conducted. No significant differences were found, Wilks’s λ = .99, F(4, 673) = .33.

intercorrelations, are reported in Table 2. The bivariate correlations indicated a direct relation

between Anxiety and Avoidance, r(676) = .54, p < .001, and inverse relations between each

attachment dimension and relationship satisfaction (CSI-4) rs(676) = -.34 and -.56, respectively.

dimension or with CSI-4, rs(664) = -.04 to .07. For this reason, gender was not included in the

tests of the moderation and mediation models.

4-12), were significantly correlated with scores on the Conflict Properties scale, r(676) = -.30, p

< .001 and with age at the time of parental divorce, r(676) = -.20, p < .001, although its

satisfaction were significant in the predicted direction, Anxiety = -.34, Avoidance = -.56. These

results are consistent with numerous previous studies in which both avoidance (Li & Chan, 2012;

Tucker & Anders, 1999) and anxiety (Birnbaum, 2007; Li & Chan, 2012) were associated with

poor romantic relationship satisfaction. These results also support theorizing (Hazan & Shaver,

1994) that individuals’ characteristic attachment insecurity, especially attachment avoidance, is

likely to compromise the ability to develop and sustain satisfying romantic relationships in

present results indicate that poor relationship satisfaction may be more closely tied to the

development of attachment avoidance, which may result from feeling threatened by interparental

conflict.

In addition to attachment theory, the present study was informed by Bowen’s (1978)

family systems theory, in which the concept of multigenerational transmission refers to family

dysfunction being repeated over generations. This projection process is said to occur when adults

who had witnessed significant interparental conflict as children become emotionally cut off or

fused with their romantic partners; both responses are considered to reflect dysfunction. The

post-hoc results partially support this theoretical assertion in that recall of a highly conflictual

adjustment if they had felt threatened and unable to cope.

contrast to a categorical measurement of attachment (e.g., Feeney & Noller, 1990; Steinberg et

al., 2006), which restricts the sample to participants who report being either avoidant or anxious,

a dimensional approach allows for the inclusion of participants who reported being both highly

anxious and highly avoidant or neither (i.e., highly secure) in the analyses. Reflecting the

Kitzmann, 2007; Steinberg et al., 2006). In contrast, the present sample was more heterogeneous

in terms of race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and age, thereby maximizing the generalizability of

the study’s findings. On the other hand, the sample only included adult children of divorce,

which restricted the external validity of the results while increasing its internal validity.

young adults (Bickham & Fiese, 1997; Moura et al., 2010; Reese-Weber & Hesson-McInnis,

2008). Participants in these studies had conflict scores that were significantly higher than those

of the present participants, who had an average age of 33.6 (range 18 to 71) and were thus more

distant from their childhood experiences. The present participants also reported significantly less

to the length of the romantic relationships reported by the present sample (M = 5.4 years).

In terms of implications for clinical practice, understanding the importance of attachment

avoidance in adults from high-conflict divorced families suggests an additional avenue for

exploration when working individually with adults and youth whose romantic relationships are in

distress. Focusing on developing greater attachment security (e.g., reducing attachment

therapy (Johnson, 2008) uses attachment to conceptualize couples’ interactions, this model of

treatment seems particularly suitable for treating clients who demonstrate high levels of

attachment avoidance.

Furthermore, the results of this study have implications for prevention. That is, group

psychoeducation for adolescents whose parents are separated or divorced could focus on healthy

relationship communication, emotion regulation, and attachment security. By working to buffer

the effects of interparental conflict on attachment avoidance, children of high-conflict divorce

may experience greater relationship satisfaction in adulthood.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

computer access, as well as a reasonable amount of computer literacy, affecting the external

validity of the present results. Furthermore, all measures were self-report, introducing mono-

method bias and common method variance. Due to the voluntary nature of the study and the

resulting convenience sample, self-selection bias may have threatened internal validity. Perhaps

individuals who recalled a great deal of conflict between their parents chose not to participate

due to the trauma experienced as a result of the conflict.

and women participants. The nonsignificant gender difference in satisfaction is consistent with

results from several studies (Cui et al., 2008, 2010; Gleeson & Fitzgerald, 2014), whereas the

nonsignificant gender differences in attachment avoidance and anxiety are consistent with some

(Shi, 2003; Stackert & Bursik, 2003) but not other studies (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;

Brennan et al., 1998; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994; Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994), in which

women reported greater attachment anxiety and men reported greater attachment avoidance.

Future research on attachment and relationship satisfaction should be extended to non-binary and

genderqueer individuals well, to improve our understanding of how attachment insecurity

operates in this population.

conceptual similarities between family systems constructs from attachment theory, such as

describing attachment anxiety and avoidance as reflective of poor differentiation of self (Bowen,

1978). Future researchers may consider exploring differentiation of self as a mediator of the

relation between interparental conflict and romantic relationship satisfaction, since a previous

study found that self-differentiation mediated the relation between experiences of family abuse

and difficulties in romantic relationships (Priest, 2015). Additionally, future research should

interparental conflict is particularly harmful for adults who are high in attachment avoidance.

Future studies should also examine recall of interparental conflict from childhood in relation to

other aspects of couples’ relationships, such as level of commitment, conflict, and distress. With

an increased understanding of the experiences of adult children of high-conflict divorce,

researchers may turn their attention to testing psychotherapeutic strategies for buffering or

attenuating the long-term effects of this adverse childhood experience.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and

Banse, R. (2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration

Birnbaum, G. E. (2007). Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship

Bowen, M. (1978) Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. International Journal of

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock

Publications Limited.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment

Camisasca, E., Miragoli, S., Di Blasio, P., & Grych, J. (2017). Children’s coping strategies to

Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Boldry, J., & Kashy, D. A. (2005). Perceptions of conflict and

Cherlin, A. J. (2010). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America

Cui, M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). The differential effects of parental divorce and marital

Cui, M., Fincham, F. D., & Durtschi, J. A. (2011). The effect of parental divorce on young

El-Sheikh, M., & Elmore–Staton, L. (2004). The link between marital conflict and child

Fairchild, A. J., & Finney, S. J. (2006). Investigating validity evidence for the experiences in

Feeney, J. A. (2006). Parental attachment and conflict behavior: Implications for offspring's

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic

Ferreira, L. C., Narciso, I., Novo, R. F., & Pereira, C. R. (2014). Predicting couple satisfaction:

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-

Funk, J. L., & Rogge, R. D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing

Gleeson, G., & Fitzgerald, A. (2014). Exploring the association between adult attachment styles

Gottman, J. M. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail. New York: Fireside.

Grych, J. H., & Kinsfogel, K. M. (2010). Exploring the role of attachment style in the relation

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child's

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal

Pansexual 2.4

Demisexual 0.1

Region of U.S.

Northeast 22.0

Midwest 20.9

Southeast 30.1

Northwest 8.1

Southwest 15.0

Education level

Some high school, no diploma 1.3

Attachment

Anxiety

Interparental

Figure 2. Hypothesized Moderation Model.

Interparental

Conflict

In every family there are times when the parents are in conflict. Please respond to the following

statements with respect to how you recall your parents’ relationship when you were a child.

parents divorced or separated.

T = TRUE

F = FALSE

1. T ST F I never saw my parents arguing or disagreeing*

2. T ST F When my parents had an argument they usually worked it out*

3. T ST F My parents often got into arguments about things I did at school

4. T ST F When my parents argued I ended up getting involved somehow

5. T ST F My parents got really mad when they argued*

12. T ST F When my parents argued I tried to do something to stop them

13. T ST F When my parents had a disagreement they discussed it quietly*

14. T ST F I didn't know what to do when my parents had arguments**

15. T ST F My parents were often mean to each other even when I was around*

16. T ST F When my parents argued I worried about what would happen to me**

18. T ST F It was usually my fault when my parents argued

19. T ST F I often saw or heard my parents arguing*

20. T ST F When my parents disagreed about something, they usually came up with a

solution*

21. T ST F My parents' arguments were usually about me

22. T ST F When my parents had an argument they said mean things to each other*

29. T ST F My parents usually argued or disagreed because of things that I did

30. T ST F I didn't get involved when my parents argued

31. T ST F When my parents had an argument they yelled at each other*

32. T ST F When my parents argued there was nothing I could do to stop them**

33. T ST F When my parents argued I worried that one of them would get hurt**

34. T ST F I felt like I had to take sides when my parents had a disagreement

35. T ST F My parents often nagged and complained about each other around the house*

36. T ST F My parents hardly ever yelled when they had a disagreement*

37. T ST F My parents often got into arguments when I did something wrong

38. T ST F My parents broke or threw things during an argument*

40. T ST F When my parents argued I was afraid that they would yell at me too**

41. T ST F My parents blamed me when they had arguments

42. T ST F My dad wanted me to be on his side when he and my mom argued

43. T ST F My parents pushed or shoved each other during an argument*

44. T ST F When my parents argued or disagreed there was nothing I could do to make

myself feel better**

51. T ST F I have clear memories of my parents’ arguments

52. T ST F I have few memories of my parents’ arguments

*Items on the Conflict Properties subscale of the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict

Scale

**Items on the Threat subscale of the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale

The statements below concern how you feel in emotionally intimate relationships. We are

agree or disagree with the statement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Strongly Neither agree nor Strongly

Disagree disagree Agree

1. I'm afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who I

really am. (ANX)

11. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. (AV)

13. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close. (AV)

14. I do not often worry about being abandoned.* (ANX)

15. I'm afraid that I will lose my partner's love. (ANX)

17. I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them. (ANX)

18. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners.* (AV)

19. I am nervous when partners get too close to me.* (AV)

20. I worry that I won't measure up to other people. (ANX)

21. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me. (ANX)

22. I tell my partner just about everything.* (AV)

her. (ANX)

29. Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason. (ANX)

30. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners.* (AV)

31. I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner.* (AV)

32. I worry a lot about my relationships. (ANX)

33. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. (AV)

34. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself. (ANX)

35. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner.* (AV)

36. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the same

about me. (ANX)

*Reverse scored items