Table of Contents
Context
Attachment is defined as the emotional bonding with your primary caregiver in childhood, like your mother, or father. The nature of the attachment between you and your mother in particular defines how well you will be attached to your romantic partner. The attachment theory is then pioneered by British psychiatrist John Bowlby and American psychologist Mary Ainsworth. They suggested that the quality of the bonding you experienced during this first relationship often determines how well you relate to other people and respond to intimacy throughout life.
If your mother could make you feel secure as a child, could understand your emotions, could respond to your cries, and was available unconditionally, then you will form a healthy secure relationship with your partner. This style often comes with self-confidence, high self-esteem, social and emotional intelligence.
On the other hand, if your mother or the primary caregiver had made you feel unsafe, was unavailable, or had a continuous struggle to convey to the primary caregiver about your needs and emotions, then you would have a hard time creating a secure relationship as an adult. If you experienced confusing, frightening, or inconsistent emotional communication during infancy, though, if your caregiver was unable to consistently comfort you or respond to your needs, youโre more likely to have experienced an unsuccessful orย insecure attachment. This leads to social anxiety and confusion.ย You may find it difficult to connect to others, shy away from intimacy, or be too clingy, fearful, or anxious in a relationship.
Even though there is a long time gap between infancy and adulthood, when you will actually be creating a romantic relationship, there is a profound effect of the attachment style of infancy on adult relationships. Understanding your, and your partner’s attachment styles may make it pretty easy for you to create meaningful relationships.
This test is developed by combining Collins & Read(1990), Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) Model.ย Both these models are extremely popular independently and have been tested in various countries and languages. The combined model, therefore, is more reliable, accurate, specific, correlated, and statistically significant.
Attachment Styles
A secure attachment style of both the partners leads to a healthy relationship, whereas the other attachment styles result in an unstable relationship.
Why Use This Test
Self-Awareness and knowledge is the key to success in anything. You should take this test to understand your own attachment style. Once you know your own attachment style, you can do more study on the same. Also, if you found your attachment style to be anxious or avoidant, or disorganized, you can always talk to Lyfas team for help.
If you are already in a relationship and going through relationship stress, then you can use this test to understand your and your partner’s attachment styles. Once you understand the underneath style of attachment, you can easily understand the style of attachment.
Furthermore, your mental health or relationship counselor may also get you to self-report the test to understand your attachment style, and therefore may estimate other psychological parameters like self-confidence, CPTSD, etc.
Both you and your partner may take the test to understand each other’s attachment style. It is hard to change one’s attachment style, however, knowing the ground truth may help you to accept each other better.
References
Bartholomew, Kim, and Leonard M. Horowitz. “Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model.”ย Journal of personality and social psychologyย 61.2 (1991): 226.
Kane, H. S., Jaremka, L. M., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Feeling supported and feeling satisfied: How one partnerโs attachment style predicts the other partnerโs relationship experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 535-555.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Allard, L. M. (2006). Working models of attachment and attribution processes in intimate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 201-219.
Collins, N. L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., & Feeney, B. C. (2006). Responding to need in intimate relationships: Normative processes and individual differences. In M. Mikulincer & G. Goodman (Eds.), Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 149-189). New York: Guilford Press.
Cooper, M. L., Pioli, M., Levitt, A., Taley, A., Micheas, L., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Attachment styles, sex motives, and sexual behavior: Evidence for gender-specific expressions of attachment dynamics. In M. Mikulincer & G. Goodman (Eds.). Dynamics of romantic love: Attachment, caregiving, and sex (pp. 243-274).New York: The Guilford Press.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: Evidence from experimental and observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 363-383.
Collins, N. L. , Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications (pp. 196-239). New York: Guilford.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2004). An interpersonal safe haven and secure base caregiving processes in adulthood.ย In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications (pp. 300-338). New York: Guilford.
Accuracy and Reliability
Collins Model
Cronbachโs alpha coefficient in 3 samples of undergraduates:
________________________________________________
nย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Closeย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Dependย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Anxiety
ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ________________________________________________
ย
173ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .81ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .78ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .85
130ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .80ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .78ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .85
100ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .82ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .80ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย .83
________________________________________________
Bartholomew and Horowitz Model
In Cross-Validation Chi-square analysis indicated that the classifications obtained from the two systems (three Hazan-Shaver categories and four Bartholomew categories) were significantly related, x2(6) = 370.31, P < .001. Of the people who classified themselves as secure on Bartholomew’s measure, 82% were secure on the Hazan-Shaver measure. Of those who classified themselves as preoccupied on Bartholomew’s measure, 57% were anxious-ambivalent (the conceptually parallel category) on the Hazan-Shaver measure.
Of those who classified themselves as fearful on Bartholomew’s measure, 61% called themselves avoidant on the Hazan-Shaver measure. Of those who classified themselves as dismissing Bartholomew’s measure, 43% called themselves avoidant on the Hazan-Shaver measure and 45% called themselves secure.
Therefore Bartholomew and Horowitz’s model is statistically significant, a good fit to other models, and is reliable.
Disclaimer
This online free test is provided for self-assessment and understanding your attachment style. It is always advisable to take a professional psychologist/psychiatrist/mental health professional to interpret the result. This test is a screening tool and must not be used for any diagnosis purpose. No medicine can be prescribed based on the results of the test. This test is provided as-is. Acculi Labs and Lyfas take no responsibility for the harm arising from using this test. The result of this test can not be used as evidence in any court of law against any individual. Acculi Labs and Lyfas take no guarantee of the accuracy of your results and reliability of the test.
By taking this test, you agree to not hold Lyfas and Acculi Labs liable for any damage or injury including mental stress or trauma.
