Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:05:24.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Brief Attachment Adjective Checklist: A Measure of the Fourfold Definition of the Theory of Attachment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Terry Bowles*
Affiliation:
Ballarat University, Australia. [email protected]
*
*ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE: Terry Bowles PhD FAPS, Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Ballarat, University Drive, Mount Helen VIC 3353, Australia.
Get access

Abstract

The aims of this research were to develop and validate a Brief Attachment Adjective Checklist (BAAC) to represent the four category model of attachment, compare it with a current measure of attachment, and use both to predict relationship satisfaction. A 32-item operationalisation of a hypothesised four-category model was analysed using a principal component analysis. Results of Study 1 (n = 174) indicated the items of the four-category model reflected good factor structure. Comparison with the four-paragraph Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) showed low correlation between the two operationalisations, suggesting that they were measuring different aspects of attachment. Analyses showed that the BAAC was a weak but better predictor of relationship satisfaction than the RQ. A confirmatory factor analysis in Study 2 (n = 131) refined the structure of the BAAC. The pattern of correlations showing relative independence of the BAAC and the RQ in Study 1 was also shown in Study 2. The frequency of respondents in dominant attachment categories of the RQ was consistent with previous research but the frequency of respondents in dominant attachment categories differed for RQ compared with the BAAC. The replication of the prediction of relationship satisfaction in Study 2 showed that both measures were weak predictors of relationship satisfaction but the BAAC was a better predictor than the RQ.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)