Even though previous attachment taxometric studies supported the conclusion that attachment is rather dimensional than categorical construct, they also did not provide consistent support against categorical approach. Addressing limitations of previous taxometric studies on adult attachment, we asked two research questions: Is attachment as measured by the Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) categorical or dimensional? What is the predictive validity of categorical and dimensional approaches? To answer these questions, data of the AAS from 869 parents, 575 adolescents, and 500 grandmothers from the same families in Poland were analyzed. Taxometric analyses were replicated across three generations providing weak evidences to support the dimensional approach. Clustering methods provided an additional support revealing that empirically derived categories of attachment are based on security level but not on qualitatively different attachment patterns. Analyses testing predictive effects of categorical compared to dimensional approaches to attachment assessment revealed that a dimensional approach is more valid than a categorical approach in testing hypotheses related to the intergenerational transmission of attachment.
BelskyJ. (2005). The developmental and evolutionary psychology of intergenerational transmission of attachment. In CarterC. S.AhnertL.GrossmannK. E.HrdyS. B.LambM. E.PorgesS. W.SachserN. (Eds.), Attachment and bonding. A new synthesis (pp. 169–199). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BowlbyJ. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books (Original work published 1969 ).
3.
BrennanK. A.ClarkC. L.ShaverP. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford.
4.
ChopikW. J.EdelsteinR. S.FraleyR. C. (2013). From the cradle to the grave: Age differences in attachment from early adulthood to old age. Journal of Personality, 81, 171–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00793.x
5.
CollinsN. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810–832. doi:0.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810
6.
CollinsN. L.ReadS. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644–663. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644
7.
CuestaM. J.UgarteM. D.GoicoaT.ErasoS.PeraltaV. (2007). A taxometric analysis of schizophrenia symptoms. Psychiatry Research, 150, 245–253. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2006.01.019
8.
De WolffM. S.van IJzendoornM. H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.
9.
FraleyC.RafteryA. E. (1998) How Many Clusters? Which Clustering Method? Answers via Model-Based Cluster Analysis. The Computer Journal, 41, 578–588. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/41.8.578
FraleyR. C.HudsonN. W.HeffernanM. E.SegalN. (2015). Are adult attachment styles categorical or dimensional? A taxometric analysis of general and relationship-specific attachment orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 354–368. doi:10.1037/pspp0000027
12.
FraleyR. C.RafteryA. E. (2003). Enhanced model-based clustering density estimation and discriminant analysis software: MCLUST. Journal of Classification, 20, 263–286. doi:10.1007/s00357-003-0015-3
13.
FraleyR. C.RoismanG. I. (2014). Categories or dimensions? A taxometric analysis of the adult attachment interview. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 36–50. doi:10.1111/mono.12112
14.
FraleyR. C.SpiekerS. J. (2003). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxonometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39, 387–404. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387
15.
FraleyR. C.WallerN. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns. A test of typological model. In SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 77–114). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
16.
FraleyR. C.WallerN. G.BrennanK. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350–365. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350
17.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. M.LunJ.LimB. C.…YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100–1104. doi:10.1126/science.1197754
18.
GrahamJ. M.UnterschuteM. S. (2015). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 31–41. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.927768
19.
GrohA. M.RoismanG. I.Booth-LaForceC.FraleyR. C.OwenM. T.CoxM. J.BurchinalM. R. (2014). Stability of attachment security from infancy to late adolescence. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 51–66. doi:10.1111/mono.12113
20.
LubiewskaK. (2013). Attachment intergenerational transmission: Limitations of findings on parent-child congruence. In AlbertI.FerringD. (Eds.), Intergenerational relations in society and family: European perspectives (pp. 87–102). London, UK: Policy Press.
21.
LubiewskaK. (2019). Przywiazanie w kontekscie wrazliwosci rodzicielskiej, socjalizacji oraz wpływów kulturowych [Attachment in the context of parenting sensitivity, socialization and cultural influences]. Warsaw, Poland: PWN.
22.
LubiewskaK.AlbertI.FriedlmeierW.TrommsdorffG. (2018). Relations between parenting and adolescent’s attachment in families differing in solidarity patterns. Social Development, 27, 984–1000.
23.
McGrathR. E.WaltersG. D. (2012). Taxometric analysis as a general strategy for distinguishing categorical from dimensional latent structure. Psychological Methods, 17, 284–293. doi:10.1037/a0026973
24.
MeehlP. E. (1992). Factors and taxa, traits and types, differences of degree and differences in kind. Journal of Personality, 60, 117–174. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00269.x
25.
MeehlP. E.YonceL. J. (1994). Taxometric analysis: I. Detecting taxonicity with two quantitative indicators using means above and below a sliding cut (MAMBAC procedure). Psychological Reports, 74, 1059–1274.
26.
Nelson-CoffeyS. K.BorelliJ. L.RiverL. M. (2017). Attachment avoidance, but not anxiety, minimizes the joys of caregiving. Attachment & Human Development, 19, 504–531. doi:10.1080/14616734.2017.1326060
27.
NewtonN. J.StewartA. J. (2012). Personality development in adulthood. In Krauss WhitbourneS.SliwinskiM. J. (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of adulthood and aging (pp. 211–235). London, UK: Blackwell.
RohnerE. C.RohnerR. P.RollS. (1980). Perceived parental acceptance-rejection and children’s reported behavioral dispositions. A comparative and intracultural study of American and Mexican children. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 11, 213–231.
30.
RoismanG. I.FraleyR. C.BelskyJ. (2007). A taxometric study of the adult attachment interview. Developmental Psychology, 43, 675–686. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.675
31.
RothbaumF.WeiszJ.PottM.MiyakeK.MorelliG. (2000). Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist, 55, 1093–1104. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.10.1093
RuscioJ. (2014). Categories or dimensions: Lessons learned from a taxometric analysis of adult attachment interview data. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 147–156. doi:10.1111/mono.12119
34.
RuscioJ.HaslamN.RuscioA. M. (2006). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
SchmidtS.StraußB.HögerD.BrählerE. (2004). Die Adult Attachment Scale (AAS) - Teststatistische Prüfung und Normierung der deutschen Version [The Adult Attachment Scale: Statistical testing and norms of the German version]. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie, 54, 375–382.
36.
ShaverP. R.BelskyJ.BrennanK. A. (2000). The adult attachment interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00002.x
37.
SumerN.KagitcibasiC. (2010). Culturally relevant parenting predictors of attachment security in Turkish context. In ErdmanP.NgK. M. (Eds.), Attachment: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 157–180). New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
Swida-ZiebaH. (2000). Młodzież końca tysiąclecia. Warszawa, Poland: Kawdruk.
39.
TrommsdorffG.NauckB. (2005). The value of children in cross-cultural perspective. Case studies from eight societies. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
40.
van de VijverF.LeungK. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London, UK: SAGE.
41.
van IJzendoornM. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment. A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.387
42.
van IJzendoornM. H.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J. (2014). Confined quest for continuity: The categorical versus continuous nature of attachment. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79, 157–167. doi:10.1111/mono.12120
43.
van IJzendoornM. H.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J. (2019). Bridges across the intergenerational transmission of attachment gap. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 31–36.
44.
VermuntJ. K.MagidsonJ. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In HagenaarsJ.McCutcheonA. (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
WaltersG. D.RuscioJ. (2009). To sum or not to sum: Taxometric analysis with ordered categorical assessment items. Psychological Assessment, 21, 99–111. doi:0.1037/a0015010
46.
WatersT. E. A.FraleyR. C.GrohA. M.SteeleR. D.VaughnB. E.BostK. K.RoismanG. I. (2015). The latent structure of secure base script knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 51, 823–830. doi:10.1037/dev000001
