Module 3

Timesaver4real

Track-Article3.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Module 3

Interlinkages between attachment and the Five-Factor Model of

personality in middle childhood and young adulthood: a longitudinal

approach

Mari Fransson a *, Pehr Granqvist

b , Gunilla Bohlin

a and Berit Hagekull

a Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;

b Department of Psychology,

Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

(Received 11 January 2012; final version received 18 August 2012)

In this paper, we examine concurrent and prospective links between attachment and the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality from middle childhood to young adulthood (n ¼ 66). At age 8.5 years, attachment was measured with the Separation Anxiety Test and at 21 years with the Adult Attachment Interview, whereas the personality dimensions were assessed with questionnaires at both time points. The results showed that attachment and personality dimensions are meaningfully related, concurrently and longitudinally. Attachment security in middle childhood was positively related to extraversion and openness, both concurrently and prospectively. Unresolved/disorganized (U/d) attachment was negatively related to conscientiousness and positively related to openness in young adulthood. U/d attachment showed a unique contribution to openness above the observed temporal stability of openness. As attachment security was also associated with openness, the duality of this factor is discussed together with other theoretical considerations regarding attachment theory in relation to the FFM.

Keywords: attachment; Separation Anxiety Test; Adult Attachment Interview; personality; Big Five

Introduction

The aim of this study was to further our understanding of the interlinkages between attachment and personality development, more specifically the Five-Factor Model of personality, from middle childhood to young adulthood. This aim strikes at the core of some of the fundamental questions raised in developmental and personality psychology: How does a person become who she is? And what are the constituents of her personality?

Personality and the Five-Factor Model

An important thread of research in personality psychology has been devoted to understanding and tapping the dimensions underlying individual differences in personality ‘‘traits’’. There has been considerable controversy regarding the number

*Corresponding author. Email: Mari.Fransson@psyk.uu.se

Attachment & Human Development, 2013 Vol. 15, No. 2, 219–

239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2013.754985

(e.g., Block, 1995; Eysenck, 1991), definition (e.g., Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993), and stability (e.g., Mischel, 1969; Pervin, 1994) of such traits as well as whether the trait concept is to be understood as explanatory (e.g., motivational; McCrae & Costa, 2008) or as merely descriptive (e.g., consistency in functioning; Hogan & DeSoto, 1977; Pervin, 1994). Setting these controversies aside

1 , the most established model of the structure of personality is presently the

Five-Factor Model (FFM, also named the ‘‘Big Five’’; Digman, 1990; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; McCrae & Costa, 2008). The five dimensions of this model, gained through factor analyses of trait-descriptive terms across a variety of studies, are extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness (John et al., 2008). These factors have also been found in many different cultures, though deviations in the number and meaning of the factors sometimes occur (McCrae & Costa, 1997a; McCrae et al., 2005).

Extraversion reflects surgency, energetic and positive emotions, and the tendency to actively seek, instead of avoiding, the company of others. Agreeableness refers to the tendency to be compassionate, empathetic, and cooperative towards others rather than suspicious and antagonistic. Conscientiousness captures socially prescribed impulse control, the tendency to act in task- and goal-directed ways, and to be able to delay gratification. Neuroticism reflects the presence and effects of negative affect such as anger, anxiety, and sadness, as opposed to emotional stability. Openness to experiences refers to complexity, depth, and quality of a person’s mental and experiential life, reflecting appreciation for creativity, curiosity, and a variety of experience (John et al., 2008; Shiner & Caspi, 2003). Openness has been the most difficult factor to consistently conceptualize across studies and instruments: labels and their associated contents have varied between, for example, culture, intellect, and openness to experiences (McCrae & Costa, 1997b).

The development of the five factors from childhood to adulthood

Factor analyses of parent and teacher ratings of children’s personality have supported the FFM also in childhood (Shiner & Caspi, 2003), although the evidence for openness is weaker (Lamb, Chuang, Wessels, Broberg, & Hwang, 2002). Additionally, the predictive validity of the FFM in childhood has been supported by empirical links to constructs such as cognitive performance and adjustment to school (John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994; Lamb et al., 2002). Furthermore, there is at least moderate continuity in personality dimensions across childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000).

Although personality trait research has been successful in describing the broad structure of individual differences in personality, less is known about the developmental trajectories to these five factors of personality from childhood to adulthood (John et al., 2008). There is, however, growing evidence for a temperamental core to personality (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005), but how temperament is elaborated into personality dimensions is rather unclear. Empirical studies have supported a substantial genetic contribution to personality (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001), which is in line with the idea of a temperamental origin of personality. Some researchers even argue that personality traits are largely independent of environmental influences (McCrae & Costa, 2008), whereas others stress the importance of both genes and environment in personality development (Lewis, 2001; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000; Shiner & Caspi, 2003).

M. Fransson et al.220

Attachment theory and personality development

Attachment theory provides a complementary framework for understanding personality development. Although most research in attachment has been devoted to understanding socio-emotional aspects of development, Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991) portrayed attachment theory as a theory of personality development. Attachment theory, in contrast to most theories of temperament and personality, emphasizes the importance of caregiving (an aspect of nurture) in development, and more specifically in the development of individual differences in attachment organization (i.e., secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized/disoriented attachment; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Main & Solomon, 1990). Because attachment organization has been found to foreshadow a broad repertoire of developmental outcomes (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005), attachment theory may be a suitable theoretical model also for understanding environmental contributions in the development of personality (Fraley & Shaver, 2008).

According to Bowlby (1969/1982), the attachment system evolved because it potentiated physical proximity between offspring, who are helpless on their own early in life, and their protective caregivers in times of threat and potential danger. Through repeated sequences of interaction with the caregiver, an emotional tie (i.e., an attachment) is formed between infants and their caregivers. The quality of this tie varies depending on aspects of caregiving. For example, sensitive responsiveness in caregivers foreshadows secure attachment, while insensitive and frightening caregiving as well as maltreatment are related to insecure (i.e., avoidant and ambivalent/resistant) and disorganized/disoriented attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Carlson, Cichetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989; De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997; Madigan et al., 2006; Main & Hesse, 1990).

A set of cognitive-affective representations (i.e., internal working models; IWMs) of self and others, are formed in the context of the infant’s attachment-related experiences. These IWMs presumably become more generalized over time, and come to guide the child’s expectations and behavioral inclinations in future relationships. Securely, unlike insecurely, attached children gain a sense of being worthy of care, and come to expect others as competent and reliable providers of care (Bowlby, 1973).

People tend to carry forward relational behaviors learned within their family experiences into their interactions with the broader social world, in turn reconfirming their mental models of the self, others, and relationships across the life span (e.g., Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2008). Thus, continuity of attachment patterning over time is generally expectable (Hesse, 2008). However, IWMs are also susceptible to revision based on, for example, marked changes in contextual conditions affecting the caregiver’s sensitivity (Bowlby, 1973). Regardless of continuity or discontinuity in attachment patterning, the attachment system continues to be of great importance across the life course (Bowlby, 1969/1982).

In early research on individual differences in attachment organization, the main focus was on the organized forms of attachment (secure, avoidant, and ambivalent/ resistant attachment; Ainsworth et al., 1978). This research led to an extensive literature on the developmental pathways to and from individual differences in attachment security. Since the introduction of disorganized attachment (Main & Solomon, 1990), the importance of attachment disorganization for future externalizing problems and psychopathology has been emphasized (e.g., Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, & Roisman, 2010; van IJzen- doorn, Schuengel, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 1999).

Attachment & Human Development 221

Attachment theory and the Five-Factor Model

Although described as a theory of personality development by its founders (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991), few empirical investigations have been undertaken to study the specific interrelations between attachment and the FFM. This is presumably because attachment theory portrays the mind as inherently relational, rather than as made up by general traits. Nevertheless, early experiences with attachment figures may serve as a foundation for the acquisition of a broad range of future abilities, such as social skills, emotion regulation capabilities, and exploratory behaviors (e.g., Sroufe et al., 2005; Weinfield et al., 2008), that are presumably linked to personality development. Also, links between attachment and the specific dimensions of the FFM can be theoretically substantiated, especially with regard to attachment security. Presumably through its association with a positive view of the self as a worthy and capable agent and of others as responsive to the self, attachment security is linked to aspects of increased sociability, such as a readiness to establish new relationships, which are in turn core constituents of extraversion (e.g., Londerville & Main, 1981; Main & Weston, 1981; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardiff, 2001). Similarly, along with affirmative caregiver behaviors, a positive view of self and others facilitates aspects of social skills, such as cooperation and reciprocity, which are core constituents of agreeableness (e.g., Bohlin, Hagekull, & Rydell, 2000; Schneider et al., 2001; Sroufe et al., 2005). Also, although conscientiousness partly refers to higher-order cognitive (rather than emotional, social, or relational) capacities, secure attachment has been linked to better delay of gratification, executive capacity, and flexibility of attention (Belsky, Garduque, & Hrncir, 1984; Jacobsen, Huss, Fendrich, Kruesi, & Ziegenhain, 1997; Main, 2000), suggesting it might be related to higher conscientiousness as well. This is presumably because a secure attachment relationship liberates mental resources for efficient information processing rather than being occupied with defensive strategies (cf. Bowlby, 1973; Main, 2000). Moreover, conceivably due to a sensitive attachment figure’s reliable responsiveness and competent assistance during states of distress, secure attachment is associated with efficient emotion regulation skills (e.g., Cassidy, 1994; Waters et al., 2010), which are relatively absent for individuals high in neuroticism.

Finally, as secure attachment is characterized by a freedom to explore (initially using the caregiver as a secure base), security is, not surprisingly, linked to increased exploration (Belsky et al., 1984; Hazen & Durrett, 1982; Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1978; van den Boom, 1994), which may later be expressed in high openness to experience. However, openness to experience has also been related to different forms of alterations in consciousness, such as dissociation, absorption, and hypnotizability (Glisky, Tataryn, Tobias, Kihlstrom, & McConkey, 1991; Ruiz, Pincus, & Ray, 1999). Disorganized attachment, including unresolved/disorganized loss and abuse, has, in turn, been linked to dissociation and absorption (Carlson, 1998; Granqvist, Fransson, & Hagekull, 2009; Hesse & van IJzendoorn, 1999), suggesting that disorganized attachment and openness might also be associated.

In one of few extant studies of the associations between attachment and the FFM, attachment security in infancy was found to be positively related to extraversion and openness, and negatively related to neuroticism in middle childhood (Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003). The only study of which we are aware that has investigated the relation between a representational measure of adult attachment (the Adult Attachment Interview [AAI]; Main, Goldwyn, & Hesse, 2003) and the FFM in adulthood found that attachment security was positively but modestly

M. Fransson et al.222

associated only with conscientiousness and extraversion (Roisman et al., 2007). None of these studies included information on attachment-related disorganization.

Although social psychological measures of romantic attachment (or adult attachment styles) tend to be only modestly related to developmental attachment measures (e.g., Roisman et al., 2007), results from the larger social psychological literature on romantic attachment and the FFM are conceptually relevant. The most consistent result in that literature is that attachment security is negatively related with neuroticism, and positively related to extraversion and conscientiousness (Noftle & Shaver, 2006).

Missing pieces and the present study

The purpose of the present study was to examine concurrent and longitudinal relations between attachment and the FFM of personality in middle childhood and young adulthood. An additional aim was to explore whether attachment, in middle childhood as well as in young adulthood, made a unique contribution to personality in young adulthood over and above any observed temporal stability in personality. To our knowledge, no prior study has investigated the longitudinal relation between childhood attachment and adult personality (in terms of the FFM), nor between unresolved/disorganized attachment and personality. The present study addressed these gaps in the literature, although unresolved/disorganized status was assessed only in adulthood.

Based on joint considerations of theoretical assumptions and results from previous studies, we expected concurrent and longitudinal associations between attachment security and high extraversion, high agreeableness, high conscientious- ness, low neuroticism, and high openness in middle childhood as well as in young adulthood. In addition, we expected a concurrent link between unresolved/ disorganized attachment status and high openness in young adulthood. The scarcity of relevant literature prevented us from making directed predictions regarding relations between unresolved/disorganized status and the four remaining personality factors. For the same reason, we did not have expectations regarding the unique contribution of attachment, beyond stability in personality, to specific adult personality factors in young adulthood.

Although our expectations regarding associations between attachment and personality covered all the dimensions of the FFM, we did not expect strong links between attachment and personality. To the contrary, we expected generally modest relations on the grounds that attachment organization stems mainly from interactions with the attachment figure, whereas personality factors are substantially constitutional in origin.

Method

Participants and procedure

The Uppsala Longitudinal Study (ULS)

The sample for which data will be presented in this article is based on 66 (34 female) participants (54% continuation rate) of the ULS who took part in relevant data collections in middle childhood and early adulthood. A restriction of the sample was undertaken thus that participants who did not partake at either assessment point

Attachment & Human Development 223

were excluded from the analyses so as to obtain comparable statistical power and results across analyses. One participant who fulfilled this criterion was excluded due to a serious brain injury, which occurred between the two occasions.

The ULS originally involved 123 children from middle-class families followed from infant age 6 weeks to child age 9 years (for a more detailed description, see Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003). The main focus of the ULS was to investigate if and how attachment, temperament, and family context interact in children’s socio-emotional development. Educational levels of the parents were fairly high as can be expected in a university area like Uppsala County. The contacts were intensive during the first four years (13 data waves). Thereafter, three data collections were undertaken between ages 8 and 9 years. At the age of 21, a follow-up study was completed. Reasons for attrition over the years have been illness/death in the family, moving out of the county, travels abroad, objections to interview/questionnaire content, and time shortage. The present study concerns attachment and personality at ages 8.5 and 21 years.

Age 8.5 years

When the children were in the second grade of elementary school, 91 participants visited our department laboratory together with their mothers. As a part of the procedure, the so called ‘‘Seattle version’’ of the Separation Anxiety Test (SAT; Slough & Greenberg, 1990; Slough, Goyette, & Greenberg, 1988) was performed with the children. At the same occasion, the mothers filled out a Five-Factor Model questionnaire to assess the children’s personality (Lanthier, 1993). The children’s schoolteachers filled out the same questionnaire some months later when a research assistant visited the children in their schools. At that time, the majority of the teachers had known the children for almost two school years.

Age 21 years

Of the original sample, 112 participants, whose addresses could be found through the Swedish National Tax Board, were invited to participate in a follow-up study. Ninety-nine persons responded, and 85 agreed to take part. Main attrition causes were lack of time and living abroad. Some of the participants who agreed to take part in this assessment had not participated in the 8.5 year data collection. At the recruitment as well as at the scheduled laboratory visit, confidentiality of participation was explained.

Two weeks before the visit to the department, questionnaires containing among other instruments the Big Five Mini-Markers (Saucier, 1994) were sent to the participants. They were asked to fill it out at least one week before their visit, and bring their marked questionnaire to the laboratory visit. Eighty-five participants filled out the questionnaires.

The first task during the full day laboratory visit consisted in the individual administration of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main et al., 2003). One participant denied to be recorded on tape during the AAI, and therefore was not interviewed, as this would have made coding impossible. The participants received a compensation of 500 Swedish crowns (US$79) for participating.

For independent validation purposes, permission was obtained during the lab visit to contact one to three peers in order to send them some of the same

M. Fransson et al.224

questionnaires the participants had filled out with regard to how the peers perceived the participants. They were instructed to select peers who knew them well, but were not their partner. Provided that the participant had agreed, peers were contacted by phone a few weeks after the laboratory visit. They were informed about confidentiality of participation. If the peers were willing to participate, a questionnaire was sent to them by mail. They were asked to fill out the questionnaire and return it by mail. When more than one peer took part, the mean value of their scores was used. The peers received a cinema gift certificate worth 90 Swedish crowns (US$14). Ninety friends returned the questionnaires, distributed on 54 participants.

The present sample

The child mean age for the 66 participants comprised in the present study was 8.6 years (SD ¼ 2.9 months) when they visited the laboratory for the SAT and the FFM measure, and 9.1 years (SD ¼ 2.9 months) when the school teachers filled out the FFM measure.

At the follow up, mean age of the participants was 21.3 years (SD ¼ 5.4 months). Regarding occupation, 52% of the sample were students (university 36%, high school level 8%, professional program 8%), and 51% were in the work force (full- time 21%, part-time 30%; students often had part-time jobs), and 12% were in search of work. Forty-six participants had peer ratings on the Big Five Mini- Markers.

According to t tests, the 66 participants in the present sample did not differ from the original sample on mother’s or father’s educational level (ps 4 .10). In addition, there were no differences on the attachment or personality variables at 8.5 years between the participants who dropped out from the age 21 years assessment and those who remained in the study (all ps 4 .10). Two-tailed significance tests were used in these and all remaining analyses reported in this article.

Instruments

The attachment variables were obtained via semi-structured interviews (i.e., the SAT and the AAI), whereas information regarding personality was obtained via questionnaires. To rule out shared method variance and self-report biases as alternative explanations to any observed relations between attachment and personality, we used independent coders’ representational assessments (not self- ratings) of attachment and included independent raters’ (teachers and peers) ratings of personality. In the longitudinal analyses, we controlled for temporal stability in personality. Measurement characteristics, descriptive statistics, and reliabilities are shown in Table 1.

Middle childhood instruments

The Seattle version of the Separation Anxiety Test (SAT; Slough & Greenberg, 1990; Slough et al., 1988) was used to measure attachment at age 8.5 years. This is a modification of the test originally presented by Hansburg (1972) and adapted by Klagsburn and Bowlby (1976) and Kaplan (1987). This version consists of six pictures (photos) showing separations between children and their parents. Three of

Attachment & Human Development 225

the situations are considered severe (e.g., parents leaving for a two-week vacation) and the rest are considered mild (e.g., mother tucks child in bed for the night and then leaves the room). The child is presented with the picture together with an oral vignette explaining the situation. The interviewer then asks what the depicted child may feel, why he/she may feel that way, and what the child might do. In the Seattle version, the participating child is first asked about the feelings of the pictured child and then how the participating child him- or herself would feel in the same situation. In the present study only answers referring to the pictured child are reported, as analyses of answers to questions about the child’s own feelings did not change conclusions.

Verbal answers were transcribed and scored by a person who had not previously been involved in the project (for inter-rater agreement, see Table 1). In order to minimize the number of variables, all scales used in the Seattle scoring procedure (attachment, self-reliance, and avoidance) were not used in the present study. Instead, a total score reflecting the overall security of attachment representations was calculated and used in subsequent analyses. Within the SAT system, security is reflected in an ability to verbalize feelings of vulnerability in relation to separation and at the same time imagine resources to constructively cope with separations (Kaplan, 1987). In the coding procedure used in this study, described in Verschueren and Marcoen (1996; Verschueren, 1996), the 21 Seattle response categories are organized into three groups: (1) the four most insecure response categories (e.g., avoidant or bizarre), which receive a weight of 0, (2) the six fairly insecure categories (e.g., atypical attachment or atypical self-reliant), which receive a weight of 1, and (3) the remaining 11 categories considered secure, which receive a weight of 2. Thereafter, the responses of each child are scored in accordance with these guidelines

Table 1. Measurement characteristics and descriptive statistics for the attachment and personality scales.

Variable Scale range

No. of Items M SD

Reliability coefficient

Attachment dimensions SAT security 1–12 1 10.02 2.30 .84 AAI Coherence of transcript 1–9 1 4.46 1.84 .87 AAI Unresolved/disorganized 1–9 1 3.33 1.84 .75

Big Five variables Age 8.5 years Extraversion 1–5 9 3.77 0.60 .86 Agreeableness 1–5 13 3.68 0.49 .86 Conscientiousness 1–5 10 3.71 0.77 .92 Neuroticism 1–5 6 2.26 0.80 .89 Openness 1–5 4 4.05 0.58 .80

Age 21 years Extraversion 1–9 8 6.48 1.45 .90 Agreeableness 1–9 8 7.25 0.74 .68 Conscientiousness 1–9 8 6.01 1.13 .75 Neuroticism 1–9 8 4.25 0.96 .62 Openness 1–9 8 6.18 1.03 .71

Note: a Reliability for SAT was computed with Cohen’s kappa, and the AAI dimensions with Pearson

correlations; reliability for the personality variables was computed with coefficient alphas.

M. Fransson et al.226

and added across the six pictures, resulting in a scale ranging from 0 to 12. Validity of the SAT has been indicated by associations to measures of the quality of the representation of self (Verschueren, 1996).

The Five Factor Model instrument used in middle childhood was a Swedish adaptation of a questionnaire developed from Lanthier’s (1993) factor analysis of an instrument for self- and other ratings of 10–15-year-olds. The questionnaire contains 42 personal descriptors, relating to the five dimensions: extraversion/surgency (9 items), agreeableness (13 items), conscientiousness (10 items), neuroticism (6 items), and openness to experiences (4 items). In the present measure for children, openness is focused on creativity and curiosity rather than on culture and intelligence. All items were rated on scales ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of my child) to 5 (very characteristic). Mother–teacher agreement across 5 months was: extraversion r ¼ .51, agreeableness r ¼ .40, conscientiousness r ¼ .38, neuroticism r ¼ .36, and openness r ¼ .28, all ps 5 .05. To increase reliability and capture the child’s personality as shown in two important contexts, home and school, individual scale scores were obtained by averaging mother and teacher item scores, yielding the internal consistency estimates reported in Table 1.

Young adulthood instruments

Adult attachment was measured with the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; Main et al., 2003; translated into Swedish by Broberg, Ivarsson, & Hinde, 1996), a semi- structured interview containing 20 questions with specific guidelines for follow-up probes. The participants are asked to describe and evaluate their childhood through attachment-specific memories. The interviews normally vary in length between 45 and 90 minutes and are coded from verbatim transcriptions. The most important questions ask participants to select adjectives to describe their childhood relation- ships with parents, which they are subsequently asked to support by recalling specific episodes; to describe what happened as a child when they were emotionally upset, ill, and in pain; to recall feelings associated with physical separation from parents; to elaborate on experiences of rejection and fear; and to speculate on the effects of childhood experiences on current personality. Another set of important questions concerns loss through death and experiences of abuse.

The AAIs were coded according to Main and colleagues’ (2003) scoring and classification system. The transcripts were coded on three types of 9-point scales: (a) probable experiences, (b) organized states of mind, and (c) Unresolved/disorganized (U/d) attachment. Individuals were then classified into one of five categories (i.e., autonomous, dismissing, preoccupied, unresolved/disorganized, and cannot classify) based on their state of mind and U/d scores. However, to retain full scale variance and maximize statistical power in view of this study’s expected modest associations, these categories were not used in subsequent analyses.

Scores on the specific organized states of mind scales are reflected in the overall coherence of discourse. Coherence refers to the extent to which participants are collaborative, and the transcript provides a credible, internally consistent, free- flowing picture of the participant’s experiences and feelings regarding attachment. High coherence may be present regardless of whether participants’ experiences with parents had been primarily positive or negative. Coherence is directly assessed on two scales: coherence of transcript and coherence of mind. Coherence of transcript refers to the speaker’s narrative clarity and internal consistency, and is the

Attachment & Human Development 227

conceptual counterpart of security in the AAI system (Main et al., 2003). Low scores on coherence of transcript are present for individuals who are scored high on any of the specific ‘‘negative’’ state of mind scales (i.e., idealization, insistence on lack of memory, derogation of attachment, involving anger, and/or passivity of thought processes in relation to attachment). Besides these aspects of coherence, coherence of mind scores are based on the speaker’s apparent beliefs/belief systems. Unusual beliefs, especially surrounding trauma or loss, as shown in unresolved/disorganized (U/d) loss/abuse (below), can be stated coherently but indicate lapses in the monitoring of reasoning. Thus, coherence of mind scores incorporate signs of U/d attachment, while coherence of transcript is more independent of U/d considerations (Main et al., 2003). As U/d scores were assigned in their own right, we report findings based on coherence of transcript (rather than coherence of mind) in this article.

Unresolved/disorganized loss–abuse is scored on a separate scale tapping speech specifically surrounding loss–abuse experiences. A high score refers to discourse characterized by one or more of three subtypes of unresolved speech: (1) striking lapses in the monitoring of reasoning (e.g., as implied in statements implying that a dead person remains alive in the physical sense or via considerable spatial–temporal confusion surrounding the loss event), (2) striking lapses in the monitoring of discourse (e.g., visual–sensory images related to the trauma intrude discourse), and (3) extreme–lingering behavioral reactions to the traumatic event (e.g., the interviewee is suicidal and this is believed by the person to be due to the loss of a close loved one). The highest score assigned to any given loss or abuse incident is used as the overall U/d loss–abuse score.

To minimize the number of statistical analyses, only the continuous coherence of transcript and U/d scale scores were used in subsequent analyses. The interviews were conducted by the first author and coded by two certified coders: the second author and Professor Anders G. Broberg a certified AAI trainer. The coders were blind to all other data, except sex and age. The reliability and validity of the AAI are well-established (Hesse, 2008). For reliability of the coherence of transcript and U/d ratings, see Table 1. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

As for the FFM in adulthood, participants completed the Big Five Mini- Markers (Saucier, 1994), which is a shortened version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big- Five Markers (Goldberg, 1992). This version consists of 40 adjective markers, evenly distributed over the five scales, instead of 100 as in the original version. These were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from ‘‘Extremely unlike me’’ to ‘‘Extremely like me’’ in the self-rated instrument, and ‘‘Extremely unlike my friend’’ to ‘‘Extremely like my friend’’ for the peer-ratings. The five dimensions are labeled: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellect or openness and are described above in the Big Five paragraph. For the sake of consistency with the child scales, the terms neuroticism and openness are henceforth used also for the adult scales. The internal consistency has been found acceptable (Saucier, 1994), also in a Swedish population (Ghaderi & Scott, 2000). The peer-ratings were exclusively used to estimate interjudge agreement. The concordances between self and peer ratings were: extraversion r ¼ .59, conscientiousness r ¼ .37, neuroticism r ¼ .39, openness r ¼ .43, all ps 5 .05, and agreeableness r ¼ .28, p 5 .10. These levels of interjudge agreement conform to those found in other FFM studies (Connelly & Ones, 2010) and provide further support for the psychometric properties of the instrument.

M. Fransson et al.228

Results

Descriptive statistics, preliminary analyses, and stability of attachment and personality

Descriptive results are shown in Table 1. Sex differences in personality and attachment were analyzed. On the Big Five questionnaire at age 8.5 years, one significant sex difference was found; girls were rated as more agreeable, t(64) ¼ 2.40, p 5 .05. Two marginally significant differences were also found; girls were rated as more conscientious, and less neurotic, t(64) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .050; t(64) ¼ 1.92, p 5 .10. At age 21, women scored higher on agreeableness, t(64) ¼ 2.97, p 5 .01. These sex differences were controlled in the relevant analyses. There were no significant or trend-significant sex differences on the remaining personality dimensions or on the attachment dimensions at either time point.

The stability of the Big Five factors was studied with Pearson correlations. The results showed that extraversion and openness were significantly stable from 8 to 21 years (r ¼ .47, p 5 .001; and r ¼ .35, p 5 .01, respectively) whereas the stability of neuroticism was marginally significant (r ¼ .24, p 5 .10) over the time period. Agreeableness and conscientiousness did not show significant stability (rs ¼ .16 and .17, n.s.). Concerning continuity and predictability of attachment, SAT security was not related to AAI coherence of transcript nor to AAI unresolved/disorganized attachment (rs ¼ .08 and .20, n.s.).

Tests of hypotheses and research questions

Concurrent relations between attachment and personality

To determine if attachment and personality were related at 8.5 years, SAT security was correlated with each of the Big Five dimensions at 8.5 years. The results (see Table 2) showed that children who were rated high on attachment security were also rated high on extraversion and openness.

The same analyses were performed with the AAI and Big Five variables at 21 years (see Table 2). High values on unresolved/disorganized loss/abuse were significantly associated with low scores on conscientiousness and high scores on openness. Coherence of transcript was close to significantly related to extraversion; those who were coded as more coherent rated themselves as more extraverted.

Prospective relations between attachment at 8.5 years and personality at 21 years

To establish if attachment at 8.5 years was related to the Big Five dimensions at age 21 years, the two sets of measures were correlated. The results (see Table 2) revealed that children with a high degree of attachment security were significantly more extraverted and close to significantly more agreeable and open in adulthood.

The unique contribution of attachment to extraversion and openness at 21 years

The overall results indicate that the Big Five dimensions most consistently related to attachment were Extraversion and Openness. These two Big Five dimensions were eligible for tests of unique contributions from attachment, as they proved both to be stable between the two age periods, and to be related to attachment variables at either time-point. To determine if SAT security at age 8.5 years, AAI coherence of

Attachment & Human Development 229

transcript, and/or AAI unresolved/disorganized at age 21 years contributed uniquely to these personality dimensions at age 21, when stability of the relevant personality dimension was controlled, hierarchical regressions were performed. As we were also interested in the individual contribution of the attachment variables, representing different age periods and instruments, to adult extraversion and openness, middle childhood and adult attachment were entered in separate steps.

For each regression analysis, one of the eligible dimensions of the Big Five at 8.5 years (i.e., Openness or Extraversion) was entered in the first step, SAT security was entered in the second step, and AAI Coherence of transcript and AAI Unresolved/ disorganized were entered as a block in the third step. The results from the regression for extraversion (see Table 3) revealed that SAT security showed a marginally significant (p ¼ .06) contribution to Extraversion at age 21, when controlling for Extraversion at 8.5 years. The results from the regression for Openness (see Table 4) showed that AAI Unresolved/disorganized had a unique contribution to Openness at age 21 when the stability of openness was controlled.

Discussion

This study showed that attachment and the FFM of personality are concurrently interlinked in middle childhood and young adulthood. The results also revealed longitudinal associations between attachment in middle childhood and personality in young adulthood. Regarding the relative role of early personality and attachment in the development of adult personality, unresolved/disorganized attachment in adulthood made a unique contribution above the effect of stability in personality between the two age periods. Although neither attachment security nor unresolved/ disorganized status was related to all five factors, and the significant relations obtained were of modest-moderate strength, the results suggest that attachment and personality are meaningfully interrelated (cf. Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003; Roisman et al., 2007).

Table 2. Concurrent and prospective correlations between attachment and personality.

SAT 8.5 years AAI 21 years

Security Coherence of transcript Unresolved/disorganized

Big Five 8.5 years Extraversion .42** – – Agreeableness 7.02 – – Conscientiousness 7.09 – – Neuroticism 7.02 – – Openness .25* – –

Big Five 21 years – – Extraversion .39** .23

þ .02

Agreeableness .22 þ 7.01 7.09

Conscientiousness 7.09 7.14 7.28* Neuroticism .06 .05 .19 Openness .22

þ .10 .34**

Note: Ns ¼ 66 except for correlations with AAI Unresolved/disorganized (N ¼ 64), as two participants had no experience of loss or abuse, which made U/d scoring inapplicable. þ p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; two-tailed.

M. Fransson et al.230

Extraversion and Openness were the personality factors most consistently related to attachment. Securely attached children in middle childhood were concurrently rated as more extraverted by their parents and schoolteachers. As young adults, these individuals also rated themselves as relatively high in extraversion compared to those who were judged less secure at age 8.5 years. These relations are in accordance with the assumption that securely attached individuals are more confident in taking place in the social world than insecurely attached children. Stepping outside the framework of the FFM, similar relations have been found in studies investigating concepts closely related to extraversion. In these studies, securely (compared to insecurely) attached children were more socially active and positive toward peers and non-peers alike (e.g., Bohlin et al., 2000; Schneider et al., 2001). The possibility of

Table 3. Hierarchical regression results for attachment variables predicting extraversion at 21 years

Extraversion at 21 years

DR2 b

Step 1: .22*** Age 8.5 years Extraversion .46***

Step 2: .05 þ

Age 8.5 years SAT security .24

Step 3: .03 Age 21 years AAI Coherence of transcript .15 AAI Unresolved/disorganized 7.10

Note: N ¼ 64. þ p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01; ***p 5 .001; two-tailed.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression results for attachment variables predicting openness at 21 years.

Openness at 21 years

DR2 b

Step 1: .11** Age 8.5 years Openness .33**

Step 2: .02 Age 8.5 years SAT security .14

Step 3: .09* Age 21 years AAI Coherence of transcript .00 AAI Unresolved/disorganized .30*

Note: N ¼ 64. þ p 5 .10; *p 5 .05; **p 5 .01.

Attachment & Human Development 231

predicting young adult extraversion from middle childhood attachment security was further supported as the prospective link between the two phenomena remained marginally significant also when controlling for stability of extraversion. Regarding the relative contribution of attachment across time and instruments, attachment security in middle childhood, unlike attachment variables in adulthood, was found to be predictive of extraversion in young adulthood, though only marginally so when the stability in personality was taken into account. Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge, a prospective link between childhood attachment and the FFM in adulthood has not been previously established.

Regarding openness, and viewed across developmental periods, the links between attachment and openness observed in this study are intriguing, as attachment security in middle childhood was concurrently positively related to openness and unresolved/disorganized attachment in adulthood was similarly concurrently positively related to openness. Although both findings were predicted based on theoretical considerations and previous research, they may at first glance seem conflicting, and thus should be interpreted with caution until replicated. Notably, the two classifications are often but by no means always (e.g., Steele, Steele, & Croft, 2008) related to different outcomes, with security generally linked to adaptive outcomes and disorganization (including unresolved status) to maladaptive ones (Hesse, 2008).

How can we, then, understand that unresolved/disorganized status in adulthood and attachment security in middle childhood were both positively related to openness? A first possibility concerns equifinality (i.e., different pathways leading to the same outcome) where (in this case) childhood security and adult unresolved/disorganized status would both set a path leading to high openness to experience. A second possibility is that unresolved/disorganized status and security are related to different facets of openness. Notably, openness is the one FFM factor surrounded by most controversies regarding definition (McCrae & Costa, 1997b). Glisky and colleagues (1991) argued that the openness factor in the FFM instrument NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985) could be split into two facets: absorption and social liberalism/curiosity, because the absorption facet, but not social liberalism/curiosity, was related to Tellegen’s Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974) and hypnotizability. Based on previous findings linking unresolved/disorganized attachment to absorption (e.g., Granqvist et al., 2009; Hesse & van IJzendoorn, 1999), we thus speculate that unresolved/ disorganized attachment is related to aspects of openness associated with absorption. We also suggest that attachment security might be associated with the social liberalism/curiosity facet, reflecting freedom to explore social and other matters in an open, non-defensive manner (cf. Steele et al., 2008). Put differently, openness can be insistent vigilance and a need to be open in order to control events and people in one’s world (i.e., as in the case of unresolved/disorganized attachment) or calm reflective curiosity (i.e., as in the case of security). Although the FFM instrument employed in the present study does not permit facet-level analyses, post-hoc correlations between the attachment dimensions and items on the openness factor were to some degree in agreement with these speculations, suggesting that this is not a case of equifinality. Briefly, unresolved/disorganized adult attachment was significantly linked to the items Deep and Complicated, and marginally linked to Philosophical, whereas secure childhood attachment was close to significantly linked only to Imaginative.

M. Fransson et al.232

As noted, unresolved/disorganized attachment was concurrently positively related to openness in young adulthood also when the stability in openness from middle childhood had been controlled. This unique contribution suggests that unresolved/disorganized attachment in early adulthood is more important for openness in young adulthood than is attachment security in middle childhood. This could naturally be a result of their temporal proximity, but may also suggest a particular influence of unresolved/disorganized attachment on aspects of openness.

Unresolved/disorganized attachment was also negatively related to conscien- tiousness in young adulthood, whereas attachment security was not related to conscientiousness. Unresolved/disorganized attachment is conceptually character- ized by an incapability to congruently regulate frightening cognitive-affective material, related to loss or trauma (Hesse & Main, 2006). If this is generalized to the organization of more purely cognitive material is unclear. Liotti (1992) has suggested that due to the exposure of traumatizing experiences with parents, children with disorganized attachment are more vulnerable for dissociation. Dissociative tendencies are also apparent in unresolved/disorganized adults, for example by lapses in the monitoring of reasoning in the AAI, and frightening/frightened parental behaviors toward offspring (see Hesse & Main, 2006). Hesse and Main (2006) have suggested that memories of the overwhelming experiences associated with unresolved/disorganized status might intrude on attentional processes, leading to decreased functioning of the working memory. As working memory is involved in organizing and planning of a broad range of behaviors and actions (Baddely, 2007), this might substantiate why unresolved/disorganized attachment was found to be negatively related to conscientiousness.

We expected secure attachment to be related to a higher degree of agreeableness, but the only association between the two in the present study was a marginally significant bivariate link between attachment security in childhood and agreeableness in young adulthood. As attachment security is related to higher quality of children’s friendships in terms of responsiveness, companionship, and conflict (Kerns, Klepac, & Cole, 2006; Lieberman, Doyle, & Markiewicz, 1999), it may be surprising that they were not related to a greater extent. Also, in the adult attachment style literature, attachment security has been associated with agreeableness (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). However, attachment was not related to agreeableness in Roisman and colleagues’ study (2007) nor in our previous study (Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003). One reason for this lack of a clear association in the present study may be a restriction in range in our measures of agreeableness (see Table 1).

In contradiction to our expectations, attachment security was not related to neuroticism. This lack of an association is in accordance with the study of Roisman and colleagues (2007), but not with our previous study (Hagekull & Bohlin, 2003), nor with the adult attachment style literature (Noftle & Shaver, 2006). One reason why this association could not be established in the present study could be that the attachment security variables we used combined preoccupied and dismissing attachment on the insecurity pole. Dismissing attachment has been associated with suspiciously low self-reports of psychopathology and feelings of vulnerability (Kobak & Sceery, 1988; Pianta, Egeland, & Adam, 1996), and preoccupied attachment with high levels of distress (Pianta et al., 1996). This is in accordance with Roisman and colleagues’ study (2007), where deactivation (cf. dismissing

Attachment & Human Development 233

attachment) was associated with lower levels of neuroticism and hyperactivation (cf. preoccupied attachment) with higher levels.

Methodological considerations and future studies

This study had notable methodological strengths. It is the first study of which we are aware that has studied the relations between attachment and the Five-Factor Model of personality with a prospective, longitudinal design, which also allowed controlling for cross-temporal stability in personality. Additionally, we know of no previous study that has investigated the relation between unresolved/disorganized adult attachment and the FFM. Secondly, although this was not the focus of our study, we emphasize the stability and interjudge agreement of the FFM observed here. Three factors (i.e., extraversion, openness, and neuroticism) were signifi- cantly, or close to significantly, stable over the 13-year time span. None of these correlations were more than moderate in magnitude, but keeping in mind that there were different raters and instruments at the two age periods, these relations contribute to the literature showing that personality dimensions tend to be stable across major developmental periods (e.g., Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). In particular, the stability of openness may be surprising, as this factor has been difficult to obtain in previous child studies (Lamb et al., 2002). Regarding interjudge agreement, although peer ratings could not be obtained for all participants in young adulthood (46 out of 66 participants had peer ratings), most FFM factors displayed significant interjudge (i.e., self vs. peer) agreement, showing that the self-ratings of personality did not just reflect self-report biases or impression management.

This study also had some limitations. First, the Seattle version of the SAT (Slough & Greenberg, 1990; Slough et al., 1988) does not provide a measure of disorganized attachment. Therefore, we could not investigate links between disorganization in childhood and the FFM at either time point. Second, the attachment variables were not related over time, which challenges the notion of continuity in attachment. One reason for this discontinuity could be that the attachment variables used in our study reflected different aspects of attachment at the two time points, preventing the relation from being optimally investigated: the middle childhood measure incorporates both signs of attachment security and disorganization, whereas these dimensions were separated into two attachment variables in young adulthood. Relatedly, although there is some empirical support for attachment continuity from infancy (using the strange situation) as well as from the kindergarten period (using the 6th-year reunion procedure [Main & Cassidy, 1988] or Kaplan’s [1987] SAT ) to young adulthood (e.g., Fraley, 2002; Main, Hesse, & Kaplan 2005), we are aware of no study that has documented a link to adulthood based on attachment assessments in middle childhood, nor of any study that has documented such a link based on the Seattle version of the SAT. Finally, lack of continuity may of course also reflect genuine discontinuity, some of which might well be lawfully related to attachment at either time-point (e.g., through intervening life- events).

Future studies aiming to test developmental interlinkages between attachment and the FFM should include a measure of disorganized attachment in childhood, as it might add interesting information regarding trajectories to future personality. To avoid the risk of obscuring a true relation between attachment security and the five

M. Fransson et al.234

factors of personality through combining dismissing and preoccupied attachment on the insecurity pole, the AAI categories or the AAI Q-Set (Kobak, 1993) may be used in future studies. As attachment can be considered a one-shot measure of previous interactions, measures that more directly assess parental behaviors, as sensitivity and discipline, should also be included to more fully capture relational processes behind personality development. Finally, in order to investigate the associations between attachment and the facets of the FFM, we suggest the use of NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in future studies.

Concluding remarks

The present study was an attempt to unify contemporary research on personality, as guided by the FFM, and the developmental literature on attachment. Overall, the results suggest that attachment considerations may partially contribute to the understanding of personality development. In particular, attachment security in middle childhood and unresolved/disorganized status in adulthood were associated with personality, especially with extraversion and openness. Attachment security in young adulthood was, on the other hand, less predictive of personality than might be expected.

One discussion often raised in the attachment literature is how widely or narrowly to conceive of the attachment construct. We argue that the relation between attachment and personality can be understood in terms of relating to others, exploring the surroundings, and regulating emotions and affects. These concepts are all attachment-related, but can also be considered as inherent aspects of the FFM. Shiner and Caspi (2003) have suggested that personality researchers should focus more on developmental processes behind personality development than on the constructs (e.g., ‘‘traits’’) per se. Based in part on the results presented here, we conjecture that personality in adulthood is partially influenced by nurture, as represented by attachment. However, it is beyond the reach of this study to disentangle more precisely how genes and environments jointly influence personality development. We encourage other researchers to fill this important knowledge gap.

Note

1. It is beyond the scope of this paper to resolve these trait-related controversies. In our understanding, ‘‘traits’’ are merely convenient descriptive summaries of individual (and thus individual difference) characteristics. To avoid confusion in view of the more ambitious explanatory connotations that may be attributed to the trait construct, we prefer to use the purely descriptive terms personality ‘‘factors’’ and ‘‘dimensions’’.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Prof. Anders G. Broberg for assistance with AAI coding. The research reported in this article was supported by grants to Professors Bohlin and Hagekull from The Swedish Research Council and The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation.

References

Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 331–341.

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Attachment & Human Development 235

Baddely, A.D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Belsky, J., Garduque, L., & Hrncir, E. (1984). Assessing performance, competence, and

executive capacity in infant play: Relations to home environment and security of attachment. Developmental Psychology, 20, 406–417.

Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 17, 187–215.

Bohlin, G., Hagekull, B., & Rydell, A.-M. (2000). Attachment and social func- tioning: A longitudinal study from infancy to middle childhood. Social Development, 9, 24–39.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bouchard, T.J., & Loehlin, J.C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243–273.

Broberg, A., Ivarsson, T., & Hinde, M. (1996). Anknytningsintervjun: En metod för att studera vuxnas mentala representationer av sina barndomserfarenheter [The attachment interview: A method to study adults’ mental representations of their childhood experiences]. Göteborgs Universitet: Rapport från Psykologiska Institutionen.

Carlson, E.A. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/ disorientation. Child Development, 69, 1107–1128.

Carlson, V., Cichetti, D., Barnett, D., & Braunwald, K. (1989). Disorganized/disoriented attachment in maltreated infants. Developmental Psychology, 25, 525–531.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B.W., & Shiner, R.L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2/3), 228–249.

Connelly, B.S., & Ones, D.S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory: Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Wolff, M.S., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1997). Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Eysenck, H.J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773–790.

Fearon, R.P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., Lapsley, A.-M., & Roisman, G.I. (2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Develop- ment, 81, 435–456.

Fraley, R.C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6, 123–151.

Fraley, R.C., & Shaver, P.R. (2008). Attachment theory and its place in contemporary personality theory and research. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 518–541). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ghaderi, A., & Scott, B. (2000). The Big Five and eating disorders: A prospective study in the general population. European Journal of Personality, 14, 311–323.

Glisky, M.L., Tataryn, D.J., Tobias, B.A., Kihlstrom, J.F., & McConkey, K.M. (1991). Absorption, openness to experience, and hypnotizability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 263–272.

Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.

M. Fransson et al.236

Granqvist, P., Fransson, M., & Hagekull, B. (2009). Disorganized attachment, absorption, and new age spirituality: A meditational model. Attachment & Human Development, 11, 385–403.

Hagekull, B., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Early temperament and attachment as predictors of the Five Factor Model of personality. Attachment & Human Development, 5, 2–18.

Hansburg, H.G. (1972). Adolescent separation anxiety. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas. Hazen, N.L., & Durrett, M.E. (1982). Relationship of security of attachment to explora-

tion and cognitive mapping abilities in 2-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 18, 751–759. Hesse, E. (2008). The Adult Attachment Interview: Protocol, method of analysis, and

empirical studies. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd. ed., pp. 552–598). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2006). Frightened, threatening, and dissociative parental behavior in low-risk samples: Description, discussion, and interpretations. Development and Psycho- pathology, 18, 309–343.

Hesse, E., & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (1999). Propensities towards absorption are related to lapses in the monitoring of reasoning or discourse during the Adult Attachment Interview. Attachment & Human Development, 1, 67–91.

Hogan, R., & DeSoto, C.B. (1977). Traits, tests, and personality research. American Psychologist, 32, 255–264.

Jacobsen, T., Huss, M., Fendrich, M., Kruesi, M.J.P., & Ziegenhain, U. (1997). Children’s ability to delay gratification: Longitudinal relations to mother–child attachment. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158, 411–426.

John, O.P., Caspi, A., Robins, R.W., Moffitt, T.E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The ‘‘Little Five’’: Exploring the nomological network of the Five-Factor Model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160–178.

John, O.P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C.J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114– 158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kaplan, N. (1987). The sixth year Separation Anxiety Test classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Kerns, K.A., Klepac, L., & Cole, A. (2006). Peer relationships and preadolescents’ perceptions of security in the child–mother relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32, 457–466.

Klagsburn, M., & Bowlby, J. (1976). Responses to separation from parents: A clinical test for young children. British Journal of Projective Psychology, 21, 7–27.

Kobak, R.R. (1993). The Adult Attachment Interview Q-Set. Unpublished document, University of Delaware, Newark.

Kobak, R.R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135–146.

Lamb, M.E., Chuang, S.S., Wessels, H., Broberg, A.G., & Hwang, C.P. (2002). Emergence and construct validation of the Big Five factors in early childhood: A longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development, 73, 1517–1524.

Lanthier, R.P. (1993). The Big Five personality dimensions in middle childhood and adolescence (Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(5-B), 2784.

Lewis, M. (2001). Issues in the study of personality development. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 67–83.

Lieberman, M., Doyle, A., & Markiewicz, D. (1999). Developmental patterns in security of attachment to mother and father in late childhood and early adolescence: Associations with peer relations. Child Development, 70, 202–213.

Liotti, G. (1992). Disorganized/disoriented attachment in the etiology of the dissociative disorders. Dissociation, 5, 196–204.

Londerville, S., & Main, M. (1981). Security of attachment, compliance, and maternal training methods in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 17, 289–299.

Madigan, S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., Moran, G., Pederson, D.R., & Benoit, D. (2006). Unresolved states of mind, anomalous parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review and meta-analysis of a transmission gap. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 89–111.

Attachment & Human Development 237

Main, M. (2000). The organized categories of infant, child, and adult attachment: Flexible vs. inflexible attention under attachment-related stress. Journal of the American Psycho- analytic Association, 48, 1055–1095.

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period. Developmental Psychology, 24, 415–426.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Ciccehetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 161–184). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/ disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M.T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E.M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Main, M., & Weston, D. (1981). The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932–940.

Main, M., Goldwyn, R., & Hesse, E. (2003). Adult attachment scoring and classification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

Main, M., Hesse, E., & Kaplan, N. (2005). Predictability of attachment behavior and rep- resentational processes at 1, 6, and 19 years of age. In K.E. Grossmann, K. Grossmann, & E. Waters (Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 245–304). New York, NY: Guilford.

Matas, L., Arend, R.A., & Sroufe, L.A. (1978). Continuity of adaptation in the second year: The relationship between quality of attachment and later competence. Child Development, 49, 547–556.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1997a). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1997b). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R. Hogan, J.A. Johnson, & S.R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O.P. John, R.W. Robins, & L.A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R.R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.

Mischel, W. (1969). Continuity and change in personality. American Psychologist, 24, 1012– 1018.

Noftle, E.E., & Shaver, P.R. (2006). Attachment dimensions and the Big Five personality traits: Associations and comparative ability to predict relationship quality. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 179–208.

Pervin, L.A. (1994). A critical analysis of current trait theory. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 103–113. Pianta, R., Egeland, B., & Adam, E. (1996). Adult attachment classification and self-reported

psychiatric symptomatology as assessed by the MMPI-2. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 273–281.

Roberts, B.W., & DelVecchio, W.F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25.

Roisman, G.I., Holland, A., Fortuna, K., Fraley, R.C., Clausell, E., & Clarke, A. (2007). The Adult Attachment Interview and self-reports of attachment style: An empirical rapproachement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 678–697.

Rothbart, M.K., Ahadi, S.A., & Evans, D.E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.

Ruiz, M.A., Pincus, A.L., & Ray, W.J. (1999). The relationship between dissociation and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 239–249.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

M. Fransson et al.238

Schneider, B.H., Atkinson, L., & Tardiff, C. (2001). Child–parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100.

Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: Measurement, development, and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 2–32.

Slough, N.M., & Greenberg, M.T. (1990). Five-year-olds’ representations of separation from parents: Responses from the perspective of self and other. New Directions for Child Development, 40, 67–84.

Slough, N.M., Goyette, M., & Greenberg, M.T. (1988). Scoring indices for the Seattle version of the Separation Anxiety Test. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.

Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., Carlson, E.A., & Collins, W.A. (2005). The development of the person: The Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Steele, H., Steele, M., & Croft, C. (2008). Early attachment predicts emotion recognition at 6 and 11 years old. Attachment & Human Development, 10, 379–393.

Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (‘‘absorption’’), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268–277.

Van den Boom, D.C. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development, 65, 1457–1477.

van IJzendoorn, M.H., Schuengel, C., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (1999). Disorganized attachment in early childhood: A meta-analysis of precursors, concomitants, and sequelae. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 225–249.

Verschueren, K. (1996). A secure attachment, a secure self? Representations of attachment relationships and of the self and socioemotional competence in kindergarteners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium.

Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1996, August). Correlates of the overall attachment representations in five-year-olds. Poster presented at the XIVth biennial meetings of ISSBD, Québec City, Canada.

Waters, S.F., Virmani, E.A., Thompson, R.A., Meyer, S., Raikes, H.A., & Jochem, R. (2010). Emotion regulation and attachment: Unpacking two constructs and their association. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 37–47.

Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2008). Individual differences in infant–caregiver attachment: Conceptual and empirical aspects of security. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (2nd. ed., pp. 78–101). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D.M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The Big Three, The Big Five, and the Alternative Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768.

Attachment & Human Development 239

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.