Será o estilo de vinculação específico para cada relação? Um estudo utilizando a teoria da gene­ralizabilidade

João M. Moreira ¹

 

 

Resumo: O pressuposto de que o estilo de vinculação nos adultos é uma caracte­rística da pessoa, igualmente expressa em diferentes relações, foi examinado atra­vés de um estudo de generalizabilidade. Estudantes universitários responderam a um curto questionário medindo as 2 dimensões fundamentais das auto­‑avaliações do estilo de vinculação dos adultos (Preocupação e Evitação) para cada uma de 5 relações (pai, mãe, melhor amigo do mesmo sexo, parceiro romântico ou melhor amigo do sexo oposto, outra pessoa próxima). Verificou­‑se que, para a Evitação, o componente de variância correspondente à interacção PessoaRelação tinha uma magnitude que era aproximadamente o dobro da do componente Pessoa, enquanto que o oposto acontecia para a Preocupação. Estes resultados implicam a necessi­dade de se considerar características específicas das relações e apoiam a proposta de Bartholomew (1990), de que a evitação reflecte a representação dos outros (e é, portanto, específica das relações), enquanto que a preocupação reflecte a repre­sentação de si próprio (e é, portanto, específica da pessoa).

Palavras‑chave: vinculação, relações, generalizabilidade

 

 

Is attachment style relationship‑specific? A generalizability study

Abstract: The assumption that adult attachment style is a person­‑specific characteristic exhibited across different relationships was examined in a generalizability study. College students responded to a brief measure of the 2 fundamental dimensions of adult attachment style self­‑ratings (Preoccupation and Avoidance) for each of 5 dif­ferent relationships (mother, father, best friend of the same gender, romantic partner or best friend of the opposite gender, other close person). It was found that, for Avoidance, the PersonRelationship interaction variance component was approximately twice as large as that for Person, while the opposite happened for Preoccupation. These results imply the need to consider specific relationship characteristics, and support Bartholomew’s (1990) proposal that avoidance reflects the representation of others (and thus is relationship­‑specific), while preoccupation reflects representation of self (and thus is person­‑specific).

Key‑words: attachment, relationships, generalizability

 

 

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text only available in PDF format.

 

 

Referências

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.        [ Links ]

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 333­‑341.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241­‑253.

Baldwin, M. W., & Fehr, B. (1995). On the instability of attachment style ratings. Personal Relationships, 2, 247­‑261.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh­‑Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 94­‑109.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Jour­nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147­‑178.

Bartholomew, K. (1994). Assessment of individual differences in adult attachment. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 23­‑27.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four­‑category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chology, 61, 226­‑244.

Baxter, L. A., & Simon, E. P. (1993). Relationship maintenance strategies and dialectical contradictions in personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 225­‑242.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation, anxiety and anger. London: Hogarth Press.

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

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. London: Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self­‑report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46­‑76). New York: Guilford.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbusch, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applic­ations and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buunk, B. e Bringle, R. G. (1987). Jealousy in romantic relationships. In D. Perlman e S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterio­ration (pp. 123­‑147). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relation­ship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psy­chologyI 58, 644­‑663.

Cook, W. L. (2000). Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 285­‑294.

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1999). The cultural constitution of personality. In L. A. Pervin e O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 378­‑396). New York: Guilford.

Duck, S. (1990). Relationships as unfinished business: Out of the frying pan and into the 1990s. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 5­‑28.

Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A. & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high­‑risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1­‑2), 147­‑166.

Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fox, N. A., Kimmerly, N. L., & Schafer, W. D. (1991). Attachment to mother/ attach­­ment to father: A meta­‑analysis. Child Development, 62, 210­‑225.

Gonzalez, R., & Griffin, D. (1997). On the statistics of interdependence: Treating dyadic data with respect. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 271­‑302). Chichester, England: John Wiley e Sons.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of self and other: Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430­‑445.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52, 511­‑524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 1­‑22.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. Advances in Personal Relationships,5, 151­‑177.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 147­‑159.

Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspec­tives. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 395­‑433). New York: Guilford.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measure­ment, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Hand­book of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102­‑138). New York: Guilford.

Kenny, D. A. (1988). The analysis of data from two­‑person relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 57­‑77). New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non­‑independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279­‑294.

Kiers, H. A. L., & Van Mechelen, I. (2001). Three­‑way component analysis: Princi­ples and illustrative applications. Psychological Methods, 6, 84­‑110.

Lewis, M., & Feiring, C. (1991). Attachment as personal characteristic or a measure of the environment. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 3­‑21). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Magnusson, D. (1999). Holistic interactionism: A perspective for research on per­sonality development. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of per­sonality: Theory and research (pp. 219­‑247). New York: Guilford.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents' unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years (pp. 161­‑182). Chi­ca­go: University of Chicago Press.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1­‑2), 66­‑104.

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 (pp. 121­‑160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mayseless, O., Sharabany, R., & Sagi, A. (1997). Attachment concerns of mothers as manifested in parental, spousal, and friendship relationships. Personal Relation­ships, 4, 255­‑269.

Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., & Tolmacz, R. (1990). Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 273­‑280.

Moreira, J. M., Silva, M. F., Moleiro, C., Aguiar, P., Andrez, M., Bernardes, S., & Afonso, H. (2001). Perceived support as an offshoot of attachment style. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Oppenheim, D. (1997). The attachment doll­‑play interview for preschoolers. Inter­nationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 20, 681­‑697.

Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship­‑based perceptions of social support: Are two constructs better than one? Jour­nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 1028­‑1039.

Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the expe­rience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613­‑631.

Pollina, L. K., & Snell, W. E., Jr. (1999). Coping in intimate relationships: Develop­ment of the Multidimensional Intimate Coping Questionnaire. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 133­‑144.

Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The Exit­‑Voice­‑Loyalty­‑Neglect model. In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209­‑237). New­bury Park, CA: Sage.

Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, I. G. (1990). Social support: The sense of acceptance and the role of relationships. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 97­‑128). New York: Wiley.

Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns. Personal Relationships,1, 23­‑43.

Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. New­bury Park, CA: Sage.

Snyder, M. (1979). Self­‑monitoring processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 85­‑128.

Sternberg, R. J., & Hojjat, M. (Eds.) (1997). Satisfaction in close relationships. New York: Guilford.

Weiss, R. S. (1998). A taxonomy of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 671­‑683.

Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). A process model of adult attachment formation. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 179­‑195). Chichester, England: John Wiley e Sons.

van IJzendoorn, M. 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.

 

 

¹ Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Universidade de Lisboa. Partes de versões anteriores deste trabalho foram apresentadas na Pré­‑Conferência para Jovens In­vestigadores da International Network on Personal Relationships, Oxford, Ohio, EUA, em Junho de 1997, e na European Conference on Psychological Assess­ment, Lisboa, Setembro de 1997. Agradeço a preciosa ajuda dos meus colegas Paulo Ventura, Luísa Lima, Sílvia Silva e Susana Tavares, na recolha de dados. Quero também dar o devido reconhecimento às minhas antigas estudantes Ana Luísa Duarte e Sónia Comenda, pela sua colaboração nas fases iniciais deste projecto. A correspondência referente a este ar­tigo deve ser enviada para João M. Moreira, Facul­dade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, Alameda da Universidade, 1649­‑013 Lisboa, Portugal. Correio electrónico pode ser enviado para jmoreira@fpce.ul.pt.