Journal of Adolescence 2002, 25, 107124

doi:10.1006/jado.2001.0452, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Stability of attachment representations during

adolescence: the influence of ego-identity status
PETER ZIMMERMANN

AND

FABIENNE BECKER-STOLL

The purpose of this study was to examine two core assumptions of attachment theory.
First, internal working models of attachment should increase in stability during the
course of development. Second, attachment is related to the adaptive solution of
stage-salient issues, in adolescence, specifically to identity formation. Adolescence as a
developmental period of change and reorganization might lead to changes in
attachment representations by re-evaluating ones life experiences in the course of
general identity development. In a longitudinal study, the stability of attachment
representations (assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview) between ages 16 and 18
was examined. In addition, the concurrent and longitudinal associations of identity
status at age 16 with attachment representations at ages 16 and 18 were tested. Results
showed high stability of attachment representation during that age period. Secure
attachment representation was positively associated with the identity status
achievement, whereas a dismissing status was positively associated with identity
diffusion. Longitudinally, identity diffusion at age 16 predicted attachment
representation at age 18 even after controlling for earlier attachment representation.
r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Introduction
Attachment theory is a life-span theory, which proposes that caregiving experiences from
infancy on have an important influence on the development of a resilient personality
(Bowlby, 1973). It describes conditions that promote or disturb the development of close
relationships, and emphasizes the consequences of attachment experiences on the
development of adaptive capacities or disturbances in emotional and personality
development.
The attachment behavior system is a biologically based security-regulation system (Bowlby,
1980) leading an individual to seek the proximity of confidants in order to reassure him or
herself and to seek security and comfort in times of distress (Ainsworth, 1990). Thus,
attachment behavior is activated when a person feels, e.g. frightened, sad, or ill and aims at
seeking or maintaining proximity of a familiar person (Bowlby, 1969) who is perceived as
helpful to cope with the situation (Ainsworth, 1990). The attachment figures ideally assist
the child during emotional distress as external organizers (Grossmann and Grossmann, 1991;
Cassidy, 1994) and influence the development of their childrens emotion regulation
strategies. Experiences of the attachment figures emotional support and availability
influence childrens development of an adaptive emotion regulation pattern (Bowlby, 1973;
Cassidy, 1994), which is a major characteristic of a resilient personality (Eisenberg, Fabes,
Guthrie, and Reiser, 2000), and which contributes to overcome adversities or risk factors also
later in life (Sroufe, Carlson, Levy and Egeland, 1999).
Reprint requests and correspondence to Peter Zimmermann, Institute of Psychology, University of Erlangen,
91054 Erlangen, Germany. (E-mail: przimmer@phil.uni-erlangen.de)
0140-1971/02/$35
00

# 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

108

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

The assumption of the importance of attachment organization on later adaptation is based

on two major ideas. First, within an organizational developmental approach early
competencies, e.g. secure attachment organization, have been shown to increase the
probability of successfully developing the competencies of later stage-salient issues like
autonomous problem-solving or social competence (Sroufe, 1989; Cummings and Waters,
2000). Secondly, based on emotional experiences with the caregivers (e.g. comfort, support,
cooperation) children are supposed to develop internal working models of themselves and the
attachment figures that control attachment behavior and adaptation in situations that arouse
(mainly negative) emotions (Bowlby, 1980; Bretherton and Munholland, 1999; Zimmermann,
1999). Given the stability of attachment experiences, Bowlby (1973) expected the
development of increasingly stable patterns of cognitive, emotional and behavioral reactions.

Attachment development from infancy to adolescence

Attachment theory assumes that experiences with primary caregivers are represented in
internal working models, which consolidate during development from infancy to adolescence
(Bowlby, 1973). Specifically, adolescence is supposed to be a period where internal working
models may finally stabilize, and as a consequence, would be rather resistant to change. As
competencies grow during the teenage years, attachment behavior is elicited less often
compared to infancy. In addition, it is less likely to be expressed by seeking direct physical
proximity but rather by communicating ones feelings and concerns to the caregivers when
needed (Bowlby, 1980; Bretherton, 1990). Thus, internal working models as expectations
regarding the attachment figures may become less tested regarding their correspondence to
actual experiences of support or rejection. This will increase the stability of already existing
internal working models of attachment.
Longitudinal studies from infancy to childhood showed a high stability of infant
attachment organization. Discontinuity of attachment was explained by changes in the
caregiving system. Thus, the stability of the caregiving conditions is one influential factor for
the stability of attachment organization in childhood (George and Solomon, 1999;
Grossmann, Grossmann and Zimmermann, 1999). As attachment organization in childhood
already is very stable, a high stability of attachment patterns during adolescence can be
expected. However the assessment at both ages is different. Attachment patterns in infancy
and childhood mainly are assessed by observing attachment behavior patterns towards a
specific caregiver in mildly distressing situations. In adolescence and adulthood however,
attachment organization often is assessed by means of the Adult Attachment Interview
(AAI). The AAI is a semi-structured interview assessing the state of mind regarding ones
attachment history, i.e., the coherency of the discourse about attachment experiences, and
the emotional integration of these experiences (Main, 1991). In contrast to the methods
used in infancy, the AAI does not assess the current attachment quality to the attachment
figures, and the classification is not relationship specific.
The resulting attachment representation or state of mind regarding attachment (Main,
1991) is classified into one of four patterns that parallel the patterns of attachment quality in
infancy. Individuals classified as secure or free to evaluate coherently report about their past
attachment experiences, which can be supportive but not necessarily have to be so. They
show signs of integration of these experiences in their representation of their self in
relationships, and value attachment relationships. Individuals with a dismissing attachment
representation show an incoherent discourse by either idealizing their caregivers, insisting on
being unable to recall attachment related episodes, or dismiss the effect of non-supportive

Stability of attachment representation

109

experiences. Moreover, some tend to derogate the need for attachment or attachment
figures. Individuals classified as enmeshed or preoccupied with attachment show anger when
talking about their attachment relationships. They have difficulties in separating past and
present relationships to parents, often oscillate between positive or negative appraisals of
attachment experiences, or show a passive discourse style. In addition to these three major
patterns, subjects can receive a classification as unresolved/disorganized based on lapses in
monitoring of reasoning or discourse when reporting about loss or abuse (Hesse, 1999).

Stability of attachment representation

The AAI shows excellent testretest reliability over 3 months from 78 percent to 90 percent
(Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn, 1993; Sagi, van IJzendoorn, Scharf, KorenKarie, Joels and Mayseless, 1994). Studies on short-term stability revealed a concordance of
classification of about 86 percent to 90 percent for a time span of eleven to 18 months
(Benoit and Parker, 1994; Crowell, Fraley and Shaver, 1999). Long-term stability of
attachment representation was examined in two studies. Treboux and Crowell (2001) found
a stability of 85 percent of the AAI classification over the course of 18 months during the
life-transition to marriage, and a significant concordance of 82 percent with the AAI
classification 5 years later. The authors explained a change in classification by the influence
of marriage to a partner with a secure attachment representation. In a previous study
(Becker-Stoll, Zimmermann and Fremmer-Bombik, 1998), we found a stability of the AAI
classifications over the course of 12 years of 72 percent. In that study, the reported
attachment experiences remained rather stable. A change in AAI classification was based on
a change in the appraisal of attachment experiences. Comparable to these results in
adulthood, change of the AAI classification during adulthood might be based on new
supportive experiences within close relationships, or on a reevaluation of past attachment
experiences. Empirical evidence focusing on that specific age period is missing.
The long-term prediction of attachment in adolescence from infancy and childhood
attachment pattern revealed controversial results. Longitudinal studies examining the
concordance between infantmother attachment patterns and attachment representations
assessed by means of the AAI did not necessarily find significant results (Zimmermann,
Fremmer-Bombik, Spangler and Grossmann, 1997; Becker-Stoll and Fremmer-Bombik, 1998;
Lewis, Feiring and Rosenthal, 2000; Weinfield, Sroufe, and Egeland, 2000). Similarly, the
studies did not show significant concordance between infantfather attachment and the AAI
classification in adolescence (Zimmermann et al., 1997; Becker-Stoll and Fremmer-Bombik,
1998). However, there are longitudinal studies that found significant concordance between
infantmother attachment and the AAI in early adulthood (Hamilton, 2000; Waters,
Merrick, Treboux and Albersheim, 2000). Moreover, there is empirical evidence that tenyear-olds representations of parents as emotionally available and parents support when
children were ten years old predict the AAI classification at age 16 (Zimmermann and
Scheuerer-Englisch, 1997).
Disconcordance of attachment classifications in infancy and adolescence may be due to
risk factors affecting the emotional availability of the caregivers which affects the attachment
organization (Zimmermann et al., 1997; Water et al., 2000). However, the disconcordance
may also be explained methodologically. The comparison of the classifications based on the
strange situation and the AAI implies a development model of heterotypic continuity (Caspi,
1998). The AAI assesses the current evaluation of past experiences up to late childhood
during an interview (evaluative-declarative level), whereas the strange situation assesses

110

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

interactive, emotion regulation strategies that can be observed as behaviour patterns

(procedural level) at the end of the first year of life (Zimmermann et al., 1997). In addition, a
secure pattern in the AAI can be classified when negative attachment experiences are
presented in a coherent and emotionally integrated manner during the interview resulting in
valuing of attachment, showing that these experiences have been processed and re-evaluated
(Main and Goldwyn, in press). Thus, disconcordance in quality of attachment organization
might also be explained by a reappraisal of early experiences.

Reorganization during adolescence

Adolescence is a time period with changes in biological, cognitive and social areas (Lerner
and Galambos, 1998) urging a re-organization process in the appraisal of self and others. The
process of identity formation might be interpreted as a parallel psychological process of reevaluating ones life-goals and commitments to specific values. A major area of change is the
family. Adolescents and their parents spend less time together (Larson, Richards, Moneta,
Holmbeck and Duckett, 1996) and mutuality in parentteen relationships increases (Youniss
and Smollar, 1985). Within the family a new calibration of the reciprocal expectations of
juveniles and their parents is necessary for the successful transition through this
developmental phase (Holmbeck, 1996). Although the rate of quarrels between parents
and their adolescent children does not exceed the rate between parents themselves
(Montemayor, 1988) the communication patterns are characterized by the adolescents
striving for autonomy. Successful communication pattern within a family include a balance
between autonomy and relatedness (Allen and Hauser, 1996) and depend on the correct
perception of the others viewpoint (Pratt and Arnold, 1996). Longitudinally, such a
communication pattern predicts later attachment representation (Allen and Hauser, 1996),
ego-development (Allen and Land, 1999), and ego-identity status (Grotevant and Cooper,
1986). Thus, open communication of own viewpoints is influential for attachment
development as well as for identity development and may offer possibilities to reevaluate
former experiences or co-construct new coherent representations.
New communication patterns and growing cognitive abilities to integrate formerly diverse
concepts (Fischer and Lamborn, 1989) facilitate the meta-monitoring of internal models of
self and parents, and reevaluations of the ones attachment experiences become a new
possibility for change in attachment representations (Kobak and Cole, 1995). Main and
Goldwyn (in press) refer to this cognitive and emotional freedom as epistemic space, and
suggest that it allows individuals to evaluate their parents as attachment figures more
objectively. As independence increases, a reevaluation of the quality of own attachment
relationships with parents will be promoted (Allan and Land, 1999). This reevaluation of
models of self and others may be part of the more general process of identity development.

Attachment and identity status

Identity formation is a major developmental task during adolescence (Kroger, 2000) and is
related to adjustment (Waterman, 1992). According to Marcia (1980) it can be classified
into four distinct identity statuses. The identity status achievement represents the successful
solution of that task, with coherent commitment to specific values based on exploration and
personal experiences (Berzonsky and Adams, 1999). Identity diffusion is characterized by a
lack of personal commitments and low exploration regarding new experiences. Foreclosure is
characterized by commitments without own exploration, and moratorium is a status where
the adolescent is still exploring with no final decision regarding own values or goals. Within a

Stability of attachment representation

111

developmental perspective there is empirical evidence for a transition from diffusion to

achievement, specifically for relational identity (Meeus, 1996; Meeus, Iedema, Helsen and
Vollebergh, 1999) but elements of regression into other statuses during specific phases of
adolescence are possible (Waterman, 1985).
From an attachment perspective it is theoretically expected and has been empirically
shown that adaptation in adolescence is promoted by a secure attachment organization in
infancy as well as by a concurrent secure attachment organization (Kobak and Sceery, 1988;
Zimmmermann and Grossmann, 1997; Allan, Moore, Kuperminc and Bell, 1998; Allan and
Land, 1999). Based on the organizational-developmental approach, one classic stage-salient
issue for adolescence should be related to attachment security. although attachment patterns
in adolescence, the development of the ego-identity-status achievement as a measure of
adjustment in adolescence, as assessed by means of the AAI, may not be the direct result of
attachment patterns in infancy it has been shown empirically that there is continuity at the
procedural level of emotion regulation strategies (i.e. attachment behavior as emotion
related behavior) from early attachment patterns to later emotion regulation patterns or
adaptation (Sroufe, 1989) independent of the AAI (Zimmermann, Maier, Winter and
Grossmann, 2001).
Marcia (1989) proposed that a secure attachment would promote the development of the
ego-identity status achievement because an adolescent will feel free to explore his or her
environment and has a secure base to discuss own experiences and attitudes within the
family. In contrast, he expected adolescents with insecure attachment organizations to
explore less and either to develop into the ego-identity status diffusion (in case of an
avoidant/dismissing attachment) or into foreclosure (in case of an insecurely-ambivalent
attachment pattern). Empirical studies have shown that measures of attachment (Separation
Anxiety Test or self-report questionnaires) are related to concurrent identity status (Kroger
and Haslett, 1988; Lapsley, Rice and Fitzgerald, 1990), but did not find a longitudinal
prediction (Kroger and Haslett, 1988) from attachment (assessed with the SAT) to later
identity. Studies using the AAI as an attachment measure did find concurrent associations
between a secure AAI classification and the achievement identity status and dismissing AAI
classification and identity diffusion (Zimmermann, Gliwitzky and Becker, 1992; Zimmermann, 2000).
Theoretically expected is an influence of attachment organization on identity
development. This cannot be inferred from concurrent assessments of attachment and
identity. Kroger and Haslett (1988) found stability of identity and instability in attachment
style assessed by means of the Separation Anxiety Test. Moreover, they found that identity
predicted attachment style and not vice versa. From a developmental perspective, these
findings were unexpected because identity changes during adolescence, as it is a major
developmental task whereas attachment organization should consolidate. The effect of
achievement on attachment representation might result from the cognitive flexibility, an
information processing style that is related to the identity status achievement (Berzonsky and
Neimeyer, 1994). Achievers show a high ego-development, a highly differentiated and
integrated self-construct system, and a more coherent narrative about their past experiences
and their current (and future) life (Berzonsky and Adams, 1999). In contrast, individuals in
the identity diffusion status are characterized by a more avoidant, incoherent, and brittle
cognitive style.
The present study examines the stability of attachment representation during late
adolescence and the concurrent and longitudinal associations with identity status at age 16.

112

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

Recent studies on stability of attachment representations focus on adults not on adolescents,

and mainly cover a shorter period of time. We expected that attachment representation, as
an assessment of internal working models would remain rather stable even during an age
period of changes and re-organization of social and individual norms and expectations. More
specifically, we expected a high stability of the AAI during adolescence at the classification
level and the normative level of continuity (Caspi, 1998).
Regarding the relation between attachment and identity we expect a replication of earlier
findings (Zimmermann, 2000), i.e. significant positive associations between attachment
security and the identity status achievement and between dismissing attachment
representation and the identity status diffusion. Although such associations might reflect
the fact that attachment promotes identity development this correlation design might also
reflect other causal effects. As the AAI does not assess the current attachment relationship
or current attachment behavior but the evaluation of earlier experiences, we expect that the
identity status achievement might promote the ability to re-appraise these experiences.
Longitudinally, the identity status achievement therefore might promote security of
attachment representation. Both identity status as well as attachment representation (not
behavior) is based on the ability to present a coherent sense of self within the society (in case
of identity) or in relationships (in case of attachment). Thus, specifically we expected effects
on two specific mega-items, (i.e. sub-scales) of the AAI, coherency and integration of
attachment experiences.

Method
Sample and procedures
This study is a follow-up of the Regensburg longitudinal study, an ongoing study on
attachment and socio-emotional development of children with no discernible risk at time of
recruitment, which started in 1980 (Wartner, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombik and Suess,
1994). Subjects were seen at the University laboratory twice. The first data collection took
place when subjects were age 16 together with their mothers, where their attachment
representation was assessed for the first time by means of the Adult Attachment Interview
(George et al., 1985). The adolescents completed the California Adult Q-Sort (CAQ). In
addition, their mothers, and six to nine months later their best same-sex friend rated them
with the Q-Sort. Subjects were seen again at age 18 for the second data collection.
The sample for the first data assessment consists of 43 subjects (79?60% of the original
sample, 63% female) at age 16. During the second data collection at age 18 a total of 41
adolescents participated. Two adolescents, who have been interviewed at age 18, did not
participate at age 16.

Measures
Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1985). The Adult Attachment
Interview (AAI) is a semi-structured interview that focuses on attachment-relevant
experiences in childhood, such as being upset, hurt, separated, threatened, rejected, or
having experienced loss. Other questions aim at understanding the individuals integration of
experiences with caregivers into their view of their self and the relationship to ones
caregivers. The AAI was designed to assess an individuals state of mind with regard to
attachment (Main, 1991).

Stability of attachment representation

113

The interviews were transcribed and rated, using a German version of the Adult
Attachment Interview Q-Sort (Kobak, 1993; Zimmermann, 1994), which consists of 100
items based on Main and Goldwyns (in press) scoring system. The items assess coherency of
the transcript, representations of the relationships to the attachment figures, integration of
experiences, valuing of attachment, and other aspects relevant to describe attachment
representation patterns. The AAI-Q-sort method shows significant concordance with
independent classifications following the Main and Goldwyn system (in press) between 96
percent (Kobak et al., 1993), 84 percent (Allen et al., 1998), and 80 percent (Zimmermann,
Fremmer-Bombik and Becker-Stoll, 1997).
At ages 16 and 18, two independent coders blind to other results of the study, rated each
interview. One rater at each assessment was reliably trained by Main and Hesse, these
reliable coders trained the other raters. The combined ratings were correlated with the
provided expertly rated prototypes of the three main patterns of attachment representation.
Composite reliability of the prototypic Q-sorts range from r(100)=0?92 to r(100)=0?96
(Kobak, 1993). Correlations with these prototypes represent subjects similarity to the
specific attachment representation prototypes, and lead to continuous scores for secure,
dismissing, and preoccupied attachment representations. In addition, the method offers a
score for deactivation of attachment relevant thoughts and feeling during the AAI. Each
interview is checked for reliability regarding the concordance of the distribution of all 100
items (Kobal et al., 1993), which is a very conservative test compared to the classical rater
agreement of the attachment classification of all interviews. Both ratings are combined, in
order to increase reliability, which is standard for Q-Sort assessments (Block, 1978; Ozer,
1993). At age 16, the averaged combined reliability was 0?81 (Spearman-Brown) with a
range from 0?63 to 0?93. This results in a reliability of both raters at the dimensional score
level of r=0?93 for the dimension secure, r=0?94 for the dimenstion dismissing, r=0?91 for
the dimension preoccupied, and r=0?92 for deactivation. At age 18, the average combined
reliability was 0?80 (Spearman-Brown) with a range from 0?61 to 0?92. At age 18, this refers
to a correlation at the dimensional score level of r=0?91 for the dimension secure, r=0?90
for dismissing, r=0?87 for preoccupied, and r=0?89 for deactivation, showing at high
reliability.
Subjects were also classified into the categorial variable secure vs. insecure or secure,
dismissing, and emeshed based on the dimensional scores. A score above zero on the security
scale led to a classification of the attachment representation as secure, below zero to a
classification as insecure. The scores for dismissing and preoccupied were standardized (due
to different variances). The higher standardized score led either to a classification as
dismissing or enmeshed. The unresolved/disorganized classification is derived from single QSort-items assessing specific lapses in monitoring or reasoning during discourse of loss or
abuse. The concordance at the categorical level at age 18 was 95 percent (kappa 0?90) for a
secure vs. insecure comparison 93 percent (kappa 0?86) for a three-way comparison of
secure, dismissing, and enmeshed attachment representation, and 93 percent (kappa 0?87)
for a four-way comparison including the unresolved status.
The single AAI-Q-Sort-Items can be aggregated to mega-items that assess specific aspects
of the AAI (Zimmermann, 1999). This offers the opportunity for particular analysis of the
content, the formal quality, and the psychological processing apparent in the AAI. For this
analysis, items are aggregated to mega-items regarding three major aspects of attachment
representation. The content level is assessed by the validly reported attachment experiences
of support by mother (at age 16: a=0?88; at age 18: a=0?80), and support by father (at age 16:

114

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

a=0?85; a=0?80). The reported experiences were only rated as support if the general
descriptions were confirmed by reported episodes. The second aspect is the formal discourse
quality operationalized as mega-items for coherency (at age 16: a=0?96; at age 18: a=0?94)
and attachment relevent childhood memories (at age 16: a=0?95 at age 18: a=0?93). The
third aspect is the psychological processing of attachment experiences assessed by the megaitem integration of attachment experiences (at age 16: a=0?88; at age 18: a=0?92), (i.e. the
acceptance of possible negative experiences and a perspective why parents behaved the way
they did); and an overall attitude regarding valuing of attachment (at age 16: a=0?92;
a=0?93). Each mega-item has a possible range on a nine-point-scale.

California Adult Q-Sort (Block, 1978). The California Adult Q-Sort (CAQ; Block,
1978) consists of 100 items, which have to be sorted in a person-centered approach to
characterize an individuals ipsative personality structure (Ozer, 1993). The items capture a
wide range of personality features and are sorted in a forced, near-normal distribution on nine
categories. The subjects rated themselves by means of the CAQ, and were rated by their
mothers, and their best friend at the first two assessments at age 16 and age 16?6. In order to
increase reliability the mean of these three Q-sort-ratings was calculated as age 16
assessment. Each subjects combined Q-Sort was correlated with prototypic Q-sorts (Mallory,
1984) describing the identity-statuses achievement and diffusion, as they have been
conceptualized by Marcia (1980). The correlation coefficients were used as raw-scores representing each subjects similarity with the prototype. The prototypes have been developed
by experts in identity research, showed good reliability and validity (Mallory, 1984), and have
been used in studies on personality development (Helson, 1993; Cramer, 1995).

Results
The primary question of interest was the stability of attachment representations. Thus the
first step of the analysis was to examine the stability of attachment representations at the
level of mean scores, categorical classification, the level of normative stability, i.e. the relative
position within the sample, and at the level of mega-items. Next, we considered the
concurrent and longitudinal associations between identity status and attachment
representation. Finally, we examined the prediction of attachment representation at age
18 by identity status at age 16 over and above the stability of attachment representation.
In order to examine a general trend in attachment development, we first tested the
stability of means of the AAI dimensions. Paired t tests for each of the four AAI dimensions
did not reveal significant changes in mean scores. The means (with standard deviations in
parenthesis) for the AAI dimensions secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and deactivation were
0?03 (0?62), 0?02 (0?56), 0?05 (0?30), and 0?05 (0?33) at age 16 and 0?19 (0?59), 0?13
(0?55), 0?10 (0?29) and 0?02 (0?33) at age 18, respectively. Thus, there is stability of
attachment representation at the level of means and no significant trend to more security or
insecurity of attachment representation from age 16 to age 18.
As a next step, the stability of attachment representation classifications in a 2  2 design
(secure vs. insecure) and a 3  3 design (secure vs. dismissing vs. enmeshed) were tested. As
shown in Table 1, the 2  2 analysis revealed a significant concordance of the secure vs.
insecure classification of attachment representations at ages 16 and 18 of 77 per cent
(w2=12?4, po0?001, kappa=0?55, po0?01). The 3  3 analysis revealed a significant

Stability of attachment representation

115

Table 1 Classifications of attachment representations at ages 16 and 18 (2  2 analysis and

3  3 analysis)
AAI at age 18
AAI at age 16

Total

Secure

Insecure

Secure
Insecure

16
7

2
14

18
21

Total

23

16

39

AAI at age 18

Secure
Dismissing
Enmeshed

Total

Secure

Dismissing

Enmeshed

16
4
3

2
6
4

1
3

18
11
10

23

12

39

concordance of 64 percent (w2=15?3, po0?01, kappa=0?42, po0?01). Thus, at the

categorical level there is significant stability of the AAI between ages 16 and 18. Only one
adolescent, classified as dismissing at both ages, was classified in addition as unresolved with
regard to loss (U) at age 16, and again at age 18. The 4  4 analysis revealed a significant
concordance of 67 percent (Kappa=0?47, po0?01).
Next, we examined normative stability within the sample. As shown in Table 2, the
respective AAI-dimensions at age 16, secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and deactivation did
correlate significantly positive with each corresponding dimension at age 18. The dimension
preoccupied showed the highest stability within the sample. The overall correlation pattern
revealed the expected significant negative associations between secure attachment
representations at age 16, and the dimensions dismissing, preoccupied, and deactivation at
age 18. This provides evidence for discriminate validity of the AAI dimensions.
Next, we analysed stability at the level of mega-items of attachment representation.
Pearson correlations between the mega-items of the AAI-Q-Sort at ages 16 and 18 revealed
that all mega-items at age 16 were significantly positively associated with their respective
counterparts at age 18. At the level of reported attachment experiences, the longitudinal
correlations were r=0?59 (po0?001) for support by father, r=0?50 (po0?001) for support by
mother (r=0?50, po0?001). Correlations of mega-items assessing the formal quality of
discourse were r=0?46 (po0?01) for coherency, and r=0?49 (po0?001) for child hood memory.
The longitudinal correlations for mega-items assessing the processing of attachment experiences
were 0?51 (po0?001) for integration of attachment experiences, and r=0?49 (po0?001) for
valuing attachment.

Table 2

Pearson correlations between the dimensions of the AAI at ages 16 and 18

AAI at age 18
Secure

AAI at age 16
Secure
Dismissing
Preoccupied
Deactivation

Dismissing

0?51***
0?46**
0?45**
0?32*

***pr0?001; **pr0?01; *pr0?05 (p two-tailed).

0?48**
0?48**
0?32*
0?41**

Preoccupied
0?39
0?24
0?64***
0?06

Deactivation
0?36*
0?43**
0?07
0?49**

116

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

Attachment and identity in adolescence: concurrent and longitudinal analysis.

We next examined the concurrent and longitudinal associations between the adolescents
attachment representations at ages 16 and 18 and their ego-identity status at age 16. Pearson
correlations between attachment representation and ego-identity status at age 16 revealed
that security of attachment representation was significantly positively associated with
identity achievement and marginally negatively associated with identity diffusion (see Table
3). For a dismissing attachment representation, there was a similar but reversed pattern. A
preoccupied state of mind with regard to attachment was marginally negatively associated
with identity diffusion, whereas deactivation of attachment relevant thoughts and feelings
did correlate negatively with achievement, although failed to reach statistical significance.
The longitudinal associations between identity at age 16 and attachment representation at
age 18 replicated the concurrent association at age 16 to a great extend. Both identity
achievement and identity diffusion at age 16 were related to the AAI dimensions secure,
dismissing, and deactivation. Again there was no significant correlation between ego-identity
statuses and preoccupation.
The longitudinal prediction of attachment representation by ego-identity status might be
unanticipated, as theoretically expected, a secure attachment organization (which implies
experienced parental support) should promote the formation of an achievement identity
status. However, the AAI assesses the state of mind regarding childhood attachment
experiences (at a declarative level) and does not assess attachment behaviour (procedural
level) or concurrent support by parents. Thus, in a next step we analyzed whether the
influence of identity on attachment representation is mainly based on its effect on state of
mind scales, i.e. coherency in the AAI and the processing of attachment experiences. In
order to test the specific influence of identity, concurrent and longitudinal correlations
between identity status at age 16 and AAI-mega-items at ages 16 and 18 were computed. As
shown in Table 4, both concurrently and longitudinally identity achievement and identity
diffusion were significantly associated with formal discourse quality in the AAI (i.e.
coherency and childhood memory), and the integration of attachment experiences. The
reported attachment experiences with parents and the mega-item valuing attachment were
not significantly related to identity status, but showed a statistical trend at some
measurement points.

Table 3 Concurrent and longitudinal correlations between ego-identity status at age 16 and
the dimensions of the AAI at ages 16 and 18
AAI at age 16
Identity at age 16
Achievement
Diffusion

Secure

Dismissing

0?34*
0?29+

0?33*
0?27+

Preoccupied
0?22
0?24+

Deactivation
0?28+
0?20

AAI at age 18
Identity at age 16
Achievement
Diffusion

Secure

Dismissing

Preoccupied

Deactivation

0?33*
0?36*

0?38*
0?39*

0?06
0?16

0?42*
0?38*

**pr0?01; *pr0?05; +pr0?10 (p two-tailed).

Stability of attachment representation

117

Table 4 Concurrent and longitudinal correlations between identity-status at age 16 and

AAI mega items at ages 16 and 18
Ego-identity status at age 16
Achievement

Diffusion

AAI at

AAI at

AAI-mega-items

Age 16

Age 18

Age 16

Age 18

Reported attachment experiences

Support by mother
Support by father

0?07
0?27+

0?13
0?26

0?9
0?23

0?22
0?30+

Formal discourse quality

Coherency
Childhood memory

0?32*
0?46**

0?36*
0?38*

0?27+
0?43**

0?39*
0?37*

Processing of attachment experiences

Integration of attachment experiences
Valuing attachment

0?39*
0?22

0?32*
0?22

0?33+
0?19

0?33*
0?29+

**pr0?05; *pr0?05; +pr0?10 (p two-tailed).

The cross-lag correlations from identity at age 16 to attachment representation at age 18

imply causality, although may be interpreted with caution (Rogosa and Willett, 1985).
Longitudinal correlations can be spurious effects of the association with a third variable.
Thus, we next computed hierarchical regressions with each AAI dimension at age 18 as
dependent variable, the respective AAI dimension at age 16 entered as first predictor, and
ego-identity status entered a second predictor. As can be seen from Table 5, identity diffusion
significantly predicted a dismissing and deactivated attachment representation over and
above the stability of the respective attachment dimensions. For the secure dimension only a

Table 5

Hierarchical regression analysis for the prediction of the AAI dimensions at age 18

Age 18 outcome variables

Age 16 predictors

Beta

R2

FDR2

Secure at age 18
Secure at age 16
Diffusion at age 16

0?45**
0?26+

0?26**
0?32**

12?8**
3?4+

Dismissing age 18
Dismissing at age 16
Diffusion at age 16

0?48**
0?30*

0?23**
0?32**

11?4**
4?5*

Preoccupied at age 18
Preoccupied at age 16
Preoccupied at age 16

0?64***
0?02

0?41**
0?41**

25?4***
0?02

Deactivation at age 18
Deactivation at age 16
Diffusion at age 16

0?49**
0?31*

0?24**
0?34**

11?5**
5?4**

***pr0?01; **pr0?01; *pr0?05 (p two-tailed).

118

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

statistical trend was found. Preoccupation was not predicted by identity diffusion. Similar
regression analyses with identity achievement at age 16 as second predictor of attachment
representation at age 18 revealed statistical trend in the prediction of dismissing at age 18
(b= 0?27, po0?10), and a significant prediction of deactivation at age 18 (b= 0?33,
po0?05). Identity achievement did not significantly account for additional variance in the
prediction of the AAI dimensions secure and preoccupied at age 18 after controlling for the
respective AAI dimensions at age 16.

Discussion
The present study examined the stability of attachment representations between ages 16 and
18, in relation to ego-identity-status at age 16. Derived from attachment theory and based
on studies on the stability of the AAI in adulthood, we expected to find significant stability of
attachment representations during adolescence, despite the many changes and individual
and social reorganizations typical for that age period.
The results showed stability of attachment representations at several levels of analysis. The
means of the AAI dimensions did not change significantly. Thus, there is no general
development from insecurity of attachment representation during middle adolescence to
more security of attachment representation in late adolescence. Whereas Steinberg (1988)
had found that emotional distance between adolescents and their parents increases as a
function of puberty, this does seem to affect attachment representation. However, the
individual developmental status varies tremendously within the each age group. Thus,
assessing pubertal development and attachment representation may clarify existing relations.
The quality of attachment representation in adolescence remained relatively stable over
the course of two years. The significant stability of 77 percent is comparable to studies with
adults over a shorter time span (Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn, 1993; Benoit
and Parker, 1994). The stability is even more impressive as the subjects are younger and the
time-span between the two assessments is longer compared to studies with adults. Research
on the continuity of personality traits has shown that stability decreases as a function of time
between measurements, and increases with subjects age at the time of the first assessment
(Caspi, 1998). At the level of continuous scores for attachment representation, we found
significant normative stability (Caspi, 1998) that is clearly in the expected range of stability
of personality traits for the age group studied here (Roberts and Friend-DeVecchio, 2000). In
this sample, especially the preoccupied state of mind remained stable. Preoccupation is
characterized by extended and irrelevant discourse about attachment experiences without
final conclusive appraisal. This might be understood as the expression of a still ongoing
process of individuation from the parents combined with a self-centered perspective, and a
lack of distance from the own viewpoint. As most subjects still lived with their parents, a
psychological distance in appraising ones attachment experiences might be a difficult task.
Studies comparing adolescents who already have left home might show different results.
However, the significant correlations of AAI dimensions do not imply an absolute
determinism of attachment representation from age 16 on. Bowlbys (1973) hypothesis that
from adolescence on attachment patterns and related personality characteristics would
remain relatively stable can be confirmed partly. There is significant stability but there are
some adolescents who change in their attachment representations. Differences in
classification may be accounted for by measurement error at each assessment due to non-

Stability of attachment representation

119

perfect rater agreement. This decreases the expectable continuity that can be found
empirically. However, change in attachment representation might also result from a
reappraisal of attachment experiences.
Based on an earlier study on stability of attachment representation over the course of
12 years (Becker-Stoll et al., 1998) the hypothesis was tested that discontinuity can be caused
by changes in the evaluation and emotional integration of attachment experiences, and the
coherency of the state of mind regarding attachment because of re-appraisal of childhood
experiences. However, in contrast to the results with the mothers of the adolescents studied
here, we found similar stability for the reported attachment history as well as for the formal
discourse qualities (e.g. coherency), and the processing of attachment experiences (e.g.
integration of experiences). Thus, during adolescence stability or change is observable at all
aspects of the AAI.
The significant associations between ego-identity status and attachment representation
replicate earlier findings with 16-year-olds in different samples (Zimmermann et al., 1992;
Zimmermann, 2000). Security of attachment representations is concurrently and longitudinally related to the identity status achievement whereas a dismissing attachment
representation is associated with identity diffusion. Based on attachment theory, the
concurrent associations might be interpreted as evidence for the promoting effect of
attachment on ego-identity, because attachment security is a basis for the exploration of new
roles, attitudes, and relationships. Longitudinally however, ego-identity status predicted later
attachment representation over and above the autonomous stability of attachment
representation.
Although the additional variance explained by each ego-identity status was small, identity
diffusion will lead to a stabilization of dismissing attachment representation and inhibit a
change to more security. This influence is mainly based on the longitudinal prediction of
coherency and the understanding and emotional integration of attachment experiences.
From a methodological perspective, the classification of both the ego-identity status and the
attachment representation is based on coherency of representation. Identity diffusion is
characterized by lack of clear commitments, an avoidant information processing style, and an
incoherent life perspective (Berzonsky and Neimeyer, 1992; Berzonsky and Adams, 1999).
Similarly, a dismissing attachment representation is characterized by an avoidant information
processing style and an incoherent perspective on the attachment history (Kobak and Sceery,
1988; Zimmermann, 1999). Thus, coherency of the representation of either ones values and
life-goals (in case of identity) or ones attachment experiences (in case of the AAI) might be
a common underlying methodological factor.
From a developmental perspective however, the security an adolescent gains from the
commitment to specific, personal goals based on personal experiences may provide her or
him with the emotional freedom to appraise the parents caregiving more objectively. The
perception of parents as persons with supportive and unsupportive characteristics within a
specific current life situation promotes the coherent appraisal, understanding, and emotional
integration of earlier attachment experiences, and the development an (earned) secure
attachment representation (Kobak and Cole, 1995).
Ego-identity status was not related to support from parents in childhood as validly reported
during the AAI. However, concurrent parental support and emotional availability is
significantly related to an achievement ego-identity status in adolescence (Zimmermann,
2000). Thus, an effect of attachment on the successful solution of stage-salient issues (e.g.
identity formation in adolescence) might be based on the experiences of current parental

120

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

support and their emotional availability. The AAI, in contrast, assesses the evaluation of past
experiences and the coherency of this evaluation.
Several limitations of this study have to be acknowledged. First, the sample size is small, so
that generalizations of the results of this study are restricted. Second, ego-identity status was
assessed by means of the CAQ instead of an interview approach as commonly used (Marcia,
1980). More domain specific assessments of identity might have been included (Meeus et al.,
1999). These limitations might be addressed in new studies or replications of longitudinal
assessments of attachment and identity during adolescence.
In conclusion, we found that there is reasonable stability of attachment representations
during adolescence. Changes in the development of attachment representation in
adolescence are influenced longitudinally by identity status. This emphasizes two aspects
of attachment theory. First, attachment patterns in adolescence are stable despite this period
of rapid change. Second, attachment and measures of concurrent adaptation are significantly
related supporting the idea of the important influence of attachment organization on the
development of a resilient personality.
In conclusion, we found high autonomous stability of attachment representations during
adolescence. The development of security in the AAI during adolescence is to some extent
influenced by the ego-identity status. Both ego-identity status and attachment representation are related to flexibility, differentiation, and accuracy in cognitive style (Berzonsky and
Adams, 1999) or flexibility in appraisal, emotional, and behavioral regulation strategies
(Kobak and Cole, 1995; Bretherton and Munholland, 1999; Zimmermann, 1999). A
coherent representation of both past attachment relationships (Grossmann, Grossmann,
Winter and Zimmermann, in press) and of current life-goals (Waterman, 1992) might
promote optimal adaptation. The reciprocal influences of working models of ones
attachment figures and the self in attachment relationships on the hand, and identity as a
working model of the society and the self in society on the other hand, might help to gain
insights into developmental influences on adaptation during adolescence.

Acknowledgement
The first assessment and analysis was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
nchen. Data
The second assessment and analysis was supported by the Koehler-Stiftung, Mu
were collected during our work do at the University of Regensburg. The authors would like to
thank Inge Loher for the data collection, Annie Bernier and Gottfried Spangler for their
comments on an earlier draft of this paper, two anonymous reviewers and the editor for their
very valuable and helpful comments. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to the
families for their cooperative and enduring participation.

References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1990). Some considerations regarding theory and assessment relevant to
attachments beyond infancy. In Attachment in the Preschool Years, M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti
and C. M. Cummings (Eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 139.
Allen, J. P. and Hauser, S. T. (1996). Autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as
predictors of young adults states of mind regarding attachment. Development and Psychopathology,
8, 793809.

Stability of attachment representation

121

Allen, J. P. and Land, D. (1999). Attachment in Adolescence. In Handbook of AttachmentFTheory,

Research, and Clinical Applications, J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds). New York: The Guilford Press,
pp. 319332
Allen, J. P., Moore, C. M., Kuperminc, G. P. and Bell, K. L. (1998). Attachment and adolescent
psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 69, 14061419.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. and IJzendoorn, M. H. (1993). A psychometric study of the adult
attachment interview: reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental Psychology, 29, 870879.
Becker-Stoll, F. and Fremmer-Bombik (1997). Adolescentmother Interaction and Attachment: A
Longitudinal Study. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development. Washington, DC.
Becker-Stoll, F., Zimmermann, P. and Fremmer-Bombik, E. (1998). Continuity and Discontinuity of
Attachment Representations: A Twelve-year Longitudinal Study. Poster presented at the XVth Meeting
of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Bern, Switzerland.
Benoit, D. and Parker, K. C. H. (1994). Stability and transmission of attachment across three
generations. Child Development, 65, 14441456.
Berzonsky, M. D. and Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: still useful after
35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557590.
Berzonsky, M. D. and Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status and identity processing orientation:
the moderating role of commitment. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 425435.
Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psychiatric Research. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Phychologist Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2: Separation: Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression. New York: Basic Books.
Bretherton, I. (1990). Open communication and internal working models: their role in the
development of attachment relationships. In Socio-emotional Development, Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation, R. A. Thompson (Ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 57113.
Bretherton, I. and Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships:
a construct revisited. In Handbook of Attachment, J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds). New York:
Guilford, pp. 89111.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In Handbook of Child Psychology.
Vol. III: Social, Emotional and Personality Development, W. Damon and N. Eisenberg (Eds). New
York: Wiley & Sons, pp. 311388.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: influences of attachment relationships. In The Development of
Emotions Regulation: Biological and Behavioral Considerations, N. A. Fox (Ed.). Monographs of the
Society of Research in Child development, 59. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 228249.
Cramer, P. (1995). Identity, narcissism, and defense mechanisms in late adolescence. Journal of Research
in Personality, 29, 341361.
Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C. and Shaver, R. P. (1999). Measurement of Individual Differences in
Adolescent and Adult Attachment. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical
Applications, J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds). New York: Guilford Press, pp. 434468.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K. and Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and
regulation: their role predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 136157.
Fishcher, K. W. and Lamborn, S. D. (1989). Mechanisms of variations in developmental levels:
cognitive and emotional transitions during adolescence. In Transition Mechanisms in Child
Development: The Longitudinal Perspective, A. de Ribaupierre (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
George, C., Kaplan, N. and Main, M. (1985). An Adult Attachment Interview. Unpublished manuscript,
University of California at Berkeley.
George, C. and Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: the caregiving behavioral system. In
Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver
(Eds). New York: Guilford Press, pp. 649670.
Grossmann, K. E. and Grossmann, K. (1991). Attachment quality as an organizer of emotional and
behavioral responses in a longitudinal perspective. In Attachment Across the Life Cycle, C. M. Parkes,
J. Stevenson-Hinde and P. Marris (Eds). London/New York: Tavistock/Routledge, pp. 93114.

122

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

Grossmann, K. E. and Grossmann, K. and Zimmermann, P. (1999). A wider view of attachment and
exploration: stability and change during the years of immaturity. In Handbook of Attachment Theory
and Research, J. Cassidy and P. Shaver (Eds). New York: Guilford, pp. 760786.
Grossmann, K. E. and Grossmann, K., Winter, M. and Zimmermann, P. (in press). Attachment
relationships and appraisal of partnership: from early experience of sensitive support to later
relationship representation. In Paths to Successful Development, L. Pulkinnen and A. Caspi (Eds).
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Grotevant, H. D. and Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the
development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Development, 56, 415428.
Hamilton, C. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through adolescence.
Child Development, 71, 690694.
Helson, R. (1993). Comparing longitudinal studies of adult development: toward a paradigm of tension
between stability and change. In Studying Lives through Time. Personality and Development, D. C.
Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasy and K. Widaman (Eds). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association, pp. 93119.
Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview. Historical and Current Perspectives, In Handbook
of AttachmentFTheory, Research, and Clinical Applications, J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (Eds). New
York: the Guilford Press, pp. 395433.
Holmbeck, G. H. (1996). A model of family relational transformations during the transition to
adolescence: parentadolescent conflict and adaptation. In Transitions through Adolescence.
Interpersonal Domains and Context, J. A. Graber, J. Brooks-Gunn and A. C. Petersen (Eds).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 167200.
Kobak, R. R. and Cole, C. (1995). Attachment and metamonitoring: Implications for adolescent
autonomy and psychopathology. In Rochester Symposium on Development and Psychopathology:
Vol. 5. Disorders of the Self, D. Cicchetti (Ed.). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press,
pp. 267297.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenz-Gillies, R., Fleming, W. S. and Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment
and emotion regulation during motherteen problem solving: a control theory analysis. Child
Development, 64, 231245.
Kobak, R. R. and Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence: working models, affect regulation,
and representations of self and others. Child Development, 59, 135146.
Kobak, R. R. (1993). The Adult-Attachment-Interview-Q-Sort. Unpublished manuscript. University of
Delaware.
Kroger, J. and Haslett, S. J. (1988). Separation-individuation and ego-identity status in late
adolescence: a two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 5979.
Kroger, J. (2000). Ego identity status research in the new millennium. International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 24, 145148.
Lapsley, K. D. and Rice, K. (1988). The new look at the imaginary audience and personal fable:
Toward a general model of adolescent ego development. In Self, Ego, and Identity, Integrative
Approaches, K. D. Lapsley and F. C. Power (Eds). New York: Springer, pp. 109129.
Lapsley, K. D. and Rice, K. and FitzGerald, D. (1990). Adolescent attachment, identity, adjustment to
college: implications for the continuity of adaptation hypothesis. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 68, 561565.
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G. and Duckett, E. (1996). Changes in
adolescents daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18: disengagement and
transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744754.
Lerner, R. M. and Galambos, N. L. (1998). Adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for
research, programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 413446.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C. and Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child Development, 71, 707
720.
Main, M. and Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult Attachment Scoring and Classification Systems. Unpublished
manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and singular (coherent) versus
multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: findings and directions for future research. In
Attachment Across the Life Cycle, C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde and P. Marris (Eds). London/
New York: Tavistock/Routledge, pp. 127159.

Stability of attachment representation

123

Main, M., Kaplan, N. and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: a move to
the level of representation. In Growing Points in Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds). 50, 66106.
Mallory, M. E. (1989). Q-sort definition of ego identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 18,
399412.
Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common proceses underlying ego-identity, cognitive/moral development and
individuation. In Self, Ego, Identity, D. K. Lapsley and F. C. Power (Eds). New York: Springer,
pp. 211225.
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, J. Adelson (Ed.).
New York: Wiley, pp. 159187.
Meeus, W. (1996). Studies on identity development in adolescence: an overview of research and some
new data. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 569599.
Meeus, W., Iedema, J., Helsen, M. and Vollebergh, W. (1999). Patterns of adolescent identity
development: review of literature and longitudinal analysis. Developmental Review, 19, 419461.
Ozer, D. J. (1993). The Q-Sort-method and the study of personality development. In Studying Lives
through Time: Approaches to Personality and Development, D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. TomlinsonKeasey and Widaman (Eds). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 147168.
Roberts, B. W. and Friend-DelVecchio, W. (2000). Consistency of personality traits from childhood to
old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 325.
Rogasa, D. and Willett, J. B. (1985). Understanding correlates of change by modeling individual
differences in growth. Psychometrika, 50, 203228.
Sagi, A., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Scharf, M., Koren-Karie, N., Joels, T. and Mayseless, O. (1994).
Stability and discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: a psychometric study in
young Israeli adults. Developmental Psychology, 30, 9881000.
Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Relationships, self and individual adaptation. In Relationship Disturbances in Early
Childhood. A Developmental Approach, A. J. Sameroff and R. N. Emde (Eds). New York: Basic
books, pp. 7094.
Sroufe, L. A., Carlson, E. A., Levy, A. K. and Egeland, B. (1999). Implications of attachment theory for
developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 113.
Steinberg, L. (1988). Reciprocal relation between parent-adolescent distance and pubertal maturation.
Developmental Psychology, 24, 122129.
Treboux, D. and Crowell, J. (2001). Are Attachment Representations Stable Across Phases of Development?
Transitions to Marriage and to Parenting. Poster presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Child Development, Minneapolis.
Wartner, U., Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E. and Suess, G. (1994). Attachment patterns at age six
in South Germany: predictability from infancy and implications for preschool behavior. Child
Development, 65, 10141027.
Waterman, A. S. (1985). New Directions for Child Development. Identity in Adolescence: Processes and
Content. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Waterman, A. S. (1992). Identity as an aspect of optimal psychological functioning. In Adolescent
Identity Formation, G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta and R. Montmayor (Eds). Newbury Park, CA: Sage,
pp. 5072
Waters, E. and Cummings, M. (2000). A secure base form which to explore close relationships. Child
Development, 71, 164172.
Waters, E., Merrick, S. Treboux, D., Crowell, J. and Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in
infancy and early adulthood: a twenty-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684690.
Weinfield, N. S. Sroufe, L. A. and Egeland, B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early adulthood in a
high-risk sample: continuity, discontinuity, and their correlates. Child Development, 71, 695702.
Zimmermann, P. (1994). A German version of the Adult Attachment Interview Q-sort. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Regensburg.
Zimmermann, P. (1999). Structure and functioning of internal working models of attachment and their
role for emotion regulation. Attachment and Human Development, 1, 5571.
Zimmermann, P. (2000). Lattachmement `a ladolescence: measure, developpement et adaptation
(Attachment in adolescence: Development, assessment, and adaptation). In Attachment et
Developpement, S. Larose, G. M. Tarabulsy, D. R. Pederson and G. Moran (Eds). Quebec University
Press, pp. 181204.

124

P. Zimmermann and F. Becker-Stoll

Zimmermann, P. and Grossmann, K. E. (1997). Attachment and adaptation in adolescence. In

Development of Interaction and Attachment: Traditional and Non-traditional Approaches, W. Koops,
J. B. Hoeksma and D. C. van den Boom (Eds). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 271280.
Zimmermann, P. and Scheuerer-Englisch, H. (1997). Attachment at Age Ten and Age Sixteen. Poster
presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development,
Washington.
Zimmermann, P., Becker-Stoll, F. and Fremmer-Bombik, K. (1997). Die Erfassung der Bindungsreprasentation mit dem Adult Attachment Interview: Ein Methodenvergleich. (The assessment of
attachment representation with the Adult Attachment A comparison of methods). Kindheit und
Entwicklung, 6, 173182.
Zimmermann, P., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Spangler, G. and Grossmann, K. E. (1997). Attachment in
adolescence: a longitudinal perspective. In Development of Interaction and Attachment: Traditional
and Non-traditional Approaches, W. Koops, J. B. Hoeksma and D. C. van den Boom (Eds).
Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 281292
Zimmermann, P., Maier, M., Winter, M. and Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and emotion
regulation of adolescents during joint problem-solving with a friend. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 25, 331342.