International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Review
Parental Attachment and Peer Relationships in Adolescence: A
Systematic Review
Elena Delgado 1 , Cristina Serna 1 , Isabel Martínez 1, * and Edie Cruise 2

1 Departament of Psychology, University of Castilla-La Mancha, C/Altagracia 50, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain;
elenadelga97@gmail.com (E.D.); cristina.serna@uclm.es (C.S.)
2 College of Arts and Sciences, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 600 S Clyde Morris Blvd,
Daytona Beach, FL 32114, USA; Cruisee@erau.edu
* Correspondence: MIsabel.Martinez@uclm.es

Abstract: According to attachment theory, children’s early experiences with their primary caregivers,
in terms of protection and security, are the basis for socioemotional development and for the es-
tablishment of close relationships throughout their lives. During adolescence, friends and peers
become a primary developmental environment, and thereby establishing quality bonds with peers
will foster good psychological adjustment. The aim of the present study was to review the evidence
on the relation of parental attachment to the quality of peer relationships during adolescence. A
systematic review was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items
for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search was performed in the PsycInfo,
Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) databases. Inclusion criteria were studies published since 2001,
in English, that are academic publications in scientific journals, that explore adolescence, and that
analyze the relationship between attachment styles and adolescent peer interactions. The search
resulted in 1438 studies, of which 19 studies met the criteria and were included in the review. The re-



sults highlighted that secure attachment predicts and promotes the creation of affective relationships


with peers and friends based on communication, support, intimacy, trust, and quality. In addition,
Citation: Delgado, E.; Serna, C.;
some variables, such as gender differences or family characteristics, were found to be involved in
Martínez, I.; Cruise, E. Parental
attachment and provide a better understanding.
Attachment and Peer Relationships
in Adolescence: A Systematic Review.
Keywords: attachment styles; friendship; peer relationships; adolescence
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,
19, 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph19031064

Academic Editor: Adriana Lis 1. Introduction

Received: 15 December 2021 Attachment theory is a social-emotional development theory that was originally
Accepted: 15 January 2022 developed by John Bowlby [1] in order to explain the bond between babies and their
Published: 18 January 2022 caretakers. The basic premise is that an individual’s security and trust toward others
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
in later life stages are molded by their experiences with relationship patterns and the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
emotional availability of their caretakers, that is to say, their attachment figures. Later,
published maps and institutional affil- Ainsworth [2] carried out some of the first studies on the individual differences which
iations. manifest in attachment, observing how this system is activated and discovering differences
based on the behaviors of the caretakers. Through a standardized laboratory procedure
called “strange situation”, Ainsworth recorded systematic observations on mother–child
interactions in the first year of life, as well as the reaction of the child during separation
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. from and reunion with the mother.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall [3] proposed the first classification of attachment
This article is an open access article styles that distinguished between secure, insecure ambivalent, and insecure avoidant at-
distributed under the terms and tachment. Secure attachment is produced when the caretakers demonstrate physical and
conditions of the Creative Commons emotional warmth, trust, and availability. When placed in the strange situation, in which
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the attachment figure is not present, the child tends to feel anxious upon being separated
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
from the caretaker and then calm when the caretaker returns [3]. Children with this style
4.0/).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031064 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 2 of 22

of attachment experience comfort with privacy and closeness, tend to search for support,
present low anxiety and evasiveness, and confront stress well [4]. Insecure ambivalent
attachment occurs when the caretaker is available only on certain occasions. During the
strange situation, the child suffers great anguish followed by difficulty calming down
when the attachment figure reappears, with fluctuations between anger and worry [3].
Children with insecure ambivalent attachment develop high anxiety, the need for close-
ness, worry about establishing relationships, and fear of rejection [4]. Lastly, in insecure
avoidant attachment, the caretaker does not attend to the baby’s cues that signal the need
for protection. In the strange situation under this type of attachment, this child experiences
indifference, in addition to anguish and anger in some cases, upon becoming separated
from their mother and later demonstrates indifference upon reuniting with her [3]. Children
with insecure avoidant attachment develop self-sufficiency and a preference for emotional
distancing from others [4]. Years later, Main and Solomon [5] incorporated a fourth cate-
gory, disorganized attachment. This typology presents characteristics of the two previous
styles, insecure ambivalent and insecure avoidant, demonstrating contradictory behaviors
and disorganization.
Family has a key function in the development of an individual as the primary group
of belonging [6,7]. The first emotional bonds, values, beliefs, and habits are formed within
the family [8,9]. Drawing from attachment theory, research established that the emotional
and familial history of a person predicts their type of attachment as an adult [10].

1.1. Attachment in Adolescence

Attachment theory has expanded in recent decades, with its influence over relation-
ships other than the paternal-filial being explained, as well as how attachment influences
in later development stages [11]. In this developmental period, adolescents prepare to
develop their potential and begin adulthood [12]. The emotional, cognitive, and social
transformations of the adolescent are delineated by attachment processes previously estab-
lished [13]. Indeed, the empirical evidence indicates that adolescents, in general, experience
an increased need for privacy and a decrease in emotional closeness, expressions of affec-
tion, and time spent with parents [11]. There are higher levels of ambivalence and lower
levels of idealization from adolescents towards their parents [14].
Autonomy development in adolescence entails a continuation of child-like exploration,
as well as attachment framework, alongside having to find a balance between new scenarios
and needs [15]. Similar to what occurred in the strange situation, adolescents feel more
secure when they perceive availability and support from their parents. Therefore, in spite
of the paternal-filial relationship changes, when there is a quality relationship, the bond
between them is still characterized by warmth, with the parents being important attachment
figures even until emerging adulthood [11]. In the process of adolescent development,
the internal working models guide the child in the construction of their relational world
with their past experiences as the base. The internal working models are frameworks or
internal maps of each person in which the relationship with other significant individuals is
constructed and represented. According to Bowlby [16], these internal models allow the
child to predict and interpret the conduct of their attachment figures given that such internal
models define the internal working models consisting of expectations and beliefs about the
self and others. In the future, these models are integrated in the personality and guide social
relations. “Every situation we meet with in life is construed in terms of the representational
models we have of the world about us and of ourselves. Information reaching us through
our sense organs is selected and interpreted in terms of those models, its significance for
us and those we care for is evaluated in terms of them, and plans of action executed with
those models in mind. On how we interpret and evaluate each situation, moreover, turns
also how we feel” [17] (p. 229). These models will allow the child or adolescent to evaluate
the availability of their attachment figures and act accordingly [18,19].
Individual differences exist in the distancing process of the adolescent with their
parents, which could prove more problematic in teens with insecure attachment (insecure-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 3 of 22

avoidant, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-disorganized). It has been shown that via

secure attachment, conflicts with parents are navigated in a healthy way, with a greater
tendency from both parents and child to communicate with each other and find solutions.
Adolescents with secure attachment demonstrate confidence defending their opinion to
their parents, knowing that there will be no negative consequences and that the relationship
will remain intact [13]. However, adolescents with insecure attachment experience emo-
tional distancing from their parents in a stressed manner. These adolescents foresee a threat
in the relationship with their parents during the autonomy-seeking process. It has been
found that the adolescents with insecure-evasive attachment tend to avoid conflict and
opportunities for solutions, while adolescent with insecure-ambivalent attachment show
intense involvement which can diminish increasingly throughout the autonomy-seeking
process of the adolescent [20].

1.2. Adolescence, Friendship, and Attachment

Kerns [21] showed that children generalize the behaviors assimilated with their parents
to their peers and friendships that they develop throughout their life so that adolescents
with positive parental figures have greater social competency. According to Bowlby [22],
the association between attachment and peer relationships can be explained by internal
working models (IWM). IWM make it possible for children to know who their attachment
figure is and their availability when they need it [23]. Children’s experiences with their
caretakers in everyday interactions are integrated to form long-lasting representations with
emotional components that will modulate later conduct [24].
Furman, Simon, Shaffer, and Bouchey [25] proved that the IWMs of adolescents with
their parents are similar to the IWMs that they establish with their peers and friends.
Attachment theorists maintain that the quality of extrafamilial relationships, particularly
with peers, is directly influenced by the experiences of attachment with their caretak-
ers [26]. Children with an avoidant attachment style expect rejection in the context of
relationships, and therefore they are more likely to be hostile and antisocial with others,
inciting others to reject them, such as peers. These behaviors could also be a defense
mechanism to protect themselves from others’ rejection. By contrast, children with am-
bivalent attachment tend to be socially isolated [27]. A secure attachment organization
allows for coherency in emotional experiences with peers, while an insecure model is more
characterized by exclusion or inability to integrate information, which consequently leads
to distorted communication and difficulty in social functioning [13]. Attachment theory
suggests that individuals with insecure attachment have a negative image of themselves
and others in terms of relationships, resulting in great problems forming intimate bonds
in the peer group [28]. Mind theory, the ability to attribute mental states and intentions
to others, as well as the ways in which it is related to the quality of attachment present in
adolescents has also been studied. It was observed that the sociocognitive constructions
and anomalies in the processing of social information is linked to insecure attachment,
as well as biased and less positive attributions about their peers [29]. As children move
further into adolescence, there is greater integration with the peer group [30]. Friends carry
out important functions, with time spent with friends progressively increasing, to the point
that self-disclosure and intimacy are reached in some more stable friendships [31]. At this
time, conversations where worries related to age garner importance and emotional support
is lent [32]. Privacy/intimacy/closeness with friends in adolescence assists in exploration
and self-knowledge [33].
On the other hand, classic attachment theory is formulated in sex-neutral terms and
does not predict or explain the emergence of differentiated styles according to sex. However,
there are findings powerfully challenge the standard sex-neutral model, since many of the
outcomes related with individual differences in attachment have differences depending
on ecological and social factors [34]. Studies have shown that women and men tend to
be socialized differently from birth [35]: men are less emotional and less nurturing than
women, and thus they may perceive social relationships differently and, consequently,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 4 of 22

interact differently. Research is consistent, with the observed gender difference being
that when stressed, males tend to engage in “fight or flight” behaviors, while females
tend to engage in “tend and befriend” behaviors [36]. Differences by sex in both the
structure and the content of peer relationships has been observed [37]. Interactions among
boys centers around larger friendship groups with a focus toward comradeship, control, or
competence. However, girls are centered more by intimate dyads of friendship based on self-
disclosure, emotional expression, and interdependence [38,39]. The scientific literature has
suggested that girls, in comparison with boys, have the need to establish more harmonious
relationships [39]. Despite the findings in differences by sex, no consensus has been found
on the exact nature of these differences in adolescents [40].

1.3. Quality of Relationships and Psychological Adjustment

Numerous empirical studies support the importance of friendship and the estab-
lishment of bonds in the development of adaptation, especially in childhood and adoles-
cence [41]. For example, Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, and Carpenter [42] showed
that friendship predicted short-term psychological well-being. In childhood, the pres-
ence of psychological difficulties is associated with peer relationships and the number of
close individuals that the child has is related to psychological adjustment and emotional
well-being [43]. During childhood and adolescence, friendships provide an environment
in which social competencies are developed and self-esteem is formed, boosting health
throughout the lifetime. Additionally, peers and friends are a source of instrumental and
emotional support, which eases access to other resources, whether they be material or
symbolic, which provides for emotional well-being [44].
Adolescents who report having positive relationships present with greater self-esteem
and less anxiety or depression. Some authors affirm that interpersonal loss or not forming
close, supportive relationships contributes to clinical symptomology [45]. For the majority
of people, relationships with others forms a central point in their lives. The development,
maintenance, and dissolution of bonds are sources of intense emotions, both joy and
happiness as well as angst and sadness. Individuals who have positive and long-lasting
relationships have lower mortality rates, less depression, and a lower presence of psycho-
logical and physical health problems. Contrastingly, people with weak links have greater
rates of mortality, loneliness, unhappiness, and depression [46].
In attachment research, it has been demonstrated that adolescents who have insecure
attachment representations tend to be more hostile and anxious with their peers than
adolescents with secure attachment representations [47]. Similarly, self-concept also plays
an important role in social competency. Adolescents who are considered to be well-regarded
by their friends score higher in self-esteem. On the other hand, considering oneself as
lacking in social ability has a negative influence on self-esteem, which can even lead
to depressive feelings [45,48]. As Campbell [49] indicated, dissatisfaction with oneself
produces a more damaging effect on the feeling of well-being than dissatisfaction with
any other domain of life. A study by Cole, Martin, Powers, and Truglio [50] showed that
adolescents’ perception of their relational competency predicted depression months later;
thus, perceiving oneself as lacking in this ability is a risk factor for mental health. Therefore,
the extent to which adolescents establish and maintain quality, positive relationships with
their peers is considered a protective factor in social-emotional adjustment throughout the
lifetime, which supports better adaptation [51].

1.4. Previous Studies

Bowlby’s attachment theory on the emotional bond of a child with their caretakers
was formed decades ago, and therefore it has changed and evolved, being adapted to
new times. Researchers have studied and considered the influence of other variables,
extending the concept to other ages and relationships beyond baby–attachment figure [52].
Some characteristics of today’s society are different from those at the time Bowlby’s theory
was developed [1], such as the increase in single parenthood, partner relationships, the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 5 of 22

temperament of the baby, or social support outside of the family. Additionally, studies
have gone beyond childhood to include the full lifetime [53]. Due to this, efforts have been
made to keep the theory up to date, incorporating advances made in psychology, which
is one of the reasons why the theory has maintained its relevance throughout the years.
This is due to the need for greater theoretical clarity on the repercussions of attachment
in future behavior, which is one of the challenges of attachment theory studies in the 21st
century [54].
What has been studied previously in some reviews is how attachment formed with
parents at the start of life influences in establishing bonds with peers in later years, such as
in the review by Sheneider, Atkinson, and Tardif [55], or in the meta-analysis carried out by
Pallini, Baiocco, Schneider, Madigan, and Atkinson [56]. However, these studies focused
on the childhood stage or in childhood combined with adolescence. Some publications
indicate that during childhood and adolescence, children with secure attachment show
greater social competence and have more positive relationships with their peers and friends
compared to children with insecure attachment [51]. The present review focuses on the
relation between attachment and relationships with peers in adolescence given that good
adjustment in an adolescent’s social relationships determines, to a large degree, adult
life, boosting psychological well-being and decreasing the risk of psychopathologies. The
review focuses on adolescence, which is a complex stage characterized by change and
the transition from childhood toward adult life. The World Health Organization (WHO)
defines adolescents as those people between 10 and 19 years of age [57].
The main objective of this work is to analyze the adolescents’ bond with their peers by
attachment type established in childhood with their main caretakers, considering differ-
ences between girls and boys. Peer bond is analyzed by quality, privacy/closeness/intimacy,
and reciprocity of the relationship.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, adhering to the PRISMA
27-item checklist [58].

2.1. Search Strategy

The search of the sources was carried out on PsycInfo, Scopus, and Web of Science
(WOS) databases, as they collect studies most prominent in the field of psychology. We
used these databases to identify articles that were published between 1 January 2001 and
31 December 2020. We chose to limit the search in order to analyze articles published in
the 21st century until the date of the search. It should be taken into account that the 21st
century coincides with the rise of the study of attachment [52]. The search terms used as
keywords were attachment, peer relation, friendship, adolescence, and adolescent; they
were entered in combinations of 3 blocks of terms applying the Boolean operators “and”
and “or”.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

For inclusion in this study, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) studies
published since 2001 in the PsycInfo, Scopus, or Web of Science databases; (2) studies
published in English; (3) academic publications in scientific journals; (4) studies that explore
the adolescent population, following WHO criteria (10–19 years old); and (5) studies that
analyze the relation between attachment styles and adolescent interactions with their peers.
For exclusion in this study, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) studies
published prior to 2001 in the PsycInfo, Scopus, or Web of Science databases; (2) studies
in languages other than English; (3) documents that are not academic publications in
scientific articles, such as book chapters or dissertations; (4) studies that explore attachment
relationships in child or adulthood; and (5) studies that do not analyze the relations between
attachment styles and adolescent interactions with their peers.
 For exclusion in this study, the studies had to meet the following criteria: (1) studies
published prior to 2001 in the PsycInfo, Scopus, or Web of Science databases; (2) studies
in languages other than English; (3) documents that are not academic publications in sci-
entific articles, such as book chapters or dissertations; (4) studies that explore attachment
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, relationships
19, 1064 in child or adulthood; and (5) studies that do not analyze the relations 6 ofbe-
22
tween attachment styles and adolescent interactions with their peers.

3. Results
3. Results
3.1. Selection
3.1. Selection of
of Studies
Studies
A total
A total of
of 1438
1438 articles
articles were
wereidentified
identifiedwith
withthe
theinitial
initialchosen
chosensearch
search terms.
terms.After re-
After
moval of duplicates, a total of 1094 publications were considered for the
removal of duplicates, a total of 1094 publications were considered for the analysis. After analysis. After
reading the
reading the title
title and
and synopsis,
synopsis, we we excluded
excluded 1030
1030 articles,
articles, leaving
leaving 64
64 full-text
full-text articles
articles that
that
wereassessed
were assessedfor foreligibility.
eligibility.OfOfthe
theremaining
remaining publications,
publications, 4545 studies
studies werewere excluded
excluded duedueto
to not meeting the inclusion criteria. We used Cohen’s kappa to calculate
not meeting the inclusion criteria. We used Cohen’s kappa to calculate the inter-coder agree- the inter-coder
agreement
ment betweenbetween
the two theauthors.
two authors. The inter-coder
The inter-coder agreement
agreement was 95.31%
was 95.31% (Cohen’s(Cohen’s k=
k = 0.89),
0.89), almost perfect agreement. The few discrepancies between the
almost perfect agreement. The few discrepancies between the coders were solved through coders were solved
through discussion.
discussion. Figurethe
Figure 1 shows 1 shows the flowchart
flowchart of the
of the review review process.
process.

Figure1.
Figure 1. PRISMA
PRISMA flow
flow chart
chartof
ofthe
thestudy
studyselection
selectionprocess.
process.

3.2. Descriptive Characteristics of the Included Studies

Descriptive details of the eligible studies are presented and summarized in Tables 1 and 2.
The articles selected were published in the 21st century, between 2001 and 2020. We can
observe that the country that carried out the most research on the subject analyzed was
the United States (n = 11), followed by Israel (n = 2), Spain (n = 2), and Canada (n = 2),
with the lowest production in Germany and the United Kingdom. Regarding the study
design, studies have followed predominantly a cross-sectional design (n = 15), and only
four studies presented a longitudinal design that used either three (n = 2), four (n = 1), or
five (n = 1) time points. In reference to the characteristics of the sample, all studies used
adolescent participants, with a wide variety in terms of the adolescent stage. The mean age
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 7 of 22

of participants across studies ranged from 11.9 to 18.38 years, and one included university
students. Eighteen studies included the topic among samples balanced for gender, and
only one study [59] had an exclusively male sample.

3.3. Measures
Attachment was assessed using a wide variety of measures, a total of 12. Different
forms of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) [60] were the most common measure of
assessing attachment, used in 7 studies, since modified versions were used (adapted to the
age of the participants) or derivation such as the Q-SORT or Q-SET. Other measures that
were recurring in various studies were Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) [61],
n = 2; The Adult Attachment Measure [62], n = 2; and Relationship Questionnaire (RQ) [63],
n = 2. The study by Allen et al. [64] analyzed autonomy and relatedness, designing their
own instrument via observation and codification of the behaviors in the sample.
There was a heterogeneity of the instruments for the peer relation and friendship used,
with a total of 27. The questionnaires most adopted were the Perceived Competence Scale
for Children [65], Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) [66], Friendship Qualities
Scale (FQS) [67], Intimacy Scale [68], and Adolescent Self-Perception Profile [69]. The
study by Weimer et al. [70] analyzed friendship interaction processes, designing their own
instrument via observation and codification of the behaviors in the sample. Some studies
included in the review used a wider focus, taking into account other relevant aspects that
can affect the peer interaction process.
The mediators explored in the reviewed literature were the following: Self-Esteem
Scale [71], Depressive Mood List [72], Marital Relationship [73], Offer Self-Image Ques-
tionnaire [74], Child Depression Inventory [75], Child Behavior Checklist [76], Movie for
the Assessment of Social Cognition (MASC) [77], and International Personality Inventory
Pool [78].

3.4. Attachment Styles and Relation with Peers

The studies reviewed show the implications of attachment styles on the interaction
of adolescents with peers. Adolescents in the studies who exhibited secure attachment
developed in an environment dominated by parental warmth, autonomy, and resolving
capacity. It has been observed that these adolescents have integrated positive interaction
models, acquiring competencies that allow them to establish bonds of friendship based on
intimacy and closeness, fluid communication, and comfort exploring and interacting with
friends [59,64,79–84].
In adolescence, there is an increase in intimacy among peers, as friends become the
people of reference. Adolescents with secure attachment develop intimacy, which allows
them to share ideas and feelings safely. They acquire social skills that allow them to
maintain fluid conversations based on assertiveness, with the ability to overcome the
difficulties that may arise in the interaction [46,51,70,85,86]. In addition, they are more
receptive to seek and receive support from friends in moments of need [87].
This is the opposite in adolescents with insecure attachment. They show lower compe-
tencies to establish bonds with their peers, such as difficulty in creating friendships based
on intimacy and communication. Adolescents with ambivalent attachment representations
show low competence to regulate conflicts with a best friend cooperatively and show high
scores in hostility and social anxiety. Adolescents with anxious attachment experience
intense reactions, both positive and negative, in their close relationships. This behavioral
pattern involves high levels of negativity in relation to negative peer behavior, as well as
high levels of positivity in relation to peer acceptance, while adolescents with avoidant
attachment representations do not value close relationships and describe themselves as
emotionally independent, alongside not feeling the need to share ideas or feelings with
others. Adolescents with avoidant attachment worry about getting hurt if they trust others.
They have low expectations about what friendship means (communication, trust, intimacy,
or emotional support) [87–91].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 8 of 22

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of included studies.

Sample
Author/Year Country Type of Research
N Age Gender (Males)
Early adolescents
(mean = 13.0
Engels et al., 2001 [46] USA Cross-sectional 412 SD = 0.82) Not reported
Middle adolescents (mean = 16.5
SD = 1.09)
15–16
93
Mikulincer and Selinger, 2001 [79] Israel Cross-sectional 193 (mean/SD = not
(48.20%)
reported)
16–12 24
Markiewicz et al., 2001 [80] Canada Cross-sectional 69
(mean/SD = not reported) (34.80%)
13–19
221
Sánchez-Queija and Oliva, 2003 [81] Spain Cross-sectional 513 (mean = 15.4
(43.10%)
SD = 1.19)
15–18
34
Weimer et al., 2004 [70] USA Cross-sectional 44 pairs (88) (mean = 16.3
(38.60%)
SD = not reported)
16 22
Zimmermann, 2004 [82] Germany Cross-sectional 43
(mean/SD = not reported) (51.20%)
112
Saferstein et al., 2005 [85] USA Cross-sectional 330 17–22
(33.90%)
13–16
Wave 1
(mean = 13.4)
80
Allen et al., 2007 [64] USA Longitudinal 167 Wave 2
(47.90%)
(mean = 14.3)
Wave 3
(mean = 15.2)
16–17 71
Dykas et al., 2008 [51] USA Cross-sectional 189
(mean = 17/ SD = not reported) (37.60%)
15–18
51
Feeney et al., 2008 [87] USA Cross-sectional 135 (mean = 16.5
(38%)
SD = 0.58)
15–12 116
Bauminger et al., 2008 [88] Israel Cross-sectional 196
(mean/SD = not reported) (59.20%)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 9 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Sample
Author/Year Country Type of Research
N Age Gender (Males)

14–16 100
Shomaker and Furman, 2009 [89] USA Cross-sectional 200
(mean = 15.3) (50%)
mean = 13.1 96
Carr, 2009 [59] UK Cross-sectional 96 SD = 1.01 (100%)
14–12
51
Boling et al., 2011 [86] USA Cross-sectional 113 (mean = 12.7
(45.10%)
SD = 0.7)
W1
(mean = 13.1)
W2 38
Sánchez-Queija and Oliva, 2015 [83] Spain Longitudinal 101
(mean = 15.4) (37.60%)
W3
(mean = 17.8)
17–12
103
Venta et al., 2015 [90] USA Cross-sectional 271 (mean = 15.95
(38%)
SD = 1.43)
18–11
W1
(mean = 11.90
SD = 0.43)
W2
(mean = 14.20
115
Chow et al., 2016 [91] USA Longitudinal 223 SD = 0.46)
(51.60%)
W3
(mean = 16.17
SD = 0.44)
W4
(mean = 17.84
SD = 0.46)
13–19 13–19
Wong et al., 2020 [92] Canada Cross-sectional 776 (mean = 15.2 (mean = 15.2
SD = 1.52) SD = 1.52)
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 10 of 22

Table 1. Cont.

Sample
Author/Year Country Type of Research
N Age Gender (Males)
14–18
W1
(mean = 14.27
SD = 0.77)
W2
(mean = 15.21
SD = 0.81)
W3 86
Loeb et al., 2020 [84] USA Longitudinal 184
(mean = 16.35 (46%)
SD = 0.87)
W4
(mean = 17.32
SD = 0.88)
W5
(mean = 18.38
SD = 104)

Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of included studies.

Measures Results
Author/Year Attachment Styles and Relation Gender
Attachment Relationships Other
with Peers Differences

- Inventory of Parent and Peer

Attachment (IPPA, Armsden and Higher parental attachment
Greenberg, 1987 [61]) - Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, predicts development of
Engels et al., 2001 - Adolescent version of the - Perceived Competence Scale for Children 1965 [71]) adolescents’ interpersonal skills
Interpersonal Behavior (SIG; (Harter, 1985 [65]) - Depressive Mood List (Kandel Not reported
[46] such as competencies in initiating
Arrindell, De Groot, and and Davies, 1982 [72]) and maintaining, criticizing, or
Walburg, 1984 [93]; Bijstra, being assertive.
Jackson, and Bosma, 1995 [94])

- Acquaintance Description Form (ADF-F; Adolescents with secure

Wright, 1984, 1985 [73,95]) attachment give greater
Mikulincer et al., - Descriptions of attachment styles
- Adaptation version Network of Relationships - importance to closeness, support, YES
2001 [79] (Hazan and Shaver, 1987 [62])
Inventory (NRI; Furman and Buhrmester, 1985 and affiliation with their friends
[66]) and peers.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 11 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Measures Results
Author/Year Attachment Styles and Relation Gender
Attachment Relationships Other
with Peers Differences

- Perceptions of the Marital

Relationship scale from the
Spanier Dyadic Adjustment
- Adolescents’ prosocial behavior scale was taken
- Adaptation version of the Scale (Wright, 1985 [73]) Adolescents with secure
from Feelings and Behavior Questionnaire
Markiewicz et al., Relationship Questionnaire (RQ; - The Perception of Mother’s attachment present better quality
(Statistics Canada, 1995 [96]) Not reported
2001 [80] Bartholomew and Horowitz, Social Network scale was in their relationships with
- Friendship qualities scale (FQS; Bukowski et al.,
1991 [63]). constructed from the Social friends.
1994 [67])
Relationship Network
Questionnaire (Veroff, 1996
[97])

Adolescents with secure

Sánchez-Queija - Parental Bonding Instrument - Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA, attachment present better
and Oliva, 2003 (Parker, Tupling and Brown, 1979 Armsden and Greenberg, 1987 [61]) - affective relations with their YES
[81] [98]) - Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1994 [68]) friends, characterized by
closeness and identity.

- Observation and coding of friendship

interaction processes
- Coding categories: High and low Adolescents with secure
- Relationship Questionnaire attachment establish
Weimer et al., 2004 self-disclosure, gossip, problem solving,
(Bartholomew and Horowitz, - relationships with friends based Not reported
[70] connectedness, individuality, transactive
1991 [63]) on intimacy, connection, and
statements, planning, and extraneous comments
- Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS; Bukowski, fluidity.
Hoza, and Boivin, 1994 [67])

Adolescents with secure

- Friendship and Peer Relations Interview - Offer Self-Image Questionnaire attachment present a more
Zimmermann, - AAI Q-sort (Kobak, 1993 [99])
(Zimmermann, 1992 [100]) (Seiffge-Krenke, 1987 [74]) elaborate concept of friendship, Not reported
2004 [82]
better quality relations, and
greater intimacy with peers.
Adolescents with secure
attachment report greater quality
- Adult Attachment Measure - Friendship Qualities Scale (FQS; Bukowski in their interactions,
Saferstein et al.,
(Hazan and Shaver, 1987 [62]) et al., 1994 [67]) - comradeship, transcendence in YES
2005 [85]
the problems that arise in
interactions, and les conflict with
peers.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 12 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Measures Results
Author/Year Attachment Styles and Relation Gender
Attachment Relationships Other
with Peers Differences

- A modified version of the Conflict Tactics Scale

(Straus, 1979 [102])
- Adaptation version of the Adult
- Supportive Behavior Coding System (Allen,
Attachment Interview (AAI) and
Hall, Insabella, Land, Marsh and Porter, 2001
Q-set (Kobak et al., 1993 [101]) Secure attachment and positive
[103]) - Child Depression Inventory
- Observed autonomy and tone with parents in
- The Autonomy-Relatedness Coding System for (Kovacs and Beck, 1977 [75])
Allen et al., 2007 relatedness with parent disagreements is linked to
Peer Interaction (Allen, Porter, and McFarland, - Child Behavior Checklist Not reported
[64] - Coding categories: promoting positive relations based on
2001 [104]). (Achenbach and Edelbrock,
relatedness, undermining emotional support, popularity,
- Measure of popularity following the procedure 1991 [76])
relatedness, promoting and les pressure with peers.
described in Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982)
autonomy, and undermining
[105]
autonomy
- Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment
(Armsden and Greenberg, 1987 [61])

- Modified version of social behavior and

victimization assessments developed by
Parkhurst and Asher (1992) [106]
- Peer acceptance assessment using an instrument Adolescents with secure
Dykas et al., 2008 - Modified version of AAI (George attachment are perceived as more
devised by Asher and Dodge (1986) [107] - Not reported
[51] et al., 1985 [60]). prosocial and are more accepted
- Nomination procedure A modified version of
the Children’s Expectations of Social Behavior by peers.
Questionnaire–Peer Version (Rudolph,
Hammen, and Burge, 1995 [108])

- Modified version of scale support-seeking and Adolescents with secure

- Adult Attachment Interview support provision by Collins and Feeney, 2000 attachment representations
Feeney et al., 2008 (AAI; George, Kaplan, and Main, [109], and Feeney, 2004 [110] - present greater support-seeking Not reported
[87] 1985 [60]) - Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR; and support-giving behaviors
Brennan, Clark, and Shaver, 1998 [111]) with strangers of similar age.

- Intimacy Scale (Shulman, Laursen, Kalman, and Avoidant and anxious

- Attachment Styles Questionnaire Karpovsky, 1997 [113]) attachment are related to less
Bauminger et al., (ASQ; Mikulincer, Florian, and - Adolescent Sense of Coherence Scale (Margalit - intimacy with peers, mediated by YES
2008 [88] Tolmacz, 1990 [112]) and Ziv, 1997 [114]) low self-coherence and
- Self-Disclosure Scale (Shulman et al., 1997 [113]) self-disclosure.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 13 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Measures Results
Author/Year Attachment Styles and Relation Gender
Attachment Relationships Other
with Peers Differences

- Network of Relationships
Inventory (NRI): Behavioral
Systems Version (Furman, 2000
[115]) - Adolescent–close friend dyads. Dismissing
- Adult Attachment Interview - Using Interactional Dimensions Coding System working models are associated
Shomaker et al.,
(AAI; George, Kaplan, and Main, (IDCS; Julien, Markman and Van Widenfelt, - with poorer focus on problem YES
2009 [89]
1985 [60]) 1986 [117]) discussions and weaker
- Behavioral Systems communication skills.
Questionnaire (BSQ; Furman and
Wehner, 1999 [116])

- Adolescent Attachment Adolescent dyads with secure

Questionnaire (AAQ; West, Rose, - Sport Friendship Quality Scale (SFQS; Weiss attachment show characteristics
Carr, 2009 [59] Spreng, eldon-Keller and Adam, and Smith, 1999 [119]) - of more positive friendship than Not reported
1998 [118]) those with one member with
insecure attachment.

Secure attachment is related with

- Parental Attachment - Self-perception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, adolescent social competence and
Questionnaire (PAQ; Kenny, 1988 [69]) higher quality in friendship with
Boling et al., 2011
Moilanen, Lomax, and Brabeck, - Friendship Qualities Questionnaire - peers. Adolescents with secure Not reported
[86]
1993 [120]) - (FQQ; Berndt and Keefe, 1995 [121]) attachment feel comfortable
exploring their environment and
interacting.
Adolescents with secure
- Parental Bonding Instrument - Intimacy Scale (Sharabany, 1994 [68]) attachment present greater
Sánchez-Queija
(PBI; Parker, Tupling, and Brown, - Peer-group Attachment Scale (Armsden and closeness and intimacy toward
and Oliva, 2015 - YES
1979 [98]) Greenberg, 1987 [61]) their peers and best friends,
[83]
demonstrating a similar tendency
across ages.

- Movie for the Assessment of Adolescents with disorganized

- Child Attachment Interview
- Social Problems subscale of the Child Behavior Social Cognition (MASC; attachment have difficulty in
Venta et al., 2015 (CAI; Target, Fonagy,
Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach and Rescorla, 2001 Dziobek, Fleck, Kalbe, Rogers, their interpersonal relations with Not reported
[90] Shmueli-Goetz, Datta, and
[123]) Hassenstab, Brand, . . . , and peers, with mentalizing
Schneider, 2007 [122])
Convit, 2006 [77]) mediating
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 14 of 22

Table 2. Cont.

Measures Results
Author/Year Attachment Styles and Relation Gender
Attachment Relationships Other
with Peers Differences

- A modified version of the Adult Avoidant attachment is

Chow et al., 2016 - Network of Relationships Inventory (Furman associated with past perceptions
Attachment Scale (AAS; Collins - Not reported
[91] and Buhrmester, 1985 [66]) of exclusion in friendship and a
and Read, 1990 [124])
decrease in intimacy.

- Comprehensive Adolescents with anxious

- Network of Relationships attachment are more likely to
Wong et al., 2020 Adolescent-Parent Attachment
Inventory-Social-Provision Version (NRI-SPV; - establish negative interactions YES
[92] Inventory (CAPAI; Moretti,
Furman and Buhrmester, 1985 [66]) with friends. The older they are,
McKay, and Holland, 2000 [125])
the worse their relations.

- Supportive Behavior Task (using the Supportive Adolescents with secure

Behavior Coding System) (Allen et al., 2001 - International Personality attachment demonstrate more
- The Adult Attachment Interview [103]) Inventory Pool (Goldberg, support-seeking behaviors with
Loeb et al., 2020 Q-Set (AAI Q-Set; Kobak, 1993 - Aggressive Attitudes Questionnaire (Slaby and Johnson, Eber, Hogan, Ashton, peers, developing positive
Not reported
[84] [101]) Guerra, 1988 [126]) Cloninger, and Gough; 2006 relations in later stages, whereas
- Adolescent Self-Perception Profile (Harter, 1988 [78]) ambivalent insecure attachment
[69]) is associated with decreased
support-seeking.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 15 of 22

3.5. Sex Differences

The literature suggests that differences by sex exist. Seven of the selected articles
explored these differences, and of these, 100% reported a positive relation. Girls showed
greater sociability and closer interactions in the relationships they established with their
peers. These relationships are based on affective bonds characterized by closeness and
intimacy. For girls, friendship is a space where they can be supported and receive com-
fort. However, boys show a tendency to have less affective relationships. The rela-
tionships they establish are more focused on sharing time or doing activities with their
friends [79,83,88,89,92]. In addition, among girls, it is more frequent to establish a secure
bond, with greater warmth and affection, while with boys it is more frequent to establish a
colder bond with less affection [81].
Another finding is that securely attached adolescents interact comfortably with same-
sex and opposite-sex friends. However, those adolescents with insecure attachment, both
avoidant and anxious, show a tendency to have interactions with same-sex and less with
opposite-sex friends [85].

4. Discussion
Bowlby’s attachment theory on the emotional bond of a child with their caretakers was
formed in the 1960s [1]. Since then, research has incorporated new findings that allow for a
greater understanding of the topic, such as the work of Ainsworth [3], in which various
types of attachment are differentiated. Later, new variables were incorporated, such as the
importance of the role of the parent, the quality of the marital relationship, the increase in
single parenthood, social support outside of the family, or the extension of concepts to other
life stages such as adolescence or adulthood. The study of attachment theory repercussions,
originally analyzed in childhood, has been expanded to other ages, such as adolescence
and adult life. This revision centers on the implications that attachment established in
childhood has on adolescents later with their peers. The findings of the review carried
out on the relation between attachment and adolescent peer interaction are congruent
with Bowlby’s theory [1,16,17,22], supporting the hypothesis that secure attachment is
positively associated with quality relations between adolescents and their peers. It can be
observed that adolescents with secure attachment demonstrate positive interactions based
on emotional support and fluid communication. These adolescents report ease seeking and
giving support, as well as finding a space among their peers where they feel safe. Therefore,
adolescents with secure attachment would extrapolate the pattern of behavior they learn in
childhood toward these peer relations with their attachment models.
The results extracted from some studies review, such as Allen et al. [64], Shomaker et al. [89],
and Zimmermann [82], show that adolescents who have secure attachment as a base in-
tegrate their past experiences favorably, present a more developed concept of friendship,
have closer emotional friendships, are more greatly integrated in their peer group, and
have a greater emotional regulation ability. Hence, adolescents with secure attachment
incorporate internal working models with which they learn patterns of interaction, which
in turn promote quality relations with peers and friends. In this way, positively navigating
discussions with parents serves as a model so that adolescents later have an ability to
resolve conflicts with their peers effectively. These results are in line with Bowlby’s [16]
ideas on the continuity of the attachment relationship established in childhood with main
caretakers and the relationships developed in later ages. The study by Boling et al. [86] sug-
gests an indirect pathway between parent–adolescent attachment and quality of friendships
by way of social competence.
One characteristic of friendship relations is that they are based on intimacy, especially
in adolescence, with a distancing from the family environment occurring while friends
being to be the main stage where new needs are developed. The results of the review
carried out support this idea, showing that the intimacy that adolescents form with peers
and friends is mediated by attachment figures, whereby adolescents with secure attachment
develop greater intimacy with their peers [70,79,82,83]. On the contrary, when insecure,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 16 of 22

avoidant, or ambivalent attachment is established, the relations maintained are less intimate
and characterized by more difficulty to generate an environment in which competencies
are developed, which, in turn, allow adolescents to share ideas or feelings with others. The
importance that intimacy has in the development of adolescent autonomy is confirmed
since, upon sharing ideas with others, adolescents feel secure and do not fear losing
their identity [31]. Adolescents with ambivalent attachment score high in hostility and
anxiety, while also showing difficulties managing conflict with friends in a cooperative
way. These adolescents experience intense reactions in their close relationships, with high
levels of negativity when facing peer rejection and high levels of positivity when faced
with peer acceptance. In contrast, adolescents with avoidant attachment do not value close
relationships and perceive themselves as emotionally independent. They tend to avoid
emotional engagement, demonstrating coldness and distance with their peers, having low
expectations about what friendship means. Some authors place the cause of these behaviors
within their fear of suffering emotional harm [70,79,82,83].
Regarding social abilities, adolescents with secure attachment possess social abilities
and competencies that allow them to explore relations and interact with strangers of the
same age in a comfortable manner while feeling secure. Such abilities provide them with
assertiveness and the ability to realize feedback in a positive way. On the contrary, the
lack of social abilities can be a relational barrier in cases where attachment representations
were not secure. When an infant grows in an environment that provides them an insecure
environment, in adolescence, the individual will present negative and hostile expressions
of affect, as well as violent conduct toward their peers, and will also be less accepted by
their peers [46,51,87]. Additionally, according to Loeb et al. [84], opposite to adolescents
with secure attachment, those with insecure attachment are less likely to ask for and receive
support from their peers; they close themselves off, becoming overly self-sufficient and the
likelihood to develop negative relations in later life stages increases. For these authors [84],
peer support is a central mechanism that maintains the continuity of the attachment model
constructed early on. Relations with peers becomes a productive context in which to
practice or reinforce security seeking dynamics developed in childhood.
With respect to the influence of sex, the results show differences between boys and
girls. In general, it has been observed that girls maintain conduct patterns characterized by
greater sociability, company, protection, and intimacy, establishing relations oriented more
toward emotional support. On the other hand, boys tend to relate more instrumentally
through shared activities. In addition, boys tend to experience greater relation and security
with peers of the same sex rather than the opposite, whereas this does not occur with
girls [79,83,88,89,92]. Among girls, it is more common to establish a secure bond, with
greater warmth and affection, while with boys it is more common to establish a colder bond
with less affection. These differences could be related to cultural values and gender roles
developed in childhood [81,127]. In terms of influence of attachment type in adolescent
relations, it can be seen that adolescents with secure attachment tend to relate indistinctly
with friends of the opposite and same sex. However, adolescents with insecure attach-
ment present greater ease of interaction with peers of the same sex. Numerous authors
suggest that maintaining friendships with peers of the opposite sex could entail a source
of stress upon perceiving an affective difference. Hence, adolescents with ambivalent
attachment tend to worry while adolescents with avoidant attachment are inclined toward
minimization or indifference [85].
Moreover, other variables have an influence on the interaction of adolescents with
their peers. For example, it has been found that when the quality of the marital relationship
between parents is good and the adolescent perceives it as such, there is a greater likelihood
for secure attachment to develop and, therefore, greater closeness with friends [80]. On
the other hand, it is important for infants to be able to establish a securely attached bond
with at least one of the parents in order for the child to acquire the necessary competencies
to explore and self-regulate in the future [81]. Another essential aspect is the type of
attachment that peers present when relating to the adolescent. Studies have found that
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 17 of 22

dyads in which both friends present secure attachment experience friendship in a more
positive way, with connection, support, and fluid conversations, compared to those in which
one of the members has insecure attachment [59,70]. Finally, despite few studies existing
that examine the disorganized attachment population, Venta and Sharp [90] highlight that
attachment influences in mentalizing and in information processing. They observed that
subjects with disorganized attachment made more errors in such processing due to difficulty
considering the mental states of others. Adolescents with disorganized attachment tend to
have problems with peers that interfere in their interpersonal functioning, the opposite of
what occurs with those who have experienced secure attachment.
The present review does present some limitations. Firstly, some of the studies analyzed
do not clearly differentiate between the distinct types of insecure attachment and are limited
to the mere presence or lack of security. Additionally, the number of studies that consider
disorganized attachment is limited. Future studies should contemplate the different types of
insecure attachment and address disorganized attachment. Given the current predominance
of interactions via the internet among the adolescent population, analyzing the differences
between online friendship relations and offline friendship relations according to attachment
style would also be an important aspect to analyze in future studies. Ultimately, the present
review highlights that secure attachment in childhood is related to quality bonds with peers
in adolescence.

5. Conclusions
The systematic review carried out suggests that the relations which adolescents estab-
lish with their peers are directly influenced by the attachment models developed in the first
years of life with their main caretakers, and that such models are carried throughout later
years. Specifically, secure attachment predicts and fosters relations based on intimacy, trust,
good communication, integration, emotional support, and quality relations with friends
and peer groups. In addition, the results show other factors to consider in the relationship
between secure attachment and posterior adolescent interactions with peers. These factors
include family characteristics, mentalizing, and sex.
Therefore, the development of a securely attached base allows for the creation of
necessary competencies to maintain social interactions based on affection in adolescence.
Adolescents with secure attachment will also be more highly accepted by their peer group,
have ease creating and maintaining positive and quality relations with friends and peers.
Similarly, secure attachment provides patterns of behaviors adapted to the context of peers,
given that adolescents with insecure attachment tend to demonstrate more hostility and
aggression. Additionally, some differences by sex were found in interactions, and it is
accepted that girls and boys are socialized differently and perceive and behave differently
in their relationships. Girls demonstrate greater sociability and emotional expression,
finding a space for intimacy in the friend group where self-disclosure can occur and, in
turn, development can be supported. Boys’ friendships tend to be based on enjoyment
and comradeship through carrying out shared activities. Lastly, adolescents with secure
attachment tend to relate indistinctly with friends of the opposite as well as the same sex.
Finally, the impact that promoting security and the support that attachment figures
lend in terms of adolescent psychological adjustment must be emphasized. In adolescence,
friends become the main relational environment and an important source of support,
significantly influencing self-esteem and emotional well-being of the adolescent Having
a securely attached base provides social abilities and adaptational capacities with peers,
thereby also strengthening the adolescent’s psychological adjustment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.D., C.S. and I.M.; methodology, E.D., C.S. and I.M.;
validation, E.D., C.S. and I.M.; formal analysis, E.D., C.S. and I.M.; investigation, E.D., C.S. and I.M.;
resources, E.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.D., C.S. and I.M.; writing—review and editing,
E.D., C.S., I.M. and E.C.; visualization, E.D., C.S., I.M. and E.C.; supervision, C.S. and I.M. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 18 of 22

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Volume 1: Attachment; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1969.
2. Ainsworth, M.S. Attachments beyond infancy. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 709–716. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Ainsworth, M.D.S.; Blehar, M.; Waters, E.; Wall, S. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation; Lawrence
Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1978.
4. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R.; Pereg, D. Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive
consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motiv. Emot. 2003, 27, 77–102. [CrossRef]
5. Main, M.; Solomon, J. Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In Affective Development in Infancy;
Brazelton, T.B., Yogman, M.W., Eds.; Ablex Publishing: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1986; pp. 95–124.
6. Serna, C.; Martínez, I. Parental Involvement as a Protective Factor in School Adjustment among Retained and Promoted Secondary
Students. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7080. [CrossRef]
7. Martínez, I.; Murgui, S.; Garcia, O.F.; Garcia, F. Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment: The Mediational Role of Family Self-Esteem.
J. Child Fam. Stud. 2021, 30, 1184–1197. [CrossRef]
8. Galdós, J.sS.; Sánchez, I.M. Relationship between cocaine dependence treatment and personal values of openness to change and
conservation. Adicciones 2010, 22, 51–58.
9. Saiz, J.; Álvaro, J.L.; Martínez, I. Relation between personality traits and personal values in cocaine-dependent patients. Adicciones
2011, 23, 125–132. [CrossRef]
10. Dávila, Y. La influencia de la familia en el desarrollo del apego. An. Univ. Cuenca. 2015, 57, 121–130.
11. Oliva, A.D. Apego en la adolescencia. Acción Psicol. 2011, 8, 55–65.
12. Borrás-Santisteban, T. Adolescencia: Definición, vulnerabilidad y oportunidad. Correo Cient. Méd. 2014, 18, 5–7.
13. Allen, J.P. The attachment system in adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 3rd ed.;
Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 419–435.
14. Collins, W.A.; Steinberg, L. Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional,
and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2006; pp. 1003–1067.
15. Delgado, I.G.; Oliva, A.D.; Sánchez-Queija, I. Apego a los iguales durante la adolescencia y la adultez emergente. An. Psicol. 2011,
27, 155–163.
16. Bowlby, J. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds; Hogarth: London, UK, 1979.
17. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Volume 3: Loss, Sadness and Depression; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
18. Cook, W.L. Understanding attachment security in family context. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 285–294. [CrossRef]
19. Duchesne, S.; Larose, S. Adolescent parental attachment and academic motivation and performance in early adolescence.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1501–1521. [CrossRef]
20. Allen, J.P.; Land, D. Attachment in adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 1st ed.;
Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 419–435.
21. Kerns, K.A. Individual differences in friendship quality: Links to child-mother attachment. In The Company They Keep: Friendship
in Childhood and Adolescence; Bukowski, W.M., Newcomb, A.F., Hartup, W.W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
1996; pp. 137–157.
22. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Volume 2: Separation; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
23. Marrone, M.; Diamond, N.; Juri, L. La Teoría Del Apego: Un Enfoque Actual; Prismática: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
24. Pinedo, P.P.; Santelices, A.A.P. Apego adulto: Los modelos operantes internos y la teoría de la mente. Ter. Psicol. 2006, 24, 201–209.
25. Furman, W.; Simon, V.A.; Shaffer, L.; Bouchey, H.A. Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents,
friends, and romantic partners. Child Dev. 2002, 73, 241–255. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Thompson, R.A. The Development of the Person: Social Understanding, Relationships, Conscience, Self. In Handbook of Child
Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 24–98.
27. Rosenblum, K.L.; Dayton, C.J.; Muzik, M. Infant social and emotional development: Emerging competence in a relational context.
In Handbook of Infant Mental Health, 3rd ed.; Zeanah, C.H., Jr., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 80–103.
28. Bartholomew, K. Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1990, 7, 147–178. [CrossRef]
29. Dykas, M.J.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence.
Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 19–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 19 of 22

30. Poncela, A.M.F. Adolescencia, crecimiento emocional, proceso familiar y expresiones humorísticas. Educar 2014, 50, 445–466.
[CrossRef]
31. Cassidy, J. Truth, lies, and intimacy: An attachment perspective. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2001, 3, 121–155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Spangler, G.; Zimmermann, P. Emotional and adrenocortical regulation in early adolescence: Prediction by attachment security
and disorganization in infancy. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2014, 38, 142–154. [CrossRef]
33. Parker, J.G.; Gottman, J.M. Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood
to adolescence. In Peer Relationships in Child Development; Berndt, T.J., Ladd, G.W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA,
1989; pp. 95–131.
34. Del Giudice, M. Sex differences in attachment styles. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Bem, S.L. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequiality; Yale University Press: New Heaven, CT, USA, 1993.
36. Scharfe, E. Sex differences in attachment. In Encyclopedia if Evolutionary Psychological Science; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–5.
37. De Goede, I.H.; Branje, S.J.; Meeus, W.H. Developmental changes and gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of friendships.
J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 1105–1123. [CrossRef]
38. Galambos, N.L. Gender and gender role development in adolescence. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 3rd ed.; Lerner, R.M.,
Steinberg, L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 233–262.
39. Maccoby, E.E. Gender and relationships: A developmental account. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 513–520. [CrossRef]
40. Erdley, C.A.; Nangle, D.W.; Newman, J.E.; Carpenter, E.M. Children’s friendship experiences and psychological adjustment:
Theory and research. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2001, 91, 5–24. [CrossRef]
41. Rubin, K.H.; Bukowski, W.M.; Parker, J.G. Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social,
Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th ed.; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken,
NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 571–645.
42. Nangle, D.W.; Erdley, C.A.; Newman, J.E.; Mason, C.A.; Carpenter, E.M. Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality:
Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2003, 32, 546–555. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
43. Gaertner, A.E.; Fite, P.J.; Colder, C.R. Parenting and friendship quality as predictors of internalizing and externalizing symptoms
in early adolescence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2010, 19, 101–108. [CrossRef]
44. Kwame, S.S.; Pamela, S.J. Childhood friendships and psychological difficulties in young adulthood: An 18-year follow-up study.
Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2015, 24, 815–826.
45. Sullivan, H. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1953.
46. Engels, C.M.E.; Finkenauer, C.; Meeus, W.; Deković, M. Parental attachment and adolescents’ emotional adjustment: The
associations with social skills and relational competence. J. Couns. Psychol. 2001, 48, 428–439. [CrossRef]
47. Kobak, R.R.; Sceery, A. Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others.
Child Dev. 1988, 59, 135–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Hartup, W.W.; Stevens, N. Friendships and adaptation across the life span. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1999, 8, 76–79. [CrossRef]
49. Campbell, A. The Sense of Well-Being in America; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
50. Cole, D.A.; Martin, J.M.; Powers, B.; Truglio, R. Modeling causal relations between academic and social competence and
depression: A multitrait-multimethod longitudinal study of children. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1996, 105, 258–270. [CrossRef]
51. Dykas, M.J.; Ziv, Y.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and peer relations in adolescence. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2008, 10, 123–141. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
52. Thompson, R.A. Twenty-First Century Attachment Theory. In The Cultural Nature of Attachment: Contextualizing Relationships and
Development; Keller, H., Bard, K.A., Eds.; Strüngmann Forum Reports; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018.
53. Thompson, R.A.; Raikes, H.A. Toward the next quarter-century: Conceptual and methodological challenges for attachment theory.
Dev. Psychopathol. 2003, 15, 691–718. [CrossRef]
54. Thompson, R.A. Early Attachment and Later Development: Reframing the Questions. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research,
and Clinical Applications, 3rd ed.; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 330–348.
55. Schneider, B.H.; Atkinson, L.; Tardif, C. Child-parent attachment and children’s peer relations: A quantitative review. Dev. Psychol.
2001, 37, 86–100. [CrossRef]
56. Pallini, S.; Baiocco, R.; Schneider, B.H.; Madigan, S.; Atkinson, L. Early child-parent attachment and peer relations: A meta-analysis
of recent research. J. Fam. Psychol. 2014, 28, 118–123. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Recognizing Adolescence. Available online: https://apps.who.int/adolescent/second-decade/section2/page1/recognizing-
adolescence.html (accessed on 28 August 2021).
58. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [CrossRef]
59. Carr, S. Adolescent-parent attachment characteristics and quality of youth sport friendship. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2009, 10, 653–661.
[CrossRef]
60. George, C.; Kaplan, N.; Main, M. The Adult Attachment Interview; University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1985;
(Unpublished manuscript).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 20 of 22

61. Armsden, G.C.; Greenberg, M.T. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to
psychological well-being in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 1987, 16, 427–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Hazan, C.; Shaver, P. Romantic love conceptualized as an Attachment Process. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 511–524. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
63. Bartholomew, K.; Horowitz, L.M. Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a fourcategory model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1991, 61, 226–244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Allen, J.P.; Porter, M.; McFarland, C.; McElhaney, K.B.; Marsh, P. The relation of attachment security to adolescents’ paternal and
peer relationships, depression, and externalizing behavior. Child Dev. 2007, 78, 1222–1239. [CrossRef]
65. Harter, S. Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Children; University of Denver: Denver, CO, USA, 1985.
66. Furman, W.; Buhrmester, D. Children’s perceptions of the personal relationships in their social networks. Dev. Psychol. 1985, 21,
1016–1024. [CrossRef]
67. Bukowski, W.M.; Hoza, B.; Boivin, M. Measuring Friendship Quality During Pre- and Early Adolescence: The Development and
Psychometric Properties of the Friendship Qualities Scale. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1994, 11, 471–484. [CrossRef]
68. Sharabany, R. Intimate Friendship Scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties and construct validity.
J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1994, 11, 449–469. [CrossRef]
69. Harter, S. Manual for the Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents; University of Denver: Denver, CO, USA, 1988.
70. Weimer, B.L.; Kerns, K.A.; Oldenburg, C.M. Adolescents’ interactions with a best friend: Associations with attachment style.
J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2004, 88, 102–120. [CrossRef]
71. Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image; Princeton University Press: New Jersey, USA, 1965.
72. Kandel, D.B.; Davies, M. Epidemiology of depressive mood in adolescents: An empirical study. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1982, 39,
1205–1212. [CrossRef]
73. Wright, P.H. The Acquaintance Description Form. In Understanding Personal Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Approach; Duck, S.,
Perlman, D., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 1985; pp. 39–62.
74. Seiffge-Krenke, I. Eine aktualisierte deutschsprachige Form des Offer Self-Image Questionnaire. Z. Differ. Diagn. Psychol. 1987,
8, 99–109.
75. Kovacs, M.; Beck, A.T. An empirical approach toward a definition of childhood depression. In Depression in Childhood: Diagnosis,
Treament and Conceptual Models; Schulterbrandt, J.G., Raskin, A., Eds.; Raven Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; pp. 1–25.
76. Achenbach, T.M.; Edelbrock, C. Child behavior checklist. Burlington 1991, 7, 371–392.
77. Dziobek, I.; Fleck, S.; Kalbe, E.; Rogers, K.; Hassenstab, J.; Brand, M.; Convit, A. Introducing MASC: A movie for the assessment
of social cognition. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2006, 36, 623–636. [CrossRef]
78. Goldberg, L.R.; Johnson, J.A.; Eber, H.W.; Hogan, R.; Ashton, M.C.; Cloninger, C.R.; Gough, H.G. The international personality
item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J. Res. Pers. 2006, 40, 84–96. [CrossRef]
79. Mikulincer, M.; Selinger, M. The interplay between attachment and affiliation systems in adolescents’ same-sex friendships: The
role of attachment style. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2001, 18, 81–106. [CrossRef]
80. Markiewicz, D.; Doyle, A.B.; Brendgen, M. The quality of adolescents’ friendships: Associations with mothers’ interpersonal
relationships, attachments to parents and friends, and prosocial behaviors. J. Adolesc. 2001, 24, 429–445. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Sánchez-Queija, I.; Oliva, A. Vínculos de apego con los padres y relaciones con los iguales durante la adolescencia. Rev. Psicol. Soc.
2003, 18, 71–86. [CrossRef]
82. Zimmermann, P. Attachment representations and characteristics of friendship relations during adolescence. J. Exp. Child Psychol.
2004, 88, 83–101. [CrossRef]
83. Sánchez-Queija, I.; Oliva, A. A longitudinal view of peer-friendship relations and their association with parental attachment
bonds. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 2015, 15, 259–272.
84. Loeb, E.L.; Stern, J.A.; Costello, M.A.; Allen, J.P. With (out) a little help from my friends: Insecure attachment in adolescence,
support-seeking, and adult negativity and hostility. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2020, 23, 624–642. [CrossRef]
85. Saferstein, J.A.; Neimeyer, G.J.; Hagans, C.L. Attachment as a predictor of friendship qualities in college youth. Soc. Behav. Pers.
2005, 33, 767–776. [CrossRef]
86. Boling, M.W.; Barry, C.M.; Kotchick, B.A.; Lowry, J. Relations among early adolescents’ parent-adolescent attachment, perceived
social competence, and friendship quality. Psychol. Rep. 2011, 109, 819–841. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Feeney, B.C.; Cassidy, J.; Ramos-Marcuse, F. The generalization of attachment representations to new social situations: Predicting
behavior during initial interactions with strangers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 95, 1481–1498. [CrossRef]
88. Bauminger, N.; Finzi-Dottan, R.; Chason, S.; Har-Even, D. Intimacy in adolescent friendship: The roles of attachment, coherence,
and self-disclosure. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2008, 25, 409–428. [CrossRef]
89. Shomaker, L.B.; Furman, W. Parent—Adolescent relationship qualities, internal working models, and attachment styles as
predictors of adolescents’ interactions with friends. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2009, 26, 579–603. [CrossRef]
90. Venta, A.; Sharp, C. Mentalizing mediates the relation between attachment and peer problems among inpatient adolescents.
J. Infant Child Adolesc. Psychother. 2015, 14, 323–340. [CrossRef]
91. Chow, C.M.; Ruhl, H.; Buhrmester, D. Reciprocal associations between friendship attachment and relational experiences in
adolescence. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 2016, 33, 122–146. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 21 of 22

92. Wong, T.K.; Konishi, C.; Cho, S.B. Paternal and maternal attachment: A multifaceted perspective on adolescents’ friendship.
J. Child Fam. Stud. 2020, 29, 217–226. [CrossRef]
93. Arrindell, W.A.; De Groot, P.M.; Walburg, J.A. The Scale for Interpersonal Behaviour (SIG), Test Manual, Part 1; Swets & Zeitlinger:
Lisse, The Netherlands, 1984.
94. Bijstra, J.O.; Jackson, S.; Bosma, H.A. Social skills and psycho-social functioning in early adolescence: A three-year follow-up.
Int. J. Adolesc. Med. 1995, 8, 221–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Wright, P.H. Self-Referent Motivation and the Intrinsic Quality of Friendship. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1984, 1, 115–130. [CrossRef]
96. Statistics Canada. National Longitudinal Survey of Children: Survey Instruments for 1994–95, Data Collection, Cycle 1; Statistics Canada
and Human Resources Development Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1995.
97. Veroff, V. An Integration of Friendship and Social Support: Relationships with Adjustment in College Students. Ph.D. Thesis,
Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada, 1996.
98. Parker, G.; Tupling, H.; Brown, L.B. A parental bonding instrument. Br. J. Med. Psychol. 1979, 52, 1–10. [CrossRef]
99. Kobak, R.R. The Adult Attachment Interview Q-Sort; University of Delaware: Newark, NJ, USA, 1993; (Unpublished manuscript).
100. Zimmermann, P. Interviewmethoden Zur Erfassung von Freundschafts und Gleichaltrigenbeziehungen im Jugendalter [The Friendship and
Peer Relations Interview for Adolescence; University of Regensburg: Regensburg, Germany, 1992; (Unpublished manuscript).
101. Kobak, R.R.; Cole, H.; Ferenz-Gillies, R.; Fleming, W.; Gamble, W. Attachment and emotion regulation during mother-teen
problem-solving: A control theory analysis. Child Dev. 1993, 64, 231–245. [CrossRef]
102. Straus, M.A. Measuring intrafamily conflict and aggression: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). J. Marriage Fam. 1979, 41, 75–88.
[CrossRef]
103. Allen, J.P.; Hall, F.D.; Insabella, G.M.; Land, D.J.; Marsh, P.A.; Porter, M.R. Supportive Behavior Coding System; University of
Virginia: Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2001.
104. Allen, J.P.; Porter, M.R.; McFarland, C.F. The Autonomy and Relatedness Coding System for Peer Interactions; University of Virginia:
Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2001.
105. Coie, J.D.; Dodge, K.A.; Coppotelli, H. Dimensions and types of social status: A cross age perspective. Dev. Psychol. 1982, 18,
121–132. [CrossRef]
106. Parkhurst, J.T.; Asher, S.R. Peer rejection in middle school: Subgroup differences in behavior, loneliness, and interpersonal
concerns. Dev. Psychol. 1992, 28, 231–241. [CrossRef]
107. Asher, S.R.; Dodge, K.A. Identifying children who are rejected by their peers. Dev. Psychol. 1986, 22, 444–449. [CrossRef]
108. Rudolph, K.D.; Hammen, C.; Burge, D. Cognitive representations of self, family, and peers in school-age children: Links with
social competence and sociometric status. Child Dev. 1995, 66, 1385–1402. [CrossRef]
109. Collins, N.L.; Feeney, B.C. A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate
relationships. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 1053–1073. [CrossRef]
110. Feeney, B.C. A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 631–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Brennan, K.A.; Clark, C.L.; Shaver, P.R. Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Attachment
Theory and Close Relationships; Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S., Eds.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 46–76.
112. Mikulincer, M.; Florian, V.; Tolmacz, R. Attachment styles and fear of personal death: A case study of affect regulation.
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 273–280. [CrossRef]
113. Shulman, S.; Laursen, B.; Kalman, Z.; Karpovsky, S. Adolescent intimacy revisited. J. Youth Adolesc. 1997, 26, 597–617. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
114. Margalit, M.; Ziv, O. Empirical Follow-Up of ORT Center for Learning Skills (Annual Scientific Report for ORT Foundation); Tel-Aviv
University, School of Education: Tel Aviv, Israel, 1997.
115. Furman, W. Network of Relationships Inventory: Behavioral Systems Version; University of Denver: Denver, CO, USA, 2000.
116. Furman, W.; Wehner, E.A. The Behavioral Systems Questionnaire—Revised; University of Denver: Denver, CO, USA, 1999.
117. Julien, D.; Markman, H.; van Widenfelt, B. Interactional Dimensions Coding System Manual; University of Denver: Denver, CO,
USA, 1986.
118. West, W.; Rose, S.M.; Spreng, S.; Sheldon-Keller, A.; Adam, K. Adolescent attachment questionnaire: A brief assessment of
attachment in adolescence. J. Youth Adolesc. 1998, 27, 661–673. [CrossRef]
119. Weiss, M.R.; Smith, A.L. Quality of youth sport friendships: Measurement development and validation. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol.
1999, 21, 145–166. [CrossRef]
120. Kenny, M.E.; Moilanen, D.L.; Lomax, R.; Brabeck, M.M. Contributions of parental attachments to view of self and depressive
symptoms among early adolescents. J. Early Adolesc. 1993, 13, 408–430. [CrossRef]
121. Berndt, T.J.; Keefe, K. Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to school. Child Dev. 1995, 66, 1312–1329. [CrossRef]
122. Target, M.; Fonagy, P.; Shmueli-Goetz, Y.; Data, A.; Schneider, T. The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) Protocol; University College:
London, UK, 2007; (Unpublished manuscript).
123. Achenbach, T.M.; Rescorla, L.A. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles: An Integrated System of Multi-Informant
Assessment; University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families: Burlington, VT, USA, 2001; Volume 1617.
124. Collins, N.; Read, S. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58,
644–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1064 22 of 22

125. Moretti, M.M.; McKay, S.; Holland, R. The Comprehensive Adolescent-Parent Attachment Inventory; Unpublished Measure and Data;
Simon Fraser University: Burnaby, DC, Canada, 2000.
126. Slaby, R.; Guerra, N. Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: I. Assessment. Dev. Psychol. 1988, 24, 580–588.
[CrossRef]
127. Martinez, I.; Garcia, F.; Veiga, F.; Garcia, O.F.; Rodrigues, Y.; Serra, E. Parenting Styles, Internalization of Values and Self-Esteem:
A Cross-Cultural Study in Spain, Portugal and Brazil. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]