LongTerm Relational Sequelae of Adolescent Attachment State of

Long-Term Relational Sequelae of Adolescent Attachment State of Mind Joseph Tan Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad Joanna Chango Joseph Allen

Collaborators Co-authors Elenda Hessel Emily Loeb Megan Schad, Ph. D Joanna Chango, Ph. D Joseph Allen, Ph. D Collaborators Samantha Perry Rachel Narr Christopher Hafen, Ph. D Lauren Molloy, Ph. D Erik Ruzek, Ph. D We gratefully acknowledge grant support from NICHD (PI: Joseph P. Allen, 9 R 01 -HD 058305).

Attachment in Adolescence • Extending what we know about sequelae of attachment into adulthood • One domain to look at: romantic relationships

Primary Question • What are the long-term implications of individual differences in adolescent attachment state of mind for romantic relationships?

Key Area: Romantic Relationships • Why? – Normative developmental experience (Carver, Joyner, & Udry, 2003) – Primary relationship as adolescence transition into adulthood (Laursen & Williams, 1997; Kobak, Rosenthal, Zajac, & Madsen, 2007) – Developmentally significant (Collins, Welsh, & Furman, 2009) • What might be important to know about romantic relationships?

Key Domains of Romantic Relationships • Navigating emotionally-sensitive interactions – Predicts longevity of relationships (Bernier & Dozier, 2002; Shulman, Tuval-Mashiach, Levran, & Anbar, 2006) – Full of challenges (Furman & Shomaker, 2008; Kobak et al. , 2007) • Two examples of common emotionallysensitive interactions – Support-seeking situations – Discussions of conflict in the relationships

Sample • Subsample: 111 adolescents in romantic relationships at either age 18 or age 21 – Full sample: 184 Adolescents (followed from age 13 to 27), their Parents, Best Friends, Other Friends, Romantic Partners • Intensive Interviews and Observations with all parties (Total N over first 13 years ~ 3200). • Equal numbers of Males and Females • Socio-economically Diverse (Median Family Income= $40 - $60 K) • 31% African American; 69% European American • Very Low Attrition (98% participation rate in current phase)

Attachment State of Mind • Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan, & Main, 1996) • Interviewed at age 14 • AAI Q-set (Kobak et al. , 1993) – Security scale • Spearman-Brown interrater reliability = 0. 82

Results: Supportive Behavior • Maintaining engagement while giving support (Supportive Behavior Task, Allen et al. , 2001) – With a close friend (age 14) – With a romantic partner (ages 18 and 21)

Results: Supportive Behavior • Typical support-seeking topics: – With close friend (age 14): • Problems with siblings • Joining a sports team – With romantic partner (ages 18, 21): • Career choices • Moving

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 18. 38** Note: All coefficients are standardized betas *p <. 05, **p <. 01, ***p <. 001 Engagement with romantic partner

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 21. 23* Engagement with romantic partner

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 18. 48*** Romantic partner’s engagement

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 21. 33** Romantic partner’s engagement

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 18 . 40** Romantic partner’s engagement . 36*** Engagement with close friend . 19

Prediction of Supportive Behaviors over and above Covariates Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 21 . 31** Romantic partner’s engagement . 36*** Engagement with close friend . 11

Mediation Model for Supportive Behaviors Age 14 Age 18 Secure attachment state of mind Age 21 . 19 . 36*** Romantic partner’s engagement . 35* Romantic partner’s engagement . 17 Engagement with close friend . 05 Total Indirect: . 12 (95% CI: lower = -. 01, upper = . 26)

Results: Conflict Resolution • Autonomy and relatedness behaviors during a disagreement (Autonomy Task, Allen et al. , 2005) – With a close friend (age 14) – With a romantic partner (ages 18 and 21)

Results: Conflict Resolution • Typical areas of disagreement: – With a close friend (age 14): • “Sinking ship” paradigm: Decide together who to bring to a mission to Mars – With a romantic partner (ages 18, 21): • Money • Jealousy • Moving

Prediction of Conflict Resolution Age 14 Age 18 Secure attachment state of mind Autonomy and relatedness with romantic partner . 51***

Prediction of Conflict Resolution Age 14 Age 21 Secure attachment state of mind Autonomy and relatedness with romantic partner . 43***

Prediction of Conflict Resolution Age 14 Age 18 Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 34**

Prediction of Conflict Resolution Age 14 Age 21 Secure attachment state of mind Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 30**

Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 18 . 32* Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 31*** Autonomy and relatedness with close friend . 07

Prediction of Conflict Resolution over and above Covariates Age 14 Secure attachment state of mind Age 21 . 26** Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 31*** Autonomy and relatedness with close friend . 14

Mediation Model for Conflict Resolution Age 14 Age 18 Secure attachment state of mind . 17 . 27*. 31*** Autonomy and relatedness with close friend Age 21 Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 32** Romantic partner’s autonomy and relatedness . 06. 13 Total Indirect: . 09 (95% CI: lower = -. 01, upper = . 18)

Summary of Findings • Early adolescent attachment state of mind predicts: – Later supportive and conflict resolution behaviors with romantic partners – Later romantic partner’s supportive and conflict resolution behaviors – Over and above early adolescent behaviors with peers • Developmental path?

Limitations • Correlational data • Other factors • Sample size

Conclusions • Contributions to understanding attachment in adolescence? – Long-term (adulthood) outcomes – Setting the stage for future relationships – Affect regulation? • Implications for relationship functioning – Mechanisms: selection and evocation