Most research on adult attachment is based on the assumption that working models are relatively general and trait-like. Recent research, however, suggests that people develop attachment representations that are relationship-specific, leading people to hold distinct working models in different relationships. The authors report a measure, the Relationship Structures questionnaire of the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-RS; R. C. Fraley, N. G. Waller, & K. A. Brennan, 2000), that is designed to assess attachment dimensions in multiple contexts. Based on a sample of over 21,000 individuals studied online, it is shown that ECR-RS scores are reliable and have a structure similar to those produced by other measures. In Study 2 (N ϭ 388), it is shown that relationship-specific measures of attachment generally predict intra-and interpersonal outcomes better than broader attachment measures but that broader measures predict personality traits better than relationship-specific measures. Moreover, it is demonstrated that differentiation in working models is not related to psychological outcomes independently of mean levels of security.

One of the long-standing debates in the study of adult attachment is whether individual differences are best captured using categorical or continuous models. Although early research suggested that continuous models might be most appropriate, we revisit this issue here because (a) categorical models continue to be widely used in the empirical literature, (b) contemporary models of individual differences raise new questions about the structure of attachment, and (c) methods for addressing the types versus dimensions question have become more sophisticated over time. Analyses based on 2 samples indicate that individual differences appear more consistent with a dimensional rather than a categorical model. This was true with respect to general attachment representations and attachment in specific relationship contexts (e.g., attachment with parents and peers). These findings indicate that dimensional models of attachment style may be better suited for conceptualizing and measuring individual differences across multiple levels of analysis.

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance to examine variation in effect magnitudes across sample and setting. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples and 15,305 total participants from 36 countries and territories. Using conventional statistical significance (p < .05), fifteen (54%) of the replications provided evidence in the same direction and statistically significant as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), fourteen (50%) provide such evidence reflecting the extremely high powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications had effect sizes larger than the original finding and 21 (75%) had effect sizes smaller than the original finding. The median comparable Cohen’s d effect sizes for original findings was 0.60 and for replications was 0.15. Sixteen replications (57%) had small effect sizes (< .20) and 9 (32%) were in the opposite direction from the original finding. Across settings, 11 (39%) showed significant heterogeneity using the Q statistic and most of those were among the findings eliciting the largest overall effect sizes; only one effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity. Only one effect showed a Tau > 0.20 indicating moderate heterogeneity. Nine others had a Tau near or slightly above 0.10 indicating slight heterogeneity. In moderation tests, very little heterogeneity was attributable to task order, administration in lab versus online, and exploratory WEIRD versus less WEIRD culture comparisons. Cumulatively, variability in observed effect sizes was more attributable to the effect being studied than the sample or setting in which it was studied.

The present research examined the development of attachment bonds in adult romantic relationships using a cross-sectional internet survey (Study 1) and a longitudinal study (Study 2). Results suggested that attachment features and functions emerge in a specific sequence that begins with proximity-seeking, followed by safe haven, and finally secure base. Our cross-sectional data indicated that people who had been in relationships for longer were more likely to use their partners for attachment functions. However, in our longitudinal study, after controlling for relationship length and age, there was relatively little change in attachment features and functions over time. The data also indicated that adult attachment bonds might develop more quickly than has been previously assumed.

No abstract